[blackshoe]

Another point that just occurred to me. Where I play, in order to get more boards (than 24) done in the three hours available (can't extend the time, because the TD wants to leave ASAP when the game's over), TDs have shortened the time available per round. This already causes slow play (and fast play) problems. If we all take a minute or two to review opps' SC and discuss our defenses to their weird stuff, the problem will just get worse.

[TimG]

In ACBLland there really aren't that many different systems being played. A vast majority of players are playing some sort of Eastern Scientific or 2/1. The exceptions are generally a weak NT of some sort or a strong club of some sort. These are things that any partnership that isn't playing for the first time will have already discussed. Really, the exchanging of CC would be mostly a waste of time here.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-04, 06:34, said:

I imagine it's a general aspect of the whole culture in the US. People don't feel obligated to obey the rules just because they're there. They'll obey out of fear of the consequences, if those are bad enough.

Right. The US is not a very regimented society, there's still a bit of the "Wild West" mentality in our culture.

[paulg]

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 07:27, said:

In ACBLland there really aren't that many different systems being played. A vast majority of players are playing some sort of Eastern Scientific or 2/1. The exceptions are generally a weak NT of some sort or a strong club of some sort. These are things that any partnership that isn't playing for the first time will have already discussed. Really, the exchanging of CC would be mostly a waste of time here.

In my limited experience, not only is almost everyone playing the same system but they also use the same conventions (at tournament level at least): the system understanding also goes beyond the first two bids. I am constantly amazed at how detailed the agreements for pickup partnerships are. This is quite different from the UK where, even if you agreed to play Acol, you need to start the discussion with two-level opening bids.

[Gerben42]

Hi Kathryn,

Some points:

Quote

Yes, it's my fault, I should have checked the opponent’s CC before we started.

Yes and no. You should have discussed Precision with your partner before the tournament. Then if it comes up, you don't care. If you're in it to win it, it's worth doing this. The same is true for Weak NT opening bids. That's two things I really need to have discussed, Multi as well but in the ACBL that is probably not so important.

Quote

However, since this is the law I think the TD's need to enforce the requirement for each player to have a correctly completed convention card, on the table.

Agree! I don't mind in club tournaments, in fact I have given up and stop bringing mine as it would be the only one.
I am often a TD in such regional tournaments and I have empty convention cards for sale (yes, sorry, if you forgot to print one out yourself, you get to sponsor the organizers).

Quote

People leave their cards in their bags, sit on them, use them as coasters for their coffee and attach stickers to them so that they are unreadable.

You are not being unreasonable if you call the director if you do not find a readable or touchable (yuck!) convention card.

I still plan to get mine laminated when we stop making changes

Quote

I think it would be best for players to announce their system and if they fail to do so and the opponents are damaged, then have redress available.

I think it would be even better to REQUIRE a pre-alert for playing a blue (strong club) or red (artificial i.e. Polish, etc.) system.

[mycroft]

Yes, it should be there (at sectional games and higher, by regulation, must be there. Yeah, right). Definitely, it should be accessible to RHO without inciting a trespassing or assault charge. Yes, it should be legible (but I was told in grade 10 that "anything that comes in handwritten gets returned unmarked. What am I supposed to do with a pickup?) Yes, it should be actually the card you're playing with this partner (and boy, does that drive me up the twist).

Still doesn't happen. A couple of procedural penalties would help, but the ACBL are pretty lax about it (but if you're playing something odd, and are not troubling to make the CC available, they'll be less lax. Precision, despite the culture, ain't that odd, in my view. EHAA is). Also, the regulation Ed quoted is germane.

If you play a two-session day at a Sectional and don't run into one strong club pair, that would be uncommon. It would be nice to review the defence so that partner hasn't forgotten (we, of course, never forget :-), but no more so than our defence to Flannery. Not *having one* is like not having a defence to Flannery, too - inconvenient, but not really a big deal.

