[jillybean]

Playing in teams event at a local sectional. ACBL

It all started during an auction P (P) 1nt 12-14 (X), no alert

I asked LHO for his convention card, no card available.
I then asked for RHO convention card, defence to NT was completed but had been crossed out with horizontal lines drawn over it.
I called the director and explained the situation and was told “I could ask”
When I objected to asking about their conventions as it would allow the opponents to confirm their agreements, the director took the X'er away from the table, I assume asked about their agreements, came back and again told me “I could ask”.
I again objected, the director told the opposition to have 2 CC's completed before the start of the next match and left the table.
We played that board (#3of7) without the information we are entitled to.
While waiting for the remaining boards to come to our table, I went back to the director and asked for the opposition to complete a convention card before we played the remaining boards. My request was refused.

Why was my LHO not sent away from the table while RHO explained their agreements?
Why are players allowed to ignore the Conditions of Contest which clearly state that both players MUST have a completed convention card available for their opponents?

After the event, I spoke to the head director and explained the situation. I was told I needed to “relax”, that the directors decide when a pair needs to complete their convention card so as not to delay the game and that “if they enforced all the regulations, they would have no players coming back”.

I was also told that I would be 'protected' while our opponents did not have a completed convention card. While this may be acceptable for the board in question, I find it very unsatisfactory for subsequent boards. I expect to play bridge in accordance with the laws, not a guessing game with artificial adjusted scores.

How has this game which has a detailed, clearly published, set of rules been diminished to a game where the players influence which rules are followed and enforced and directors are more happy to slap a penalty on a player with an inactive cell phone in their hand rather than a pair with no convention card?

[pescetom]

You labelled this ACBL but it is common to much if not all the world.
It's already a minor miracle that opps had a CC and were prepared to show it, mysterious deletions or not.
And yes I've never found a Director that was willing to enforce the rules in this respect.
But I guess ultimately it depends upon players to respect the rules and the spirit of the game and to demand that others do the same.
If only a minority of us do so then it isn't wholly the fault of Directors and the RA.

[blackshoe]

“if they enforced all the regulations, they would have no players coming back”

"And if you don't enforce the regulations, you'll have no players coming back except those who gain advantage from your failure to enforce the rules."

I would report this incident, and your concerns, to the DIC's Field Supervisor.

[eagles123]

what "simple ruling" are you asking for, or did u just fancy having a rant?

[DozyDom]

eagles123, on 2018-September-09, 13:37, said:

what "simple ruling" are you asking for, or did u just fancy having a rant?

It's a complaint about a simple ruling. Is there a problem with putting that in the simple rulings forum?


On the actual topic, it's only come up twice for me. Once our opponents were missing their cards - we encountered no problems, but a pair in a later round did object, and the directors directed the players to fill in cards. It was all very efficient.

The second occasion, however, is probably part of why directors are reluctant to enforce this law too strictly. My partner's train had been delayed and he'd arrived some ten minutes late. As usual, we then gave a brief summary of our methods, and they did the same. They then noticed we had only one card between us. This, they claimed, was unacceptable. Play could not start, as far as they were concerned, until a director had been called, the situation explained at great length with much repetition, and a card filled in with as much detail as possible. When the match finished - with about 8 seconds to spare - they hadn't given that new card a single glance. It was fairly obvious that the only reason they had wanted it was to try for a procedural penalty, and that's the reason directors are over-cautious: because there's the occasional pair who aren't interested in the actual cards, just in discomforting and profiting off the opponents. Obviously here it looks like there was a simple solution and the director ignored it, though.

[barmar]

While there may indeed be a CoC saying they have to have two identical CCs, what's the actual damage you incurred from them only having one? If the other CC also had the NT defense crossed out you'd be no more the wiser. If it didn't, you'd complain that the cards are not identical.

Meanwhile, you violated the law that says you have to obey the directions of the TD. He told you you could ask about their agreements, it's your place to object to this method. Did you really expect them to stop playing in the middle of the round and fill out a CC? That takes about the time it takes to play a board.

In some tournaments, the supposed rectification for not having proper CCs is that you're required to play a predefined system (e.g. SAYC). While this sounds reasonable on paper, in practice it's not likely to work out well. They probably don't actually know what SAYC really says, and you're not allowed to look at your own CC (and even if they were given an exemption from this, there are details that aren't on the CC). So they'll likely be playing different systems -- each will play what they think SAYC is.

So I'm really not sure what you expected to accomplish by acting like a SB over this.

[mcphee]

You found it annoying the director let it slide. It sounds to me that you were playing a pair not very experienced, asking would have solved all, who cares if one suddenly gets to remember what they are doing.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

Did you really expect them to stop playing in the middle of the round and fill out a CC? That takes about the time it takes to play a board.

Filling out a CC with enough accurate detail to be useful takes a lot longer than playing a board, it doesn't seem to be a realistic option at all. That's why people should be (and are) obliged to fill it out before the tournament.

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

In some tournaments, the supposed rectification for not having proper CCs is that you're required to play a predefined system (e.g. SAYC). While this sounds reasonable on paper, in practice it's not likely to work out well. They probably don't actually know what SAYC really says, and you're not allowed to look at your own CC (and even if they were given an exemption from this, there are details that aren't on the CC). So they'll likely be playing different systems -- each will play what they think SAYC is.

