[blackshoe]

The quote in the subject is from a thread in the appeals forum. It seems that in order to find the right ruling on the appeal in question, the AC needed to look at a pair's system cards. Unfortunately, neither member of this pair had one. In fact, iirc, it was suggested that 95% of the players in this tournament had no system card, in spite of a regulation requiring them to have one.

Frankly, I think this is a ridiculous situation. Either you enforce the regulation, or you cancel it. If you can't cancel it, then you try to get whatever authority is responsible to cancel it. If they will not, you enforce it — and if that means the death of your tournament, too bad. You cannot have a game without enforcement of the rules.

[Mike Myers]"Discuss amongst yourselves"[/Mike Myers]

[Cyberyeti]

Agreed **cough Formula 1 team orders cough**

[helene_t]

Lots of club players would benefit enormously from filling in an elaborate CC with their regular p as it would force them to discuss lots of undiscussed bidding situations.

But most players don't know how to fill in a CC and since their opps don't know how to read it either there is not much point.

Teachers should teach beginning bridge players to fill in convention cards. Then maybe future generations will comply with the regulations.

[cloa513]

There is no reason they can't fill some of it out like any conventions- the area of opening bids is mostly a waste of time.

[Oof Arted]

all my students are given the EBU Acol Simple systems convention Card

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on Sep 17 2010, 04:04 AM, said:

Either you enforce the regulation, or you cancel it.

I agree - but I usually get the impression that this is a uniquely British approach to rules!

(I'm reminded of an incident at the club earlier this week, when a lady used to playing in the US was extremely indignant at being expected to follow a rule she considered unnecessary - "only in England would this happen", she moaned to her partner, as if it was completely unreasonable to expect the game to be played by the rules.)

[NickRW]

helene_t, on Sep 17 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

Lots of club players would benefit enormously from filling in an elaborate CC with their regular p as it would force them to discuss lots of undiscussed bidding situations.

Part of the problem, particularly at club level, is that a lot of the players do not have what you or I would call a regular p. They play every 2nd Monday of the month with Mildred and the 3rd Monday with George and 4th Friday with xyz and so on amassing as many as 8 or so partners that they play once a month with. I am sure many other clubs in all sorts of places in the world are similar. On top of that they play casually and actively do not want to have a lot of complex agreements. Such players tend to form the majority in a lot of clubs - and their money is as good as anyone elses - so they tend to be allowed to continue in this blissful vein - and frankly - I don't really see why they shouldn't.

Nick

[paulg]

I have seen the Scottish directors give pairs the SBU Simple System Convention Card during a tournament when a complaint has been made about the lack of a card. He told that they would be using it for the rest of the session and advised studying it between rounds.

It is surprisingly effective and probably not done often enough.

Club bridge, as Nick says, is quite different.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

The quote in the subject is from a thread in the appeals forum. It seems that in order to find the right ruling on the appeal in question, the AC needed to look at a pair's system cards. Unfortunately, neither member of this pair had one. In fact, iirc, it was suggested that 95% of the players in this tournament had no system card, in spite of a regulation requiring them to have one.

Frankly, I think this is a ridiculous situation. Either you enforce the regulation, or you cancel it. If you can't cancel it, then you try to get whatever authority is responsible to cancel it. If they will not, you enforce it — and if that means the death of your tournament, too bad. You cannot have a game without enforcement of the rules.

[Mike Myers]"Discuss amongst yourselves"[/Mike Myers]

I think in general it's fine that certain rules are enforced differently (or not at all) at certain levels of the game but not others.

Anyway I disagree with "You cannot have a game without enforcement of the rules." In fact I can prove you are wrong so long as that tournament exists.

[jillybean]

cardsharp, on Sep 17 2010, 08:25 AM, said:

I have seen the Scottish directors give pairs the SBU Simple System Convention Card during a tournament when a complaint has been made about the lack of a card. He told that they would be using it for the rest of the session and advised studying it between rounds.

It is surprisingly effective and probably not done often enough.

Club bridge, as Nick says, is quite different.

I disagree with this, club bridge should be no different.

I am beginning to think that some of the opponents I play against who have little information on their CC’s do in fact have a myriad of implicit agreements that should be on their CC or disclosed. They have been playing together for 40+ years and in their words, play largely “by feel”.

My partner and I have a fully completed CC and disclose appropriately. If we didn’t or forgot, I would expect the laws to be applied as per the book.

[Vampyr]

I think that players who play unusual methods should have a convention card. At this same tournament in Pula, there was a pair (without CCs) who opened 2NT against us; this was some sort of weak 2-suiter. This didn't trouble my partner and me, but it is easy to imagine a pair who would have been totally unprepared for such an opening bid; in fact if I had played with one of the other people I played with at this tournament, we WOULD have been totally unprepared

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

If they will not, you enforce it — and if that means the death of your tournament, too bad. You cannot have a game without enforcement of the rules.

