[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-15, 12:10, said:

And they will call the director, and he will want to know why you're being so unreasonable.

That ain't gonna happen. He will already know why I am so "unreasonable", since I called him when the CC disappeared the previous time(s).

Rik

[BudH]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-08, 11:15, said:

Let's see: bidding box, coffee mug, snack plate, score sheet, system card. Where does all this stuff go? You've got about nine square inches in your right corner for it all.

Nine square inches, less about 4 square inches for the coffee, less about nine square inches for the snack plate, less about six square inches for the bidding box. You should be able to put (some people will say "hide") your system card and score sheet under all that, but even so, 9-4-9-6 is -10 square inches. "Simple," you say, "don't bring coffee or a snack plate to the table," — good luck with that — "or pull up a spare chair and put your coffee and snack plate there". Unfortunately, there's only so many spare chairs — you're not likely to get one.

AFAICS, the biggest problem with ACBL system cards is that they are so poorly designed that nobody wants to look at them, so it doesn't matter where you put it — but it's still got to be on the table, and preferably not under your bidding box, or some SB will complain to the director. And of course, you can't hand it to the SB and let him worry about where to put it, because he won't take it.

And these days, don't forget about the Bridgemate or Bridgepad (or similar electronic scoring device) if you are sitting North.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-December-03, 20:00, said:

The rule that there must be TWO CCs also seems pretty silly. Obviously, if there are two CC's, it makes sense to require that they be identical, since the inconsistencies can result in MI (if an opponent looks at the wrong one) and prevents the director from using the CC as evidence in determining MI or LAs. But how are opponents impacted if the partnership only has one CC? If we had a tradition of exchanging CCs at the beginning of a round, it would make it difficult for each opponent to review the CC at the same time, but we don't geneally do this so there's little harm (in my experience, if a pair likes to review the opponents' CC at the beginning of the round, often just one of them does it and he mentions the important features to his partner).

If you want people to do things in a particular way, it is common to move slowly in that direction. So perhaps in a few years the ACBL will move to exchanging cards.

As for it being pretty silly, when I played at the Orlando and Seattle nationals [sadly I missed this year ] my partner and I both looked at their CCs at the start of all 6+ board rounds, and several 2 board rounds. It would be even sillier to look through a card while partner is waiting for her turn.

gnasher, on 2012-December-06, 04:18, said:

Presumably they're playing their illegal method because they think it gains them IMPs. If they know that it's illegal, there's no qualitative difference between that and using hand-signals. I think you should have been a PITA.

I have played against a lot of people playing illegal methods in England. I very much doubt that as many as 10% of them know they are illegal.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 04:34, said:

There is a slight issue with this, if this was seriously enforced, if a pair upset me, all I'd have to do is surreptitiously walk off with their CC after I finish playing them to flush it down the toilet and watch them get caned in the next round.

Like any other form of cheating, that is fine until you get found out and expelled from the tournament.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-December-06, 12:03, said:

This is as bad as the pair who claimed as they sat down to be playing benji acol, open 2♣ and only later in the auction did I find out it could be a weak 2 in diamonds as well as the strong meaning (after we'd used our strong opening bid defence).

Twice in the last month I have played a against a pair who claimed to be playing "Benji Acol" - I mean two different pairs. Both were playing 5-card majors and a short club - and Benjamin Twos. On neither occasion was I damaged in any way, so I merely told the TD and left him to deal with them.

[bluejak]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-09, 11:22, said:

My regular partner doesn't keep a private score, so he doesn't have a cc unless I give him one.

Different strokes for different folks.

I have played in the nationals in Orlando and Seattle. I gave up keeping a personal score-card a few years back. Does that mean I do not have an SC? Of course not: my partner and I had fully laminated SCs plus defences as required. It is not difficult to follow these regs.

Vampyr, on 2012-December-11, 18:27, said:

You could, if you wanted, score on the back side of a previously-used convention card; then your current card and your scoresheet would be separate.

The trouble is that people won't. The solution starts with the ACBL printing SCs with a space for Notes but no score-card on the back.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-12, 10:11, said:

Exchange of CCs with the opponents is not "the normal way" in the ACBL, as you well know, Stef.

Vampyr, on 2012-December-12, 10:24, said:

Yes, I do know that; but it is normal in most other places and is best. I meant that in the ACBL the "normal way" could be adopted.

I am not sure this is true. Certainly people are good at keeping and to a lesser extent exchanging SCs in England and Wales, and fairly good in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

But I have just played in Eire with a very pretty new pair of laminated Irish SCs. Three days,no opponent looked at them once. Few opponents had an SC.

I have played in South Africa twice, coming to about 12 days in all. No SCs at all on the first occasion. Ok, I lied, my partner and I had them. On the second occasion about one pair in ten had them. No-one ever looked at ours.

France was a little better, though not a lot!

jillybean, on 2012-December-12, 16:23, said:

I believe the mentality is that the CC is mine and the opponents should keep their hands off it. I've asked to look at an opponent’s CC, the request has obviously made the player uncomfortable and when I put the CC back they have picked it up and put it at the other side of the table, out my reach. Others hold onto it and "show" it to you.
These are the players who do not understand that the CC is for the opponents use.

I suspect the first move to get people to do it right is for SCs to be produced in future with two major changes. First, no score-card on the back. Second, as well as saying "ASK, DO NOT ASSUME" they should also say "SYSTEM CARDS ARE FOR OPPONENTS' BENEFIT".

