CC's at NABC's?

[jillybean]

Rules and regulations in this game that are ignored or not uniformly enforced.

CC's, calling the director when there has been an infraction, cell phones, UI all come to mind.

But we are getting off topic, enough has been said about all of this in other threads.

[WellSpyder]

Don't give it back.

I remember adopting this approach in England once with a player used to playing in the US. There was no question of her needing the CC back to write scores on, or anything, but she still insisted on grabbing it back. So I asked for it again.....

 

I ended up calling the TD so he could explain that the CC should be given to the opponents for the duration of the round. Even then, she only allowed me to keep the card while the TD was in the vicinity, so I called him back again....

 

Some people really do feel that it is for them to decide which rules they should obey and which they don't need to.

[Trinidad]

Don't give it back.

This is a suggestion I like!

Except, of course, to give it back so opp can write the contract on his scorecard at the end of the auction, and then again so he can write the score at the end of the hand...

Why? That CC should be mine for the whole round. It is not my problem that the opponent is as silly as to write his scores on the back of a CC that belongs to me.

 

Rik

[barmar]

I've never run into any of those players who show any discomfort when asked to see their CC. However, I admit that I don't ask for it on a regular basis, like many players do, I tend to be more of an asker than a looker. Sometimes when an opponent fails to alert a bid that I suspect is artificial, I'll glance at their CC if the appropriate section is visible on the table, so that I don't remind them that the wheels are about to fall off. I've also been fairly lucky in not playing against many of the players who like to put their CC under their butts, so it usually IS visible (but sometimes it's folded and the wrong half is visible).

[RunemPard]

Always a lot of them at our club in Sweden...who feel shocked when you grab their CC, or put yours in front of them. It is mostly the LOLs who have no idea that the CC is not for them to look at after every round as a reminder of methods they are using.

[Zelandakh]

Come on man really?

Irony is often lost on the internet. My idea was to use it to illustrate the point that we can hardly expect club players to observe the spirit of rules when we do not expect it of the very best. Hence there are SBs at every level. Indeed, at the very first "serious" bridge event I played in, a junior affair, one of the opponents asked for a ruling when my partner apparently paused with KJx in second seat. I hadn't noticed anything and noone asked me; indeed I only found out when my partner mentioned it. He had been informed.

 

It is obviously true that American experts are not worse as a group than experts from other countries and that experts as a whole are much more ethical than non-experts. Indeed, it is my impression that Meckwell are generally highly ethical. This is probably the reason this report came as something of a shock to most. The case you give of an illegal bid coming up in the middle of a round is obviously completely different. In the reports given of the Meck incident, the pairs had specifically discussed the situation regarding the 2♦ opening and the state of the written defence. I doubt anyone (ok this is an overbid, most people) would have any problem with Meckwell objecting to an opening that is illegal in the ACBL but would be legal under WBF rules should it be sprung on them in the middle of a round without warning.

 

FWiiW, I would love to see a (private) list of the players you think are doing whatever is in the rules to win. I daresay there are one or two working outside of the rules too, although it is naturally heretical to say so publically.

[pigpenz]

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.

I can remember back in the 70s playing against Soloway and Passell

asking a question about a bid and getting the reply from Passell

my partner is a big boy he knows what he is doing.

at the time, I think i had 50mps and we were playing in a swiss team qualifying for KOs at a regional in Lincoln, NE

[hv=d=w&v=n&b=12&a=3hd5cp5hppdppp]133|100[/hv]

[blackshoe]

"yeah, well, I don't. Enlighten me, please."

 

Further reluctance to fully disclose their methods would get a director call from me, I don't care who he is.

[jh51]

Rules and regulations in this game that are ignored or not uniformly enforced.

CC's, calling the director when there has been an infraction, cell phones, UI all come to mind.

But we are getting off topic, enough has been said about all of this in other threads.

But when the are enforced, oh what fun.

 

Last year I was at a tournament when, during a hospitality break, someone's cell phone rang in the playing area. A full board penalty was assessed. (the dinze of the prnalty had been announced before the start of play.) Even though it was during the hospitality break, it was in the playing area, so there was no excues.

[ArtK78]

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.

I wasn't planning on responding to this post, but I saw that there was a recent response, and it brought to mind an incident from a number of years ago.

 

In the late rounds of a Swiss Teams at the Lancaster (PA) Regional some years ago, I was playing against a well known pro - a perennial top masterpoint winner (who shall remain nameless). Someone universally recognized as "a true great." There was a throng of kibbitzers at the table.