[Vampyr]

Gerben42, on 2012-September-04, 12:08, said:

You are not being unreasonable if you call the director if you do not find a readable or touchable (yuck!) convention card.

At the only Nationals I have attended in the past 15 years (Hawaii) there was a very fat man sitting with his legs apart and the CC protruding from under his crotch. I didn't need to know the system that much...

[Quantumcat]

TimG, on 2012-September-04, 07:27, said:

In ACBLland there really aren't that many different systems being played. A vast majority of players are playing some sort of Eastern Scientific or 2/1. The exceptions are generally a weak NT of some sort or a strong club of some sort. These are things that any partnership that isn't playing for the first time will have already discussed. Really, the exchanging of CC would be mostly a waste of time here.

I have a theory. In ACBL land you can't practicably invent anything new so there is a finite set of systems and conventions you can come across. You can agree a defence to all of them and never need look at a CC. Anywhere else though, you can come across weird home made stuff or simply something you've never heard of, so there is a real need to look at your opponent's CCs in case you have to quickly agree a defence, so there are rules about having to provide them to your opponents.

[jillybean]

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup
partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that
CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

[semeai]

jillybean, on 2012-September-04, 22:38, said:

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup
partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that
CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

In case you find yourself in this situation again, be aware that nothing horrible should befall you if you've had no discussion. Natural will do well enough for a hand.

[TimG]

Quantumcat, on 2012-September-04, 20:23, said:

I have a theory. In ACBL land you can't practicably invent anything new so there is a finite set of systems and conventions you can come across. You can agree a defence to all of them and never need look at a CC. Anywhere else though, you can come across weird home made stuff or simply something you've never heard of, so there is a real need to look at your opponent's CCs in case you have to quickly agree a defence, so there are rules about having to provide them to your opponents.

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-September-05, 06:33, said:

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

Seems to me the question is whether we in North America want a nice, bland, "everybody plays the same system" (more or less) world, or one that allows a little innovation and experimentation. Clearly ACBL management thinks the majority of their customers want the former (and they are probably right). I suppose that's good for the ACBL as a business, at least in the short run. But is it good for bridge? Sure we can let the Poles and the Australians (and probably others) take over the "innovations in bidding" field, but should we? For some of us, at least, stifling innovation severely lessens interest in the game.

Side prediction: George Rosenkranz is in his 90s. When he passes away, I expect it'll take the ACBL about two days to eliminate the artificial and forcing 1NT opening from the GCC - which sooner or later will effectively kill Romex, as no new players will be able to play it, even if the opening is moved to the Mid-Chart. I wouldn't really be surprised to see Romex end up on the trash heap with the Forcing Pass systems.

[jillybean]

TimG, on 2012-September-05, 06:33, said:

In ACBL, there are some methods that must be pre-alerted 9announced) prior to the round starting. I don't know for sure just what they are, but this surely takes care of some of the potential surprises that you'd want to know about. Really, in ACBLland there is little or no need for viewing opponents' convention cards. There is a reason people here take a cavalier approach to displaying them.

I disagree, there are many times that I have glanced at my opponents card to see what bids they have available, their carding or what ever.
It is often preferable to glance at the card rather than ask, create potential UI for partner and 'wake up' the opps.
In teams I study the card before the match.

[aguahombre]

jillybean, on 2012-September-04, 22:38, said:

As others have said, regular partnerships should not have a problem facing unannounced strong club, weak nt, it is the new and pickup
partnerships that have the problem. Already at a disadvantage due to lack of partnership experience, we better make sure to pry that
CC from under our opponents buttocks, peel off those stickers and check to see if they are playing any nefarious systems.

This is precisely my view. But, of course, that never stops me from adding things

1)Maybe there should be a separate section under IBLF for rants about practice vs. regs, which don't quite come up to suggestions for changes (yet). If a thread produces something substantial, it could then be streamlined and moved to the other forum ---and eventually might work its way to Grattan.

