ACBL has it wrong?

[nige1]

And another thing: The general spirit of "full disclosure" is that there should be a level playing field. If I respond to a bid as if it normally shows 3 cards, then the opponents are on the same same level as we are if they do so as well. While I might know that a 2-card suit is possible, I don't cater to it. So even if the opponents don't know about the possiibility, they aren't disadvantaged in any way as a result -- I"m not doing anything useful with the additional knowledge.

In other contexts (e.g. psychs), law-makers take the realistic view that you may not have an illegal understanding even if you claim that you don't cater for it.

Just started a new partnership with, well, a novice. He insists he would never open a major on four, or overcall on four, whatever seat he's in. If he agrees that I can open on four in third or fourth seat or overcall 4 if I want, how do we mark the card? Are we playing different systems? Are the choices here limited to 1) Nobody ever opens in 3rd/4th seat on 4, 2) as 1, but sometimes I might open on 4 if I feel like it, 3) try to get partner to agree that we might open on 4, 4) dissolve the partnership?

Interesting quandary. I guess that asymmetric systems are commoner than players admit.

[biggerclub]

Leaving it to OPPs to voluntarily bring up the question creates all kinds of UI and active ethical issues. IMO

 

"How many clubs does 2♣ promise?" "Oh, really? How many is it usually?"

[blackshoe]

A bid is not a promise. It is certainly not a promise to opponents.

[barmar]

so I use "check four" (it is *expected minimum length* after all) but with a big arrow pointing towards 3. Similarly for my 3/4 seat major openings; they "promise five" but "could be 4", and I hope the check-and-arrow gets the point across.

What is your systemic agreement to open when your hand is 4=4=3=2? If you're expected to open 1♦, then I think you should check 3. The "check and arrow" seems more appropriate for the situation where you normally open with X, but sometimes (too often to call it a psyche) deviate with Y, but it's not a systemic requirement, just a judgement call.

 

The 4 checkbox for diamonds should mostly be used only by pairs that play that 1♣ "could be short", because they open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 hands.

[gnasher]

Just started a new partnership with, well, a novice. He insists he would never open a major on four, or overcall on four, whatever seat he's in. If he agrees that I can open on four in third or fourth seat or overcall 4 if I want, how do we mark the card? Are we playing different systems? Are the choices here limited to 1) Nobody ever opens in 3rd/4th seat on 4, 2) as 1, but sometimes I might open on 4 if I feel like it, 3) try to get partner to agree that we might open on 4, 4) dissolve the partnership?

 

There are two separate questions: "Are we allowed to play this?" and "What should we put on the convention card?"

 

The second one ie easy: you find a way to mark the card in a way that discloses your agreement. There's probably enough space on that part of the ACBL card to write something like "Depends" or "Please ask". Or you could tick both boxes, which would probably provoke a question if anyone wanted to know the answer.

[blackshoe]

Or you could tick both boxes, which would probably provoke a question if anyone wanted to know the answer.

It might, if anyone ever looked at the card. B-)

[Manastorm]

What would happen, if the same sequence of bids come twice, but shifted by 2 seats. The first time you find out that it is 5 and the second time you dont ask expecting 5, but it is actually usually 5. Maybe during the 1st time the word always is mentioned several times. So you make the wrong assumption when you declare. You ask opponents what is going on, they shrug and say you should ask the meaning of the bid, you oppose and say you heard it once before, they shrug again so we have different styles.

[barmar]

Choices like this are usually considered to be style, not system. It's not uncommon that one member of a partnership is more aggressive than the other.

[blackshoe]

During the clarification period: "please explain your auction, including pertinent style". ("Please explain your auction" should be enough, but I don't trust people to know and act on that).

[barmar]

You have an auction that goes 2♥-All Pass. Or P-(P)-1♥-(P)-2♥-All Pass. In what universe will an opponent bother asking "Please explain the auction"? Should players always ask about these routine auctions, just in case they'll get the information that opener frequently opens weak 2 with 5-card suits or is more likely than most to open a 4-card major in 3rd seat.

[barmar]

Which reminds me of something that happened last week in Vegas.

 

I was playing with someone I only see at nationals. He has what I consider a pretty free-wheeling style, and I asked him to try to rein it in when we were playing in the NABC+ Fast Pairs.

 

At some point I decided to open a 5-card weak 2, and I think we ended up with a bad result after he raised me. At the end of the hand, he said "I thought we agreed not to do that". Me: "No, we agreed that you wouldn't do that."

[chasetb]

so I use "check four" (it is *expected minimum length* after all) but with a big arrow pointing towards 3. Similarly for my 3/4 seat major openings; they "promise five" but "could be 4", and I hope the check-and-arrow gets the point across.

