CC's at NABC's?

[debrose]

While reading the daily Bulletin from the SF NABC, you can't help but notice this prominent reminder.

 

 

Convention card reminder

Each player is required to have a

convention card filled out legibly and on the

table throughout a session. Both cards of a

partnership must be identical and include

the first and last names of each member of

the partnership.

If a director determines that neither

player has a substantially completed card,

the partnership may play only the Standard

American Yellow Card and may use only

standard carding. This restriction may be

lifted only at the beginning of a subsequent

round after convention cards have been

properly prepared and approved by the

director. Further, the partnership will

receive a 1/6-board matchpoint penalty

for each board played, commencing with

the next round and continuing until the

restriction is lifted. In IMP team games,

penalties shall be at the discretion of the

director.

If the director determines the

partnership has at least one substantially

completed convention card but has not

fully complied with ACBL regulations, the

director may give warnings or assign such

penalties as he deems to be appropriate

under the circumstances.

The objective of these warnings and

penalties is the encouragement of full

compliance with ACBL regulations.

 

 

My question, is this regulation only enforced at NABC's, in the National rated events?

What is the point of having the regulation for other games? Club games, Sectionals, Regionals.

 

In my experience, this regulation is not enforced at all in Nationally rated events. It sounds from the experience of others like it is at least sometimes enforced in lesser events.

I refer to the above announcement as the "Daily Waste of Ink"

[Bbradley62]

One of them was actually trying to fill out a convention card, and asking the other a lot of questions in the process. The other clearly didn't want to be bothered. They appeared to be irritated with each other, which I decided was a better state of affairs than opening my mouth and having them be irritated with me. 23 out of 24 matchpoints... :P

[barmar]

In my experience, this regulation is not enforced at all in Nationally rated events. It sounds from the experience of others like it is at least sometimes enforced in lesser events.

I refer to the above announcement as the "Daily Waste of Ink"

In general, I think the regulation is only likely to be enforced if the opponents make an issue of it, and most players in national events are not interested in playing Secretary Bird over CCs.

[debrose]

In general, I think the regulation is only likely to be enforced if the opponents make an issue of it, and most players in national events are not interested in playing Secretary Bird over CCs.

 

You are right that there will certainly be no enforcement if the opponents don't bring the problem to the director's attention, but even then it's questionable. Two examples from SF where I did play Secretary Bird a bit:

 

First session of LM Pairs - last round: Opponents have two convention cards on the table with lots of bidding agreements filled out, but zero about leads and carding. I'm declarer, and one of them has an attitude problem when I question this, so I call the director. Director's reaction: "Get it filled out by the next session" So it's no problem that their opponents didn't have access to this all session, or that we don't for the last two boards. They were playing upside down carding, btw. I didn't find out about their honor leads.

 

Second day of Blue Ribbons we had a non-alerting issue which required the presence of the director. I mentioned as a side point to the director (not in opps presence) that my opponents apparently had only a WBF convention card - no ACBL card in sight.

I played the same pair in the second session of the final day, and there was still just one folded up WBF card in sight. Why bother requiring an ACBL card if the director isn't even going to do anything when non-compliance is called to their attention?

[debrose]

Those two examples were something of an experiment by me, since I've been thinking about, and discussing this issue quite a bit lately. I've long suspected that no penalties are ever awarded for non-compliance with CC regulations at high levels, but haven't made much attempt to find out (i.e., play Secretary Bird). Of course I still don't have much a sample size, but it is galling that (apparently) players are being penalized for lesser offenses in regional pair games than NABC events.

 

The daily waste of ink in the Daily Bulletin is an embarrassment. It is grossly unfair to the players who work hard to comply, and perhaps even more so to those who actually are penalized for minor infractions, when most experts in high level events make little or no attempt at full compliance. Something needs to change here.

[Phil]

I've actually become too lax on these things.

 

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal. I see their 'recommended defense' but its some homemade business. I ask if the ACBL has approved it; LHO says yes (he's talking about the defense to their 2♥ opener which is legal (both majors)), but I can tell it isn't.

 

I don't want to be a PITA, because I know I'm one of like 10 people in the room thats probably aware of this. So I don't want to upset the table karma and just let it go.

 

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

 

The next round Jeff Goldsmith plays them, and he is also aware that its not OK, but he calls the director. Naturally this director can barely adjudicate a bid out of turn, so the legality of this is way above his pay grade. He says he will get back to him, but I don't think he ever did.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's playing Secretary Bird to call the director if the opponents in a serious event have no convention card (or worse, have an incorrect card).

 

I prefer to read the opponents' convention card rather than asking questions, because I don't want the opponents to know what information I'm interested in, and I want to reduce the UI I convey to my partner. By not providing a convention card, the opponents force me to ask instead of reading, so they obtain information to which they're not entitled. That is, they break the rules and gain an advantage from doing so. That seems a pretty good reason to call the director.

[gnasher]

I've actually become too lax on these things.