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-December-23, 17:42, said:

As for it being pretty silly, when I played at the Orlando and Seattle nationals [sadly I missed this year ] my partner and I both looked at their CCs at the start of all 6+ board rounds, and several 2 board rounds. It would be even sillier to look through a card while partner is waiting for her turn.

As I mentioned when someone else pointed this out, one of you can read it and point out to the other the significant aspects. In fact, even when there are two CCs, this is a pretty common process among many partnerships. "They're playing weak NT, so we're using Cappalletti, right?"

[aguahombre]

Point that pair out to me in advance. We will switch to wk nt.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-23, 22:04, said:

Point that pair out to me in advance. We will switch to wk nt.

My guess is at least 75% of ACBL players who play conventional defenses to NT use Capp against all NT ranges, and of the ones who use a different defense against strong and weak NT, probably 90% play Capp against weak.

I assumed what you wanted was to be pointed out the pairs that play Capp, not the ones who mention their defense aloud when reading the opp's CC.

[aguahombre]

If they only use it against wk nt, we will switch. Yes, I know we can't do that. Pick an emoticon

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-December-23, 21:58, said:

As I mentioned when someone else pointed this out, one of you can read it and point out to the other the significant aspects. In fact, even when there are two CCs, this is a pretty common process among many partnerships. "They're playing weak NT, so we're using Cappalletti, right?"

Thank you for telling me what we can do. Why the heck should we do it your way and not the way we prefer?

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-December-24, 14:24, said:

Thank you for telling me what we can do. Why the heck should we do it your way and not the way we prefer?

If you read back through the read, you'll see that I'm not condoning having only once CC, just saying that it's not the major problem some people are making it out to be. It's a minor inconvenience, that's all. If it's more than that to you, you're a curmudgeon, IMO.

Having conflicting CC's is a much worse offense. (Like the old joke: a man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two isn't sure.)

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-23, 22:24, said:

If they only use it against wk nt, we will switch. Yes, I know we can't do that. Pick an emoticon

What's interesting is that in the EBU, you are allowed to change your system when playing against specific pairs. But I guess you can't do that based on their defense to a particular NT range, because you can't change your methods based on their defense. So, unless the EBU regulations contain a huge contradiction, you can switch your range against this pair, as long as they have been pointed out to you in advance, as you suggested.

Now this seems that it cannot be right, but I don't see a way out...

[aguahombre]

Sorry I mentioned it.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-December-24, 19:17, said:

If you read back through the read, you'll see that I'm not condoning having only once CC, just saying that it's not the major problem some people are making it out to be. It's a minor inconvenience, that's all. If it's more than that to you, you're a curmudgeon, IMO.

Having conflicting CC's is a much worse offense. (Like the old joke: a man with one watch knows what time it is, a man with two isn't sure.)

Let's get this straight: my partner and I play bridge in a particular way, and you suggest doing so means we are curmudgeons, is that right?

I cannot think of anything polite to say about your view. I don't tell you how to play bridge: you think you have the right to tell me. Thanks a bunch.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-December-24, 19:17, said:

If you read back through the read, you'll see that I'm not condoning having only once CC, just saying that it's not the major problem some people are making it out to be. It's a minor inconvenience, that's all. If it's more than that to you, you're a curmudgeon, IMO.

It's more than a minor inconvenience to me, because sometimes it adversely affects my score.

Consider this example: I'm in third seat at favourable, with a weak hand. Partner and RHO pass. I might preempt, or I might psyche 1NT. If I knew that the opponents were playing artificial doubles of 1NT openings, I would open 1NT. If I knew that the opponents were playing penalty doubles of 1NT openings, I would preempt. The opponents' only convention card is on the other side of the table. How can I find out what I want to know without tipping off the opponents as to what I want to know, and without giving my partner UI?

In England there would be a convention card in front of me, or at worse under the bidding box. I might well be able to look at the relevant part of the card unobtrusively.

[blackshoe]

Would the information you need always be on the front of the card? If what you want to know is on the inside or the back, "unobtrusively" kinda goes out the window.

[f0rdy]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-26, 09:17, said:

Would the information you need always be on the front of the card? If what you want to know is on the inside or the back, "unobtrusively" kinda goes out the window.

This is what I haven't understood throughout this discussion. Those who believe they can unobtrusively make use of the opponents' CC during the bidding, how/where do you put it? Do you memorise the back and then hook it under a bidding box open at the inside? Keep it on your lap?

The only part of the card I think I can unobtrusively read is the carding methods, which is useful because I've never found a way of phrasing the question "What are your carding methods" which produces useful answers from more than one pair in a hundred.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-December-25, 19:21, said:

Let's get this straight: my partner and I play bridge in a particular way, and you suggest doing so means we are curmudgeons, is that right?

No, I think making a mountain out of a molehill means you're a curmudgeon.

[blackshoe]

<sigh> Take it easy, you two.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-26, 09:17, said:

Would the information you need always be on the front of the card? If what you want to know is on the inside or the back, "unobtrusively" kinda goes out the window.

On a good day, at the start of the round I will have glanced at the front of the card to find out their basic system, then turned it over to expose the competitive bidding stuff, and put it somewhere I could see it - in front of me, or on a side table, or on my lap, or wedged under a bidding box with most of the card protruding outwards.

I don't always do that, of course, but if I haven't it's my problem. What I mind is somebody making it impossible for me to do this.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-26, 11:10, said:

<sigh> Take it easy, you two.

If any two people who were not admins were having this conversation, the thread would have been locked