No CC

[gnasher]

No. Not unless they decide they're playing SAYC strictly according to the card for the rest of the session.

Why for the rest of the session? Can't they write their names on the SAYC cards (to avoid the penalties), play SAYC for the next few rounds whilst they fill in a card describing what they actually want to play, and then switch back to their preferred methods?

[ddrankin]

Why for the rest of the session? Can't they write their names on the SAYC cards (to avoid the penalties), play SAYC for the next few rounds whilst they fill in a card describing what they actually want to play, and then switch back to their preferred methods?

 

Not in the ACBL, unless the director allows it (and I would not). One of the elections made by the ACBL is:

 

"4. Law 40B2(a): Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the

convention card.

a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament

Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.)"

 

Once they choose to use the SAYC, they are stuck with it, IMO.

[blackshoe]

Not in the ACBL, unless the director allows it (and I would not). One of the elections made by the ACBL is:

 

"4. Law 40B2(a): Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the

convention card.

a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament

Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.)"

 

Once they choose to use the SAYC, they are stuck with it, IMO.

Mine as well.

[akwoo]

Re: trading convention cards at the beginning of a round

 

1) I usually ask, nicely, for a look at their convention card at the beginning of a round. This is particularly easy in a team game where we have to make the boards ourselves, because we have to spend a minute shuffling cards anyway and it costs no time at all.

 

2) Back when this was true, I usually started every round with "We play a 12-14 1N opening. You might want to discuss your defenses to that before we get started. Is there anything special you play that we should know about?" I don't think I've ever had a pair fail to tell me about a non-standard system they were playing at that point.

 

3) You will find that less than 10% of players play something other than Standard American or 2/1 with varying minor pieces of gadgetry. At my last Sectional Swiss, between us and our teammates, it was 1 out of 14. In some parts of the country, a Sectional will have literally every person in the room playing Standard American or 2/1, at which point trading convention cards seems silly.

[blackshoe]

When I was in England in the early 90s, I learned to exchange cards with opps at the beginning of every round. It was required by regulation. Often, a look at their card didn't tell me anything earthshattering, or even mildly unsettling. Still, I learned to do it. When I got back to the States, I tried to do it here too. Reactions ranged from confusion, to resistance, to "get that thing out of my face!" Nobody simply cooperated with the idea. Bottom line: it would take major retraining — and probably a (badly needed in any case, IMO) redesign of the card — to get North American bridge players to exchange cards and allow their opponents to keep the card through the round.

[gnasher]

Not in the ACBL, unless the director allows it (and I would not). One of the elections made by the ACBL is:

 

"4. Law 40B2(a): Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the

convention card.

a. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except with permission of the tournament

Director. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change its basic system.)"

 

Once they choose to use the SAYC, they are stuck with it, IMO.

In that case writing the names on the top of the SAYC card and playing it for the rest of the session also wouldn't work. They can't change their agreed system from whatever iit was to SAYC.

 

This is another rather extreme regulation. Suppose I arrive two minutes before starting play with a new partner. We agree "2/1, standard carding, and wing it" for the first round. Finishing the first round early, we now want to add a defence to 1NT. Do we realy have to get the director's permission before we do so?

[gnasher]

In some parts of the country, a Sectional will have literally every person in the room playing Standard American or 2/1, at which point trading convention cards seems silly.

 

It's not silly to want unfettered access to the opponents' card. I often glance at my opponents' convention card to find out some piece of information not directly related to the actual auction - notrump range when they opened a suit, defence to 1NT when they didn't bid over 1NT, two-bids when they didn't open a suit. If I have the card in front of me, I can look at it probably without anyone knowing I'm doing so, and certainly without them knowing what I'm looking at.

 

If I have to ask for the card, it tells everyone that I want to see it, and they are then more likely to observe which part of the card I'm looking at. That gives partner UI, and the opponents information which I don't want them to have.

[ddrankin]

In that case writing the names on the top of the SAYC card and playing it for the rest of the session also wouldn't work. They can't change their agreed system from whatever iit was to SAYC.

 

I would think that when the TD hands you a SAYC card and tells you to play it, you have his permission to play it. I would not then bar a pair from deciding to play it for the rest of the session if that is what they choose to do.

[akwoo]

It's not silly to want unfettered access to the opponents' card. I often glance at my opponents' convention card to find out some piece of information not directly related to the actual auction - notrump range when they opened a suit, defence to 1NT when they didn't bid over 1NT, two-bids when they didn't open a suit. If I have the card in front of me, I can look at it probably without anyone knowing I'm doing so, and certainly without them knowing what I'm looking at.