2)There just aint no way for a pick-up partnership to have discussed all of the variations to use based on what the opponents do; strong club systems are just one instance. We don't need the opponents' CC, but others absolutely do need it. They can see the NT range and quickly decide whether they consider it weak or strong and whether they want to change their methods over it. They can see the generic "short club" and reaffirm whether it affects what a takeout double should look like. They can prepare for certain 2-bids. All this from a quick glance at the front of a properly filled-out and available (ACBL) card.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2012-September-05, 08:47, said:

I disagree, there are many times that I have glanced at my opponents card to see what bids they have available, their carding or what ever.
It is often preferable to glance at the card rather than ask, create potential UI for partner and 'wake up' the opps.
In teams I study the card before the match.

And how often have you found something that required discussion with your partner?

And I doubt very much that asking will wake up the opps. It's rare that players with unusual things on their CC forget them, unless they're recent changes (I think my partner is finally getting the hang of Meckwell vs 1NT).

Or how about our Mexican 2♦? Are you going to read through all our notes on the response structure, so you don't have to ask what they mean? Do you think you'll remember it after a glance?

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-05, 07:45, said:

Seems to me the question is whether we in North America want a nice, bland, "everybody plays the same system" (more or less) world, or one that allows a little innovation and experimentation. Clearly ACBL management thinks the majority of their customers want the former (and they are probably right). I suppose that's good for the ACBL as a business, at least in the short run. But is it good for bridge? Sure we can let the Poles and the Australians (and probably others) take over the "innovations in bidding" field, but should we? For some of us, at least, stifling innovation severely lessens interest in the game.

Side prediction: George Rosenkranz is in his 90s. When he passes away, I expect it'll take the ACBL about two days to eliminate the artificial and forcing 1NT opening from the GCC - which sooner or later will effectively kill Romex, as no new players will be able to play it, even if the opening is moved to the Mid-Chart. I wouldn't really be surprised to see Romex end up on the trash heap with the Forcing Pass systems.

Yes, they want bland. The ACBL will not allow real innovation at the GCC level, it will only happen at mid-chart and higher, and they are doing their best to slow the innovation at the mid-chart level as well.

I can't remember the last time I thought I needed to see a opponent's CC.

When was the last time you encountered anyone playing Romex? Perhaps it enjoys some isolated pockets of popularity, but I rather doubt it. I have never encountered anyone playing it (though I know someone who used to pay it).

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2012-September-05, 12:46, said:

When was the last time you encountered anyone playing Romex? Perhaps it enjoys some isolated pockets of popularity, but I rather doubt it. I have never encountered anyone playing it (though I know someone who used to pay it).

I used to play it. There is a player here who frequently played against it - when she lived in Mexico. However, that's not really the point. Romex isn't that complicated a system - it's really 2/1 at heart, with more forcing openings (1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2NT). There's really no reason why it shouldn't be on the GCC — and frankly, no good reason why it isn't played more widely.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-05, 14:32, said:

I used to play it. There is a player here who frequently played against it - when she lived in Mexico. However, that's not really the point. Romex isn't that complicated a system - it's really 2/1 at heart, with more forcing openings (1NT, 2♣, 2♦, 2NT). There's really no reason why it shouldn't be on the GCC — and frankly, no good reason why it isn't played more widely.

The point is that there would be LOTS of unnecessary passing back and forth of CCs if you do it so that you can be warned your opponents are playing Romex. Much more efficient would be to have those players who play Romex announce such at the start of each round.

I played Polish Club for a while. We announced as much to the opponents at the start of each round -- a forcing club that might be natural or might be a weak NT is something that, while GCC legal, the opponents are unlikely to plan for.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on 2012-September-05, 14:48, said:

The point is that there would be LOTS of unnecessary passing back and forth of CCs if you do it

No, there wouldn't; in places where CCs are exchanged they are not returned until the end of the round.

[blackshoe]

And that would drive most players in North America absolutely bonkers.