 

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal. I see their 'recommended defense' but its some homemade business. I ask if the ACBL has approved it; LHO says yes (he's talking about the defense to their 2♥ opener which is legal (both majors)), but I can tell it isn't.

 

I don't want to be a PITA, because I know I'm one of like 10 people in the room thats probably aware of this. So I don't want to upset the table karma and just let it go.

 

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

 

The next round Jeff Goldsmith plays them, and he is also aware that its not OK, but he calls the director. Naturally this director can barely adjudicate a bid out of turn, so the legality of this is way above his pay grade. He says he will get back to him, but I don't think he ever did.

Presumably they're playing their illegal method because they think it gains them IMPs. If they know that it's illegal, there's no qualitative difference between that and using hand-signals. I think you should have been a PITA.

 

Also, the assumption that they didn't gain by playing this method isn't valid. There may have been other boards, either against you or against other opponents, where they gained from a negative inference when 2♦ wasn't opened. You can't have them penalised for that, so you should ensure that when they do break the rules they are penalised.

[Cyberyeti]

There is a slight issue with this, if this was seriously enforced, if a pair upset me, all I'd have to do is surreptitiously walk off with their CC after I finish playing them to flush it down the toilet and watch them get caned in the next round.

[Mbodell]

The lack of CC is a definite problem and I agree it is not enforced very well at many levels. Random unknowns will occasionally get penalties, but it is rare (which can make it feel all the more unfair when it happens to you as selective enforcement).

 

Our teammate asked a world class top seed player (I think while other team mate was looking at other world class player's CC) for his CC in the spingold at the start of a session and was told "Are you f*****n kidding me?".

 

A number of players in top NABC events will have CC that are folded in 4 and in a shirt or pants pocket and only marginally filled in.

 

I will say in San Francisco my opponents were generally much better at pre-alerting than they have been in the past. It seemed like every other pair was pre-alerting transfer responses to 1♣ and 2♦ as single major over 1nt openings (a good sign IMO that these conventions should maybe be made GCC legal soon).

[Zelandakh]

In the 2nd or 3rd match of the Swiss I sit down against a pair playing a very strange 2♦ opener that I know for a fact isn't legal.

 

Sure enough the 2♦ call comes up. I make a questionable lead, but we aren't damaged.

Out of interest, what would have happened if you said nothing whatsoever about the 2♦ opening initially and only called the TD after it had been used? Something like the better of Ave+ and the table result? That might have been a more effective defence than their homemade effort.

[Mbodell]

Out of interest, what would have happened if you said nothing whatsoever about the 2♦ opening initially and only called the TD after it had been used? Something like the better of Ave+ and the table result? That might have been a more effective defence than their homemade effort.

 

While I think this is legal, I don't think it is good ethics and I think most people don't do this. If I find out my opponents are playing an illegal convention I'll tell them at the time, not hide it and hope to win the board later (and as others have pointed out there may be negative inferences or other bids that are freed up that give them wins even if the illegal bid doesn't come up). The closest I've gotten to doing this is when opponents are aggressive about playing their illegal convention in response to being told they are illegal and for whatever reason no director is handy to call, I've then agreed with partner "if this bid comes up we will call the director, but we'll try to play defense foo if forced to play on".

[Zelandakh]

Strange, I thought this was how it is done by top American pairs. Many pointed out in that thread that anything within the laws cannot be unethical. FWiiW I agree with you; but that will not stop players from getting ahead by using such methods. Or perhaps this is unethical if done by normal players but ok when done by world class players?

[wyman]

Our teammate asked a world class top seed player (I think while other team mate was looking at other world class player's CC) for his CC in the spingold at the start of a session and was told "Are you f*****n kidding me?".

 

I would have summoned the director promptly and requested:

 

1) that opps be required to play SAYC

2) a ZT penalty

 

And if he refused either, I'd ask for the DIC.

 

But I've never really been one to worry about ruffling feathers. And I probably wouldn't have summoned the director had WCTSP not sassed me, but now that he's used intimidatory tactics (and just generally been a dick), I'm more than happy to let the directors sort it out.

[blackshoe]

There is a slight issue with this, if this was seriously enforced, if a pair upset me, all I'd have to do is surreptitiously walk off with their CC after I finish playing them to flush it down the toilet and watch them get caned in the next round.

If I'm your opponent, this ploy is highly unlikely to work out well for you.

[aguahombre]

Behavior attributed to top players in top events, and conveyed in these fora is really a surprise to me.

 

Wannabe's further down on the food chain, maybe. But except with provocation, I have never encountered or witnessed deliberate rudeness or reluctance to accomodate in any way from the true greats.

[Phil]

Out of interest, what would have happened if you said nothing whatsoever about the 2♦ opening initially and only called the TD after it had been used? Something like the better of Ave+ and the table result? That might have been a more effective defence than their homemade effort.

 

I was prepared to call the director later if necessary. However, (and I've mentioned this in the past 12 months), there is a divergent view from directors about what to do when an illegal convention is used.