 

A few hands into the round, something came up, something of very little significance. I don't remember if I asked about something or if he asked about something. He then made a number of comments calculated to intimidate and humiliate. From what I heard afterward, this was a common occurrence.

 

So, while it is true that most top level pros and non-pros have the highest ethical standards and best deportment at the table (and away from the table), it is not universally so.

[jillybean]

But when the are enforced, oh what fun.

 

Last year I was at a tournament when, during a hospitality break, someone's cell phone rang in the playing area. A full board penalty was assessed. (the dinze of the prnalty had been announced before the start of play.) Even though it was during the hospitality break, it was in the playing area, so there was no excues.

At the Nationals in Seattle a cell phone (or phones?) went off no less than THREE times during an open pairs event.

Each time the directors made a joke out of it. Upstairs in another event a team recieved a full board penalty for having

a cell phone on vibrate at the table.

[barmar]

Sometimes police let people off with a warning for an offense that might receive a citation some other time. Penalizing is something that they "reserve the right" to do, but don't necessarily do every time. As long as they occasionally penalize, the mere threat of a penalty should provide a deterrant, since you never know if you're going to be the one they make an example of.

 

Of course, it doesn't stop me from speeding on a regular basis. But I do turn off my cell phone (but since no one ever calls me these days, it's no big deal).

[Bbradley62]

Why? That CC should be mine for the whole round. It is not my problem that the opponent is as silly as to write his scores on the back of a CC that belongs to me.

 

Rik

You go ahead and keep tilting at that windmill.

[Trinidad]

You go ahead and keep tilting at that windmill.

Why should I? I have enough windmills over here (see to the left).

 

The point is that when I was playing in the USA, it wasn't this bad. People kept their CCs to themselves, but typically turned them so that opponents could easily see them.

 

When the situation is like that I don't have any problem. Of course, I will give the CC back. Also when their CC is lying in front of me, they can -of course- borrow it to write down the contract or score, or whatever they want to write down.

 

But if I know that the CC will disappear in a purse or under someone's butt as soon as I give it back, I would not give it back until the end of the round. It is none of their business when I want to take a peek at the CC.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

But if I know that the CC will disappear in a purse or under someone's butt as soon as I give it back, I would not give it back until the end of the round. It is none of their business when I want to take a peek at the CC.

And they will call the director, and he will want to know why you're being so unreasonable. :o

[Trinidad]

And they will call the director, and he will want to know why you're being so unreasonable. :o

That ain't gonna happen. He will already know why I am so "unreasonable", since I called him when the CC disappeared the previous time(s).

 

Rik

[BudH]

Let's see: bidding box, coffee mug, snack plate, score sheet, system card. Where does all this stuff go? You've got about nine square inches in your right corner for it all.

 

Nine square inches, less about 4 square inches for the coffee, less about nine square inches for the snack plate, less about six square inches for the bidding box. You should be able to put (some people will say "hide") your system card and score sheet under all that, but even so, 9-4-9-6 is -10 square inches. "Simple," you say, "don't bring coffee or a snack plate to the table," — good luck with that — "or pull up a spare chair and put your coffee and snack plate there". Unfortunately, there's only so many spare chairs — you're not likely to get one.

 

AFAICS, the biggest problem with ACBL system cards is that they are so poorly designed that nobody wants to look at them, so it doesn't matter where you put it — but it's still got to be on the table, and preferably not under your bidding box, or some SB will complain to the director. And of course, you can't hand it to the SB and let him worry about where to put it, because he won't take it.

 

And these days, don't forget about the Bridgemate or Bridgepad (or similar electronic scoring device) if you are sitting North.

[bluejak]

The rule that there must be TWO CCs also seems pretty silly. Obviously, if there are two CC's, it makes sense to require that they be identical, since the inconsistencies can result in MI (if an opponent looks at the wrong one) and prevents the director from using the CC as evidence in determining MI or LAs. But how are opponents impacted if the partnership only has one CC? If we had a tradition of exchanging CCs at the beginning of a round, it would make it difficult for each opponent to review the CC at the same time, but we don't geneally do this so there's little harm (in my experience, if a pair likes to review the opponents' CC at the beginning of the round, often just one of them does it and he mentions the important features to his partner).

If you want people to do things in a particular way, it is common to move slowly in that direction. So perhaps in a few years the ACBL will move to exchanging cards.