I see no reason why this should not work out well. All the tournament organiser has to do is provide actual CCs for the standard systems allowed ("here, play this SAYC") and perhaps relax the rules about consulting one's own CC for those playing a standard.

[hrothgar]

You need a CC to maintain the moral high ground...

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:11, said:

Meanwhile, you violated the law that says you have to obey the directions of the TD.

Which law is that?

[axman]

jillybean, on 2018-September-09, 12:07, said:

Playing in teams event at a local sectional. ACBL

It all started during an auction P (P) 1nt 12-14 (X), no alert

I asked LHO for his convention card, no card available.
I then asked for RHO convention card, defence to NT was completed but had been crossed out with horizontal lines drawn over it.
I called the director and explained the situation and was told “I could ask”
When I objected to asking about their conventions as it would allow the opponents to confirm their agreements, the director took the X'er away from the table, I assume asked about their agreements, came back and again told me “I could ask”.
I again objected, the director told the opposition to have 2 CC's completed before the start of the next match and left the table.
We played that board (#3of7) without the information we are entitled to.
While waiting for the remaining boards to come to our table, I went back to the director and asked for the opposition to complete a convention card before we played the remaining boards. My request was refused.

Why was my LHO not sent away from the table while RHO explained their agreements?
Why are players allowed to ignore the Conditions of Contest which clearly state that both players MUST have a completed convention card available for their opponents?

After the event, I spoke to the head director and explained the situation. I was told I needed to “relax”, that the directors decide when a pair needs to complete their convention card so as not to delay the game and that “if they enforced all the regulations, they would have no players coming back”.

I was also told that I would be 'protected' while our opponents did not have a completed convention card. While this may be acceptable for the board in question, I find it very unsatisfactory for subsequent boards. I expect to play bridge in accordance with the laws, not a guessing game with artificial adjusted scores.

How has this game which has a detailed, clearly published, set of rules been diminished to a game where the players influence which rules are followed and enforced and directors are more happy to slap a penalty on a player with an inactive cell phone in their hand rather than a pair with no convention card?

I would not believe the bit about being protected. After all, they didn't protect anybody but the law breakers when you sought protection....

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-10, 08:44, said:

Which law is that?

Seriously? I managed to find it first try from the table of contents, so it's not terribly obscure.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2018-September-10, 09:32, said:

Seriously? I managed to find it first try from the table of contents, so it's not terribly obscure.

I suspect that if you tell me which law you found, I might just be able to tell you why you're wrong.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-10, 15:12, said:

I suspect that if you tell me which law you found, I might just be able to tell you why you're wrong.

I didn't go any further than Law 90 - Procedural Penalties:

Quote

B. Offences Subject to Procedural Penalty
8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-September-10, 06:06, said:

Filling out a CC with enough accurate detail to be useful takes a lot longer than playing a board, it doesn't seem to be a realistic option at all. That's why people should be (and are) obliged to fill it out before the tournament.

That's if you're discussing your agreements while filling it out. Just copying partner's CC so you have two copies shouldn't take as long.

[barmar]

I think you're also losing sight of the rationale for the requirement to have two identical CCs.

Having two CCs addresses the situation where both opponents need to look at the CC at the same time. But if your partner wasn't trying to examine the CC while you were, there's no actual damage from having only one CC.

And when there are two CCs, the requirement that they be identical ensures that there's no confusion about which agreements apply.

Yes, this is a rule and it should be enforced. But sometimes we let things go with "no harm, no foul".

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 15:43, said:

That's if you're discussing your agreements while filling it out. Just copying partner's CC so you have two copies shouldn't take as long.

Maybe the CCs in your RA are quite different from those in use here. Ours is a fairly detailed affair that takes up both sides of a Letter/A4 page with 9-scale font, you would need a very clear caligraphy and at least fifteen minutes to fill it in by hand even assuming you knew exactly what to write.
If you just need a second copy we have a printer that will do that in less than a minute.

barmar, on 2018-September-10, 15:48, said:

I think you're also losing sight of the rationale for the requirement to have two identical CCs.

Having two CCs addresses the situation where both opponents need to look at the CC at the same time. But if your partner wasn't trying to examine the CC while you were, there's no actual damage from having only one CC.

Probably this is addressed to someone else, I never discussed this requirement.
But I always bring two paper copies plus a pdf in internet, both opponents might need to look and no reason to give them a pretext to complain.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2018-September-10, 15:25, said:

I didn't go any further than Law 90 - Procedural Penalties:

That's what I figured. This law does not state that players must follow the instructions of the director. It states that a player who does not do that is subject to penalty. About the closest thing in the laws that says "do what the director says" is the introduction's "Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling".

It is of course implicit that if players are not going to follow the director's instructions the game falls apart. But it is not explicit.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2018-September-10, 16:53, said:

Maybe the CCs in your RA are quite different from those in use here.

I think the following quote from a book published in the US is germane: "You can even write your conventions down on the back of your scorecard!" -- Alex Groner, Duplicate Decisions, ca. 1956.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2018-September-10, 21:31, said:

That's what I figured. This law does not state that players must follow the instructions of the director. It states that a player who does not do that is subject to penalty. About the closest thing in the laws that says "do what the director says" is the introduction's "Players should be ready to accept graciously any rectification, penalty, or ruling".

It is of course implicit that if players are not going to follow the director's instructions the game falls apart. But it is not explicit.

Sorry, but this isn't even good sophistry. The terms 'offences' and 'failure to comply' are fairly explicit.