[mr1303]

Based on a comment from Lamford in a previous thread.

N/S play a complicated strong club system. This is the second set of a two session event. Unfortunately, whilst they had a convention card (each) for the first session, somewhere during the lunch break it went missing.

East is the equivalent of the Secretary Bird who calls you to the table and demands that NS play a simple systems card.

North says that that is ridiculous, since a) a good 3 or 4 pairs haven't had convention cards in this event, and b) he doesn't know how to play the EBU simple system anyway.

How do you rule?

[nige1]

mr1303, on 2014-January-01, 17:30, said:

Based on a comment from Lamford in a previous thread. N/S play a complicated strong club system. This is the second set of a two session event. Unfortunately, whilst they had a convention card (each) for the first session, somewhere during the lunch break it went missing.
East is the equivalent of the Secretary Bird who calls you to the table and demands that NS play a simple systems card.
North says that that is ridiculous, since a) a good 3 or 4 pairs haven't had convention cards in this event, and b) he doesn't know how to play the EBU simple system anyway. How do you rule?

If no duplicating machine is available, and you don't have an electronic copy of your SC then the director might allow you to take a photo on a camera, tablet, or 'phone and print it. If no printer is available, then the director might allow opponents to share your SC, provided you waive potential claims for resulting UI. Otherwise, you may have to play simple system. Perhaps the director could allow you both a couple of minutes to read it. I often lose my card but opponents don't usually call the director.

[ggwhiz]

I went to dinner at the Canadian team trials and a guy said that his opponents arrived 5 minutes late, listened to his pre-alerts, pulled their cards out of the box and said "Oh by the way, we play this".

And put 2 pages of laminated crap in front of him. He then said "They won't be doing that next round" and produced all 4 laminated pages which he had scooped when they weren't looking.

Fair ball and SAYC rules with the onus on them not to disadvantage the opponents. I believe that playing complicated things that require above average/frequent disclosure is fine but comes with additional responsibility.

[Vampyr]

mr1303, on 2014-January-01, 17:30, said:

North says that that is ridiculous, since a) a good 3 or 4 pairs haven't had convention cards in this event, and b) he doesn't know how to play the EBU simple system anyway.

How do you rule?

Maybe it seems unfair that one pair out if three or four should be punished, but that's life. Besides, maybe it isn't that unfair as per ggwhiz's comment above.

If a pair is required to play EBU simple system, but don't know how, then they will be giving misinformation frequently; that plus not knowing what is on the card will cause this pair's scores to plummet.

[blackshoe]

mr1303, on 2014-January-01, 17:30, said:

Based on a comment from Lamford in a previous thread.

N/S play a complicated strong club system. This is the second set of a two session event. Unfortunately, whilst they had a convention card (each) for the first session, somewhere during the lunch break it went missing.

East is the equivalent of the Secretary Bird who calls you to the table and demands that NS play a simple systems card.

North says that that is ridiculous, since a) a good 3 or 4 pairs haven't had convention cards in this event, and b) he doesn't know how to play the EBU simple system anyway.

How do you rule?

In accordance with the regulations in force. Incidentally, North's objections are irrelevant.

The Blue Book says, at 3A1, that "The TD may impose a penalty if a pair does not have two properly completed system cards." It doesn't say anything about requiring them to play a simple systems card. Perhaps that's elsewhere in the book, or in some other regulation. But based on 3A1, an ongoing penalty of 10% of a top for each board they play without each having a card to exchange with opps is certainly possible. And I'm not giving them extra time to fill it out. Get on with the game. Now.