 

If I have to ask for the card, it tells everyone that I want to see it, and they are then more likely to observe which part of the card I'm looking at. That gives partner UI, and the opponents information which I don't want them to have.

 

What I'm saying is that there will be Sectional events in the US where the answers are universally:

 

1) 15-17

2) Either Cappelleti or natural

3) Weak, 5-10/11

 

and indeed half the pairs would be bewildered that anyone would want to deviate from the ONE TRUE SYSTEM.

 

I actually think trading convention cards makes a good deal of sense. But when everyone plays the same system, and everyone knows everyone plays the same system, it becomes a lot less worth it.

 

Also, there are a lot of players out there who simply don't want to know about the opponents' bidding and carding system. They have enough trouble keeping track of their own cards that trying to draw inferences from opponents' bidding and carding would just confuse them. Many of these players simply don't understand why anyone would want to look at their convention card (especially since there is nothing on them to see).

[gnasher]

I would think that when the TD hands you a SAYC card and tells you to play it, you have his permission to play it. I would not then bar a pair from deciding to play it for the rest of the session if that is what they choose to do.

But he's not granting you permission to change systems for the duration of the event. He is requiring you to play SAYC temporarily until you have properly documented your original system.

 

A pair which brought two convention cards is obliged to play the same system for the entire session, so why should a pair which has already broken the rules be exempt from this requirement?

[TylerE]

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

[aguahombre]

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

[Vampyr]

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

 

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

[barmar]

And with a little luck the ACBL will enter the 21st century and offer the possibility of entering events online/in advance.

Apparently Bridge Winners is offering this for the upcoming NABC.

[Vampyr]

Apparently Bridge Winners is offering this for the upcoming NABC.

 

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

[ddrankin]

But he's not granting you permission to change systems for the duration of the event. He is requiring you to play SAYC temporarily until you have properly documented your original system.

 

A pair which brought two convention cards is obliged to play the same system for the entire session, so why should a pair which has already broken the rules be exempt from this requirement?

 

But they are not exempt. They are required by the laws not to vary their system. But we are talking about a pair that has not documented their system, which may be SAYC or close to it. If they had copied the SAYC onto a regular convention card, and presented them to the TD, he has no option but to allow it. I don't think they are changing systems, since they had no documentation of one before.

 

Once they have documented their system, whatever it is, it would be petty not to allow it, unless the TD is prepared to prove it is not their system. Good luck with that.

[TylerE]

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

 

Properly filled out = includes names of players,

[Vampyr]

But they are not exempt. They are required by the laws not to vary their system.

 

Not by the laws, by ACBL regulation. In the EBU you are permitted to change your system every round, if you like.

[billw55]

Borrow one from the guy behind you in line, or dig through your handbag at time of purchase to irritate the whole queue.

I was thinking that many people have a few handy, and could just adopt one of those for the partnership, perhaps using a post-it to add the correct names. "Well I play this one with Bob, how about we just use that?" (glances over it) "OK sure." Seems pretty common, I have done it myself more than once. Of course that won't help when neither player has even one card handy.

[barmar]

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

I don't know how they're doing it. But if you go to their site, it says:

http://media.bridgewinners.com/info_blocks/Advance-NABC-Entry-Teaser.png

[blackshoe]

If you're going to require CC's, enforce it at the time that makes sense - when buying the entry. Require at least one valid CC to be present before a pair is seated. Done.

This would be a sensible addition to the CoC — but until the addition is made, it's not in force, and is highly unlikely to happen.

[GreenMan]

How are Bridge Winners able to offer ACBL entries?

 

By saying to the ACBL, "We'd like to offer ACBL entries," and the ACBL saying, "OK."

[ddrankin]

Not by the laws, by ACBL regulation. In the EBU you are permitted to change your system every round, if you like.

 

No. By the laws. It is an election made by the ACBL and forms part of the law.

[blackshoe]

No. By the laws. It is an election made by the ACBL and forms part of the law.

This is indeed what the ACBL has done. However, a careful reading of the relevant laws leads me to question the approach. It seems to me that what the laws actually say is that the RA is permitted to make pertinent regulations, not to change the law itself. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone argue otherwise.

[gnasher]

This is indeed what the ACBL has done. However, a careful reading of the relevant laws leads me to question the approach. It seems to me that what the laws actually say is that the RA is permitted to make pertinent regulations, not to change the law itself. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear someone argue otherwise.

If you carefully read the first few pages of the ACBL's version of the Laws, you will find that the ACBL is the promulgator of the Laws used in its events, so it can rewrite them as it sees fit.