 

What is your systemic agreement to open when your hand is 4=4=3=2? If you're expected to open 1♦, then I think you should check 3. The "check and arrow" seems more appropriate for the situation where you normally open with X, but sometimes (too often to call it a psyche) deviate with Y, but it's not a systemic requirement, just a judgement call.The 4 checkbox for diamonds should mostly be used only by pairs that play that 1♣ "could be short", because they open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 hands.

 

Here's a place where I can help, as per the ACBL, if you open 1♦ on 3 ONLY if it's exactly 4432, then you actually checkmark the 3 box, but have an arrow pointing at the 4 box.

 

As for the Major, it doesn't directly say, but I tend to check 4 in 3rd/4th, but use the arrow to point to the 5.

[blackshoe]

That's an interesting guide, chase, but it doesn't look to me like regulation. Can it be located from the acbl main page, without a search (which will, I'm sure, turn up pages that are no longer valid)?

 

The page doesn't seem to have a date on it either - and it refers to the "new" convention card. When was it "new"? I've seen only a couple of minor changes over the last 20 years or so.

[pran]

That's an interesting guide, chase, but it doesn't look to me like regulation. Can it be located from the acbl main page, without a search (which will, I'm sure, turn up pages that are no longer valid)?

 

The page doesn't seem to have a date on it either - and it refers to the "new" convention card. When was it "new"? I've seen only a couple of minor changes over the last 20 years or so.

Off topic: This reminds me of a tale from a computer installation in the old days when weekly backup from disks to magnetic tape was the routine. Disks were small and expensive so one tape was sufficient to hold all data they had on disks.

 

They had a pile of backuptapes all labelled "Last backup"!

[aguahombre]

That's an interesting guide, chase, but it doesn't look to me like regulation. Can it be located from the acbl main page, without a search (which will, I'm sure, turn up pages that are no longer valid)?

 

The page doesn't seem to have a date on it either - and it refers to the "new" convention card. When was it "new"? I've seen only a couple of minor changes over the last 20 years or so.

Is it o.k. if we use it to sensibly fill out our convention cards?

[blackshoe]

Is it o.k. if we use it to sensibly fill out our convention cards?

Sure, but it's not okay to say the card is required to be filled out as the guide suggests.

[barmar]

Here's a place where I can help, as per the ACBL, if you open 1♦ on 3 ONLY if it's exactly 4432, then you actually checkmark the 3 box, but have an arrow pointing at the 4 box.

Not very helpful advice for the many people who use electronic versions of the ACBL convention card. I don't think any of them have a way to add markings like that, all you can do is check the boxes and fill in text fields.

[aguahombre]

The man provides us a guide which someone went to a lot of work to produce, and which would be helpful to a whole lot of people when filling out their CC's.

 

And the best we can do is question whether it is a "regulation" and find a group of people for whom part of it might not be able to be used.

[GreenMan]

The man provides us a guide which someone went to a lot of work to produce, and which would be helpful to a whole lot of people when filling out their CC's.

 

And the best we can do is question whether it is a "regulation" and find a group of people for whom part of it might not be able to be used.

 

I was starting to worry I might not be on BBO Forums, but now my mind is at ease. :D

[blackshoe]

Agua, I was simply trying to prevent some Secretary Bird from claiming that not filling out the card in accordance with this guidance is an infraction of law or regulation. If you can't see that as useful, well, sorry about that.

 

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

[nige1]

Agua, I was simply trying to prevent some Secretary Bird from claiming that not filling out the card in accordance with this guidance is an infraction of law or regulation. If you can't see that as useful, well, sorry about that.

IMO instructions on completion of the standard card should be part of the rules and directors should insist that players possess a properly completed card. IMO, clubs should provide pre-printed cards for local standard systems. Disclosure is fundamental to the game of Bridge so it's weird that it's so sloppily enforced.

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

I agree with blackshoe that a player should be free to amend a computer-printed card.

[barmar]

As for the "computer generated" card, it seems like it would be fairly easy to take a pen to it once it's printed out. Or do people not print them out any more?

Not when playing online.

[blackshoe]

Not when playing online.

Okay, when (next week?) all bridge is played online, I'll withdraw my comment.

[mycroft]

Necro of the year, but a warning that with the new Alert Procedure, the exemption for 4=5=2=2 "What is Flannery?" has gone away - it is no longer in the list of exceptions to Alertable Artificial calls. OP will be happy, it's now Alertable like he thought it should have been before.

 

I checked with my contact on the Charts Rewrite committee (oddly enough, one of the posters in this thread), and he said that I was reading correctly, the exception no longer exists. Whether that was deliberate or just something that fell out I didn't ask.

 

So, one more thing to add to my "changes you might not expect" list in my "welcome to the new Alert Chart" document, and one more thing that people are going to have to be educated on (this one is going to take *years*, though, as it never comes up in practise. Unlike, say, the Delayed Alerts for control cuebids and ace-asking responses).

[pescetom]

Is this the change you have been griping about, without naming it?

Seems fairly harmless to me, although I agree it might have been more practical to simply improve the wording making 5422 an allowable exception.