Another Full Disclosure inACBL

[pigpenz]

auction:

1♦ double 3♦

 

now i asked opp what their agreement was by clickingon 3♦ bid, it just said diamonds....msg him to find out what their agreement was...his answer was what do you wantme to do tell you whats in my hand! TD was called and as far as I know never did find out what he had.

 

So what are we entitled to know.

How they play this auction as no points with four card support

or law of total tricks hand with points and four card support

all i wanted was their agreement!

[hrothgar]

what makes you think that the opponents HAD any agreement

[inquiry]

what makes you think that the opponents HAD any agreement

Then he is entitled to that information.. "♦'s no other agreements"

[hrothgar]

what makes you think that the opponents HAD any agreement

Then he is entitled to that information.. "♦'s no other agreements"

sounds like thats what the player said...

(yes, he could have phrased it a bit more politely)

[candybar]

When asked for further information, he must either say 'no agreement' or fully explain the agreement.

 

Also, keep in mind especially in ACBL, they HAVE agreed, SAYC by default if no other system. In SAYC, 1♦ P 3♦ is limit raise, and unless they had agreed to some other system, THAT is an agreement, even if they didn't discuss it explicitly.

 

I'd have to look to see what SAYC officially says about 1♦ X 3♦, but whatever it is, that was their agreement.

[hrothgar]

 

>Also, keep in mind especially in ACBL, they HAVE agreed, SAYC by default

>if no other system. In SAYC, 1♦ P 3♦ is limit raise, and unless they

>had agreed to some other system, THAT is an agreement, even if they didn't

>discuss it explicitly.

 

Interesting theory... Its a shame that this doesn't correspond to reality.

I just looked over the posted tournament rules for ACBL's online events.

There don't appear to be any statements corresponding to this interpretation.

 

>I'd have to look to see what SAYC officially says about 1♦ X 3♦,

>but whatever it is, that was their agreement.

 

I think that this is by FAR the best example that I could give regarding how ludicrous your position is. Here we have a director who has self described himself as being very experienced. Said director has no idea what SAYC officially says regarding the strength required for the sequence 1♦ - (X) - 3♦

 

Yet he is perfectly comfortable asserting that the pair in question

 

1. Has an agreement

2. Knows what this agreement actually is

[pigpenz]

actually the director never said anything at all. I just wanted to know how they tend to bid those type of hands. Limit, preemptive etc. Obviously he has diamonds, the highlighed button said diamonds, but didnt say pre emptive or limit, just diamonds.

[candybar]

A lot of the confusion comes from the fact that original SAYC was defined by (and presumably the definition belongs to) the ACBL. Then some online sites began to use the term SAYC, but changed it to suit themselves. BBO at least calls theirs BBO Basic.

 

So right now, I don't know what exactly the BBO ACBL directors are using for their 'official' SAYC, and the SAYC convention card that is automatically posted for you when you join an ACBL tourney doesn't have that detail on it. You'll have to ask the BBO ACBL personnel what the system actually is, and of course this makes it very hard for those who (as you will see when you join an ACBL tournament) must post their own convention card or use the SAYC default one.

 

Because of this unique situation in the ACBL tournaments, it is possible to 'have an agreed system' without knowing what the details are. Worse yet, it's possible that the system is not truly well-defined for this setting. In a live tournament, of course, you just pick up the player's convention card and look.

 

At no time did anyone assert that the players knew what their agreement was, it's very common for players to think they know, be wrong, not be sure, or not realize, etc etc etc. In fact, it kind of belies the common meaning of the word 'agreement', but unfortunately, that's what it's called in bridge.

[LH2650]

In SAYC the official agreement is: "preemptive, good trump support but fewer than 10 points"

[candybar]

In SAYC the official agreement is: "preemptive, good trump support but fewer than 10 points"

Can you give the source of this information? Is it from the yellow pamphlet that defines the original ACBL SAYC, or from an online source? And thanks for helping to clarify :D

[LH2650]

In SAYC the official agreement is: "preemptive, good trump support but fewer than 10 points"

Can you give the source of this information? Is it from the yellow pamphlet that defines the original ACBL SAYC, or from an online source? And thanks for helping to clarify :)

Yes. This is in the ACBL Standard Yellow Card System Booklet, which is available off the ACBL website. It is under Competitive Bidding, on page 7.

[bendare]

In a recent ACBL tourney, the auction was 1H pass 2S---no alerts.

 

I checked the posted cc, which was the SAYC default cc. I then made inquiry by clicking on the 2S bid. The response was "4+S, 10+pts". With that unusual explanation I clicked on the 1H opening bid. The explanation was "both minors, singleton H."

 

At that point I called the TD and after I privately repeated the above info to the TD, the TD said to the table, "You must post a CC or play the SAYC cc that is posted for you."

 

Then after a lull of quiet, my LHO said to table, "I was joking". The TD responded, "There is no joking in bridge" and departed the table. My opps were total strangers to me, yet both had chosen to "joke" in their explanations of their bids.

 

This is an excellent example of the attitude of many of the participants in the ACBL tourneys here. For some partnerships, even those who have played thousands of hands as partners in these ACBL tournaments, "no agreement" is pretty much their stock answer for inquiries of their bids. Then when the TD (who knows they are regulars in these ACBL tourneys and play regularly as partners) is called to the table they simply repeat, "They say they have no agreement." I have NEVER ONCE heard a TD in these ACBL tourneys question a players claim of "no agreement."

 

There is a major problem with participants in BBO ACBL games not taking the rules/laws/ethics of ACBL seriously. Perhaps they do not know or understand those rules/laws/ethics but they are not likely to get educated as long as they get by not abiding them. Maybe some consider these games "just a computer game" or "toy bridge." I have personally heard online bridge described in those terms.