This is the ideal, but no organiser will jeopardise the tournament in this way. There is already an effective penalty in not having a convention card, in that 21B1b states:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps the CoC should clarify that all cases of doubt will be resolved against the pair without a CC. And that claims of UI against a pair who need to ask about an alerted bid will tend to be rejected as they had no opportunity to read a CC in advance.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on Sep 17 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Perhaps the CoC should clarify that all cases of doubt will be resolved against the pair without a CC. And that claims of UI against a pair who need to ask about an alerted bid will tend to be rejected as they had no opportunity to read a CC in advance.

That would help, but I bet there would still be objections on the grounds that "it will kill the tournament".

Sometimes I get the sense that there are a lot of people out there who ignore the rules when it suits them, and a lot of others who let them get away with it because they're afraid the ignorers won't come to the event - whatever it is, including clubs - if they apply the laws. Personally, I think that's an incredibly poor way to run a game.

[NickRW]

There are always objections when you make a change.

Some months ago my club put me in charge of team selection for matches outside the club. I said fine - but we don't get any practice playing teams - the odd 5th Monday of the month for "random teams" (which only happens half the time due to an odd number of pairs showing up) is not enough. So I suggested a dozen sessions a year of IMP pairs to give the keener/better players a chance to play under IMP scoring and get some practice. The committee agreed. Moan, moan, moan from a few - mainly those who don't know the difference and to whom it probably makes no difference anyway.

A few weeks ago I decided to try out using a round timer when I direct. Generally good reception from most - but a few - moan moan moan.

The club has a markedly better field N/S than E/W. The secretary wants to break this up and have tables cut for who sits N/S. It is about to happen - and I know what the reception will be - moan moan moan from a few.

Thats life. One has to decide what rules and regulations you want - enforce those - lose anyone who really doesn't like it - hopefully not too many or you probably made the wrong decision - and get on with it.

Nick

[blackshoe]

Heh. Some years ago, before the club here began using a round timer, the TD announced, part way through a round "do not start any more boards". We were just finishing board two of three. North, after scoring board two, pulled her hand out of the third board, saying "let's play it, she (the TD) won't notice." She was incensed when I refused.

We've been using the timer for about a year now. In an effort to get more boards in during the three hours the TD wants a session to last, she's cut the time per board by a full minute. This suits some people just fine. Others are, at this pace, at great difficulty to keep up. Couple that with a tendency of pairs to move as soon as they're done, even when the round has not been called, and to grab boards off the next table as soon as they do that, and you end up with some tables halfway through round N+1 when round N hasn't been called yet. The TD's "solution"? "Maybe I ought to just scrap the damn clock."

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2010, 10:04 PM, said:

There is already an effective penalty in not having a convention card, in that 21B1b states:

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps the CoC should clarify that all cases of doubt will be resolved against the pair without a CC. And that claims of UI against a pair who need to ask about an alerted bid will tend to be rejected as they had no opportunity to read a CC in advance.

Why bother to put more into CoC than already is there? Who reads the CoC anyway? This law is clear and all the Director needs to do is to enforce it rather strictly. (That also includes dismissing UI allegations for questions on calls not declared on an available CC)

[mgoetze]

NickRW, on Sep 17 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

The club has a markedly better field N/S than E/W. The secretary wants to break this up and have tables cut for who sits N/S. It is about to happen - and I know what the reception will be - moan moan moan from a few.

Wow... so you'd have a real riot on your hands if you tried to get them to play a Howell, huh?

[nige1]

A game is its rules.
Enforce the rules or change them. At all levels.
Otherwise you encourage players to break the rules and handicap those who comply with them.
Simple.

[paulg]

nige1, on Sep 18 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

A game is its rules.
Enforce the rules or change them. At all levels.
Otherwise you encourage players to break the rules and handicap those who comply with them.
Simple.

It is probably fair to say that at Nick's club, and my local too, that the de facto rule is that it is not necessary for pairs to have a convention card if they are playing the 'club standard' system.

[Vampyr]

NickRW, on Sep 17 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

The club has a markedly better field N/S than E/W.  The secretary wants to break this up and have tables cut for who sits N/S.  It is about to happen - and I know what the reception will be - moan moan moan from a few.

Why not just refuse to reserve tables in advance, and so reward players who get there in good time and want to play North/South?

In any case, it may be that the disadvantage of playing in a stronger line (or the advantage of playing in a weaker line) is greatly reduced by arrow-switching. I doubt it, but maybe better-informed people can correct me if I am wrong.