[nige1]

ggwhiz, on 2014-January-01, 18:12, said:

I went to dinner at the Canadian team trials and a guy said that his opponents arrived 5 minutes late, listened to his pre-alerts, pulled their cards out of the box and said "Oh by the way, we play this".
And put 2 pages of laminated crap in front of him. He then said "They won't be doing that next round" and produced all 4 laminated pages which he had scooped when they weren't looking. Fair ball and SAYC rules with the onus on them not to disadvantage the opponents. I believe that playing complicated things that require above average/frequent disclosure is fine but comes with additional responsibility

Many Scottish players play simple 2/1 but Scottish trialists must still post system-cards on the net, well in advance of trials, to allow time to prepare defences.

I deplore the actions of ggwhiz's dinner-companion, no matter how much it was provoked by opponents. Is this another case of a top-player, across the pond, adopting Hamman's "We play Hardball" strategy instead of calling the director?

Sometimes, one of your opponents picks up your detailed system-card and drops it immediately, with the protest "I'm not reading all that crap". When you examine their sparse card, you may imagine that he has a point. You discover too late that, in reality, their system is more complex than yours -- it is just that they're "economical with the truth".

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2014-January-01, 18:12, said:

I went to dinner at the Canadian team trials and a guy said that his opponents arrived 5 minutes late, listened to his pre-alerts, pulled their cards out of the box and said "Oh by the way, we play this".

And put 2 pages of laminated crap in front of him. He then said "They won't be doing that next round" and produced all 4 laminated pages which he had scooped when they weren't looking.

Fair ball and SAYC rules with the onus on them not to disadvantage the opponents. I believe that playing complicated things that require above average/frequent disclosure is fine but comes with additional responsibility.

At least the lamination would have masked the smell.

I would have called the director as soon as they presented the pages, and said to him "they were five minutes late getting to the table. I believe we're entitled to time to absorb and discuss how to handle what they've presented on these pages, and that any penalties for slow play because of their lateness and their complicated system should fall on them." As a director, I would rule that way. I have some sympathy for your guy, but I don't think stealing the opponents' property was the right way to handle it.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-01, 21:23, said:

In accordance with the regulations in force. Incidentally, North's objections are irrelevant.

The Blue Book says, at 3A1, that "The TD may impose a penalty if a pair does not have two properly completed system cards." It doesn't say anything about requiring them to play a simple systems card. Perhaps that's elsewhere in the book, or in some other regulation. But based on 3A1, an ongoing penalty of 10% of a top for each board they play without each having a card to exchange with opps is certainly possible. And I'm not giving them extra time to fill it out. Get on with the game. Now.

It's often in the CoC for English events, but it isn't a standing regulation for all events. The event that led to this thread includes

Quote

You are required to have a pair of identical completed convention cards and you should exchange them with your opponents at the start of each round. If you do not have two completed convention cards, you may be provided with an EBU Simple System card and required to play it.

So the TD doesn't have to impose simple system cards but he can if he wishes to.

I also have no sympathy for the pair concerned. If you play a complex system, you have disclosure obligations.

p.s. in practice, I don't think I've seen simple system enforced but it's used as a threat along with 'here are two blank cards. fill these in sharpish or you will have to play simple system'
I heard a rumour once that a pair in the junior camrose were forced to play simple system, but I can't remember the details.

[gordontd]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-04, 04:08, said:

I heard a rumour once that a pair in the junior camrose were forced to play simple system, but I can't remember the details.

Yes, this happened last year because Bridge Great Britain, under whose regulations this is run, has this as a mandatory sanction (for the first match) against pairs who fail to submit their system cards in time.

[PhilKing]

gordontd, on 2014-January-04, 04:17, said:

Yes, this happened last year because Bridge Great Britain, under whose regulations this is run, has this as a mandatory sanction (for the first match) against pairs who fail to submit their system cards in time.

Presumably that means about half the field.

[ggwhiz]

nige1, on 2014-January-01, 21:31, said:

I deplore the actions of ggwhiz's dinner-companion, no matter how much it was provoked by opponents. Is this another case of a top-player, across the pond, adopting Hamman's "We play Hardball" strategy instead of calling the director?

Just for the record I agree 100% with you but I was only involved as a witness.