 

The powers that be here say it is very difficult to "prove" cheating, so cheating continues out of control. I suppose some could also claim it is hard to "prove" failure to provide full disclosure when a player claims "no agreement"---which catch all response to avoid full disclosure also remains out of control.

 

Unless changes were made in past few years, ACBL also has a rule called "the rule of coincidence." Unlike FTF bridge, all hands are recorded and documented in online bridge,which would seem to make the "rule of coincidence" easier to apply and use as a tool for a basis of "proving" such abuses by repeat offenders.

 

That is, if ACBL itself is not just "joking" about zero tolerance and their seriousness in applying and enforcing their rules/laws/ethics to their ACBL sanctioned online games.

 

I am certainly not advocating an environment that would intimidate beginners or those who are not experienced in ACBL. However the TDs can be tactful and friendly in "educating" participants to the rules/laws while also being firm in their responsibilites to run the game according to ACBL rules and regulations.

 

Bendare

[pigpenz]

ACBL also has a rule called "the rule of coincidence." Unlike FTF bridge, all hands are recorded and documented in online bridge,which would seem to make the "rule of coincidence" easier to apply and use as a tool for a basis of "proving" such abuses by repeat offenders.

Maybe we could a myhands addon for pairs :)

In cases that would really help opps and TD's know how much some of these people really do play together and wether or not something is just a random event "the rule of chaos"

 

Does a person bidding his 3card major have an influence on his partners bidding in china while holding five of them B)

[hrothgar]

Unless changes were made in past few years, ACBL also has a rule called "the rule of coincidence." Unlike FTF bridge, all hands are recorded and documented in online bridge,which would seem to make the "rule of coincidence" easier to apply and use as a tool for a basis of "proving" such abuses by repeat offenders.

The Rule of Coincidence never had any legal standing

The ACBL stopped pretending it did a long time ago

[luis]

My conclusion after reading all the posts about ACBL tournaments is that the ACBL wants to run SAYC tournaments but since that is not possible they try to harrass the players that deviate from SAYC reaching some interpretations of the laws that I would describe as comic. I think there're a lot of different things that can be done to improve the quality of the tournaments before even thinking about system regulations, it's a pitty they put all the effort in silly stuff.

[McBruce]

"My conclusion after reading all the posts about ACBL tournaments is that the ACBL wants to run SAYC tournaments but since that is not possible..."

 

Of course it is possible. I run two a week. Our Unit ran a SAYC-only individual at a sectional.

 

"...they try to harrass the players that deviate from SAYC reaching some interpretations of the laws that I would describe as comic."

 

Such as? If you are referring to the situation discussed in this thread, tell us: why is it wrong for a sponsoring organization to make a rule saying that you must have a posted convention card? What's wrong with specifying a default convention card for those who cannot be bothered to explain their agreements? What's wrong with the TD assuming that a pair who displays the default card has agreed to play it? Why shouldn't players who give explanations that are 'jokes,' or players who don't give explanations at all, be harrassed?

 

"... I think there're a lot of different things that can be done to improve the quality of the tournaments before even thinking about system regulations, it's a pitty they put all the effort in silly stuff."

 

I don't think it is silly at all to make rules that force people to post a convention card.

[mycroft]

I think the "ACBL wants SAYC-only tournaments" is unfair for many reasons (and I have things to say about ACBL's dividing lines for system regulation, and their SAYC-only games):

 

1) There's nothing in the world that says that they can't do exactly that. The way the WBF is ruling on Law 40D - and this has been said explicitly by the WBFLC many times - is that SOs have absolute carte blanche on regulating conventions. They can't stop you from playing all natural, but they can say "if you don't play exactly these conventions exactly this way, you can't play any conventions at all, even conventional defences to conventional bids". So SAYC games (and remember, the Yellow Card was first generated so that they could have all-SAYC, no-Alert games for the people who (they foolishly thought) were upset with "all the Alerts and artificiality in the game" in the 1970's (they found, and then found again 20 years later with "Classic Card", that what the complainers really meant was "I want to play my pet conventions, but don't want to have to deal with anything else")) are perfectly legal - but the ACBL tournaments aren't such.

 

2) I play wacked-out Precision in most of my ACBL tournaments, and have never had a problem (from either players or the TD). Of course, we are religious about having our card loaded and our bids self-explained.

 

3) When I mentioned to them that they were mis-labelling PC as non-GCC, they thanked me, looked it up, and changed the explanation on their tourney rules.

 

4) The ACBL has a regulation (as they are allowed to have by law) that in tournaments, CCs (two, identical, complete) have to be available to the opponents. If this does not happen, the pair is restricted to playing SAYC until such time as said CCs show up (see every NABC bulletin for the past year - they changed the policy 10 years ago but didn't tell the editors, so the old "only play Class A conventions" notation hung on...and on...). The behaviour of online ACBL tourneys (post a CC or you get to play SAYC that we'll post for you. Oh, by the way, this is in the rules) is simply an automatic implementation of that (frequently unheeded in live play) regulation.

 

To paraphrase the other line McB quoted "I think there's a lot of different things that can be improved in the way the ACBL runs games, but this isn't one of them."

 

Michael.

[candybar]

The BBO ACBL tournaments are not sayc-only. They allow most systems, including Precision, Polish Club, etc. They ban some conventions (like Multi 2D, no one seems to understand why :P ), but anything on the GCC is ok. It's just that if you do not post your system on a CC, THEN you must play SAYC. per the default CC.