 

To rehash, at a sectional (where no mid-chart is allowed), my teammates pulled out their 1M - 2♣ treatment (clubs, balanced or a limit raise in the major). The opponents weren't damaged, but the director gave us a major penalty (1/2 or a full board I think). One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

 

So I am very wary of calling the director in these matters. Frankly, I'm also tired of feeling like I am the bad guy when I call the director when illegal methods are used.

 

Perhaps this can be bumped over to "Changing Laws and Regulations", but its high time for the ACBL to give its directors some clear guidance on how to handle when an illegal treatment is used.

[Phil]

Presumably they're playing their illegal method because they think it gains them IMPs. If they know that it's illegal, there's no qualitative difference between that and using hand-signals. I think you should have been a PITA.

 

 

I don't want to say who this is, but I'll mention she is from The Netherlands and she has won a world championship. She is very nice, and I don't this pair was doing anything nefarious. They just didn't know any better.

 

Come to think about it, after Jeff called them on it, I think they just agreed to take it off their card.

 

During the same round, her partner alerted their 1♣ opening as "Precision". Unfortunately it included a 10-12 balanced hand. This actually did create damage, but by then we had blitzed the match, and I wasn't going to press it.

[blackshoe]

I was prepared to call the director later if necessary. However, (and I've mentioned this in the past 12 months), there is a divergent view from directors about what to do when an illegal convention is used.

 

To rehash, at a sectional (where no mid-chart is allowed), my teammates pulled out their 1M - 2♣ treatment (clubs, balanced or a limit raise in the major). The opponents weren't damaged, but the director gave us a major penalty (1/2 or a full board I think). One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

 

So I am very wary of calling the director in these matters. Frankly, I'm also tired of feeling like I am the bad guy when I call the director when illegal methods are used.

 

Perhaps this can be bumped over to "Changing Laws and Regulations", but its high time for the ACBL to give its directors some clear guidance on how to handle when an illegal treatment is used.

I couldn't find a pertinent regulation, but it seems to me that Law 40B5 is sufficient:

Law 40B5: When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament, the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty.

It seems like in your second case, the TD was in error. In your first case, the TD was not technically in error, but I think even 1/2 a board is a bit over the top. The standard 1/4 board should have been plenty.

 

IME some TDs get really testy if you ask them to "read it from the book" but if I'm convinced they're wrong, I'll be asking anyway. B-)

[aguahombre]

 

IME some TDs get really testy if you ask them to "read it from the book" but if I'm convinced they're wrong, I'll be asking anyway. B-)

IME, I have learned to calmly ask for a reading or that he consult on his ruling if I disagree. I know better by now than to ask for a "second opinion", because they will say something like "O.K., you also need to lose some weight."

[jeffford76]

One month later at a stratified pairs game at the Seattle NABC, my opponents used 1m - (1♥) - 2♥ as a spade transfer. Here, we actually were damaged, but no adjustment!

 

Isn't this legal? One of the things allowed is this:

 

CUEBID of an opponent’s suit and responses thereto, except that a cuebid that could be weak (fewer than 10 HCP) directly over an opening bid, must show at least one known suit.

[Cyberyeti]

 

During the same round, her partner alerted their 1♣ opening as "Precision". Unfortunately it included a 10-12 balanced hand. This actually did create damage, but by then we had blitzed the match, and I wasn't going to press it.

This is as bad as the pair who claimed as they sat down to be playing benji acol, open 2♣ and only later in the auction did I find out it could be a weak 2 in diamonds as well as the strong meaning (after we'd used our strong opening bid defence).

[mycroft]

The regulation, at least in the ACBL, is that for there to be an adjustment, there has to be damage (although it suggests that one should be very lenient to the NOS in determining 'damage'). For there to be a PP/DP, there would have to be an element of "you [should] know better".

 

Personally, I think that use of an illegal convention should be an automatic 1/4 board penalty, *and* adjustment for damage if any. It drives me nuts that people can "not notice" and play their MC system in GCC until someone a) notices, and b) knows, where those of us that actually follow the rules don't get to play their MC conventions. But, well, see the left-side bar of this post.

 

So, it could be that the first case that got a PP got one because they had been told before that it wasn't legal; and the second that they just thought "transfer responses vs overcalls" are legal because "transfer responses vs takeout doubles" are (because takeout doubles are a convention).

 

However, that specific auction (1m-(1♥)-2♥) is in fact legal - 2♥ is a cuebid which is allowed to be "any meaning". (now if they were playing generic transfer responses in competition, that's another story). In fact, it may even not be Alertable, as "most" meanings for direct cuebids are not Alertable (that's stuck right in the middle of a grey area, though).

 

[Edit - I see JeffFord got there before me].

[aguahombre]

I find it mildly amusing that one part of an illegal transfer scheme is legal by accident, but I guess it is true. The PP for playing the transfer method might still be applicable.

[Phil]

Sorry the auction was 1C 1S 2D - hearts.