 

As for it being pretty silly, when I played at the Orlando and Seattle nationals [sadly I missed this year :(] my partner and I both looked at their CCs at the start of all 6+ board rounds, and several 2 board rounds. It would be even sillier to look through a card while partner is waiting for her turn.

 

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 have played against a lot of people playing illegal methods in England. I very much doubt that as many as 10% of them know they are illegal.

 

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.

Like any other form of cheating, that is fine until you get found out and expelled from the tournament.

 

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).

Twice in the last month I have played a against a pair who claimed to be playing "Benji Acol" - I mean two different pairs. Both were playing 5-card majors and a short club - and Benjamin Twos. On neither occasion was I damaged in any way, so I merely told the TD and left him to deal with them.

[bluejak]

My regular partner doesn't keep a private score, so he doesn't have a cc unless I give him one.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

I have played in the nationals in Orlando and Seattle. I gave up keeping a personal score-card a few years back. Does that mean I do not have an SC? Of course not: my partner and I had fully laminated SCs plus defences as required. It is not difficult to follow these regs.

 

You could, if you wanted, score on the back side of a previously-used convention card; then your current card and your scoresheet would be separate.

The trouble is that people won't. The solution starts with the ACBL printing SCs with a space for Notes but no score-card on the back.

 

Exchange of CCs with the opponents is not "the normal way" in the ACBL, as you well know, Stef.

 

Yes, I do know that; but it is normal in most other places and is best. I meant that in the ACBL the "normal way" could be adopted.

I am not sure this is true. Certainly people are good at keeping and to a lesser extent exchanging SCs in England and Wales, and fairly good in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

But I have just played in Eire with a very pretty new pair of laminated Irish SCs. Three days,no opponent looked at them once. Few opponents had an SC.

 

I have played in South Africa twice, coming to about 12 days in all. No SCs at all on the first occasion. Ok, I lied, my partner and I had them. On the second occasion about one pair in ten had them. No-one ever looked at ours.

 

France was a little better, though not a lot!

 

I believe the mentality is that the CC is mine and the opponents should keep their hands off it. I've asked to look at an opponent’s CC, the request has obviously made the player uncomfortable and when I put the CC back they have picked it up and put it at the other side of the table, out my reach. Others hold onto it and "show" it to you.

These are the players who do not understand that the CC is for the opponents use.

I suspect the first move to get people to do it right is for SCs to be produced in future with two major changes. First, no score-card on the back. Second, as well as saying "ASK, DO NOT ASSUME" they should also say "SYSTEM CARDS ARE FOR OPPONENTS' BENEFIT".

[barmar]

As for it being pretty silly, when I played at the Orlando and Seattle nationals [sadly I missed this year :(] my partner and I both looked at their CCs at the start of all 6+ board rounds, and several 2 board rounds. It would be even sillier to look through a card while partner is waiting for her turn.

As I mentioned when someone else pointed this out, one of you can read it and point out to the other the significant aspects. In fact, even when there are two CCs, this is a pretty common process among many partnerships. "They're playing weak NT, so we're using Cappalletti, right?"

[aguahombre]

Point that pair out to me in advance. We will switch to wk nt.

[barmar]

Point that pair out to me in advance. We will switch to wk nt.

My guess is at least 75% of ACBL players who play conventional defenses to NT use Capp against all NT ranges, and of the ones who use a different defense against strong and weak NT, probably 90% play Capp against weak.

 

I assumed what you wanted was to be pointed out the pairs that play Capp, not the ones who mention their defense aloud when reading the opp's CC.

[aguahombre]

If they only use it against wk nt, we will switch. Yes, I know we can't do that. Pick an emoticon

[bluejak]

As I mentioned when someone else pointed this out, one of you can read it and point out to the other the significant aspects. In fact, even when there are two CCs, this is a pretty common process among many partnerships. "They're playing weak NT, so we're using Cappalletti, right?"

Thank you for telling me what we can do. Why the heck should we do it your way and not the way we prefer?

[barmar]

Thank you for telling me what we can do. Why the heck should we do it your way and not the way we prefer?

If you read back through the read, you'll see that I'm not condoning having only once CC, just saying that it's not the major problem some people are making it out to be. It's a minor inconvenience, that's all. If it's more than that to you, you're a curmudgeon, IMO.

 

Having conflicting CC's is a much worse offense. (Like the old joke: a man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two isn't sure.)