[peachy]

helene_t, on Mar 14 2010, 04:42 PM, said:

Agree that opps should have called the TD. But especially since they are foreigner's who don't know the local customs and may be reluctant to calling the TD (in some areas it is not comme il faut to call the TD too often), I think it would be prudent for you or your p to call the TD.

This was the Finals of a two day nationally rated event in North American Bridge Championships [first day was the qualification] with strong field and many international participants. Knowledge of local customs IMO is irrelevant.

This thread has become a nightmare and tangented off to several directions. My fault for starting it! Appreciate everybody's comments.

[bluejak]

gwnn, on Mar 14 2010, 08:45 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

It may be unauthorized, but that's not Peachy's problem, it's his partner's. Let him worry about it.

Isn't it best to try not to give any UI thereby letting partner worry about more important things? (honest question, maybe it's not)

No, not giving MI to opponents [which is an infraction] is more important than not giving UI to partner [which is not an infraction].



As for not calling the TD, that's wrong. When in doubt, call the TD.

[Vampyr]

cardsharp, on Mar 14 2010, 04:53 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 14 2010, 03:14 PM, said:

Perhaps the ACBL should ban foreign players from playing in the NABCs or joining the ACBL.

In my experience, if the criteria were knowing the alerting regulations, filling out the convention card and exchanging it at the start of the round, I think there would be more foreigners left than locals.

There would certainly be a lot of English players remaining. We are pretty good about it here.

The last time I was at a Nationals, I asked for my opponent's convention card during the round. When I had looked at it and put it down, she snatched it back out of my reach. The asking and snatching occurred several times during a 2- or 3-board match. Apparently ACBL players do not quite understand the purpose of convention cards.

[cherdanno]

I don't think "systems on" here applies over doubles, I would think it just covers (1x) 1N (P) ?.

[Vampyr]

cherdanno, on Mar 15 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

I don't think "systems on" here applies over doubles, I would think it just covers (1x) 1N (P) ?.

There is a space marked "systems on over ________", which is presumably the relevant part, but it is difficult to determine what the actual card said; the one I saw in the link was blank.

[Mbodell]

cherdanno, on Mar 14 2010, 09:23 PM, said:

I don't think "systems on" here applies over doubles, I would think it just covers (1x) 1N (P) ?.

By default I'd assume, unless partner and I had discussed it separately, that systems on means our entire system including bids over a X and leb over most 2 bids, etc. It may not be ideal or optimal, but I think it is what I'd expect absent discussion.

[gwnn]

Vampyr, on Mar 15 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

There is a space marked "systems on over ________", which is presumably the relevant part,

No it's not, according to the OP (she pointed to the area on NT overcalls).

[peachy]

gwnn, on Mar 15 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 15 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

There is a space marked "systems on over ________", which is presumably the relevant part,

No it's not, according to the OP (she pointed to the area on NT overcalls).

Let me try again.
Upon inquiry, my partner said "I don't remember/don't know"
First, I suggested opponent look it up on the card.
Next, I pointed to the NT Overcall area and the tickbox "systems on".
Then, I pointed to the area where the systems (that are "on") are listed and that area was filled with "Dbl & 2C". This was also our agreement.
I did all the pointing so partner could not see, to avoid giving UI.
I get it now! As soon as partner said "I don't know", I should have called the TD, instead of trying to help.

[barmar]

gwnn, on Mar 15 2010, 02:14 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Mar 15 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

There is a space marked "systems on over ________", which is presumably the relevant part,

No it's not, according to the OP (she pointed to the area on NT overcalls).

The issue in question is whether "Systems On" in the NT Overcalls area implies that everything in the Opening NT section applies, including its "Systems On Over _____" box.

My feeling is that if you haven't discussed exceptions, it should. But that's not really the point of th thread. Even if you have exceptions, there's no place on the CC to list them, or even say whether there are any. So handing the opponents the CC doesn't help them with this point.

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL series "Conventional Wisdom" in part 17 on Notrump overcalls, is

Quote

When you overcall 1NT and LHO passes, do you still play Stayman and transfers? If so, check this box to indicate that the methods you play after a 1NT opening apply after an overcall as well.

I would expect a pair that has exceptions to the above to know enough to say so. So if they don't say so, they don't have any. If they say they don't remember, I guess the best thing to do is call the TD. I suppose we'll get a lot more TD calls, if we get one every time someone "can't remember" his system.

[olegru]

peachy, on Mar 15 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

Upon inquiry, my partner said "I don't remember/don't know"
First, I suggested opponent look it up on the card.

And doing this you accidently gave UI to your partner what you do have an agreement for this situation and this agreement mentioned in your card

I guess opponents did not want you get away with it and decided to force you to voice that UI.

[blackshoe]

That's just silly.

[peachy]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 14 2010, 10:14 AM, said:

It's courteous for foreign visitors to fill out ACBL convention cards - which they did.

Actually, it is part of the Conditions of Contest, reminder for this requirement appears in the Bulletin every day.

[olegru]

blackshoe, on Mar 15 2010, 11:20 AM, said:

That's just silly.

Very nice and informative comments.

Now let’s see an example.
We agreed to play Jacoby and clearly marked it in our cards.
Opponent open 1 clubs, I intervened 1 heart, second opponent bid 1 spade and my partner bid 2NT.
Now I am asked about meaning of 2NT.
Honestly I have no ideas. We did not discuss with my partner meaning of jump to 2NT if opponents bid suit after our intervention or at least I cannot recall this discussion.
Now my partner takes CC and shows something there to opponents.
I know we have fit showing jump to 2NT in our cards. Now I know it applied to this position too. Thanks partner.

Now you are my opponent. Are you going to let me enjoy and use information I just received? It is much easy to make UI apparent for everybody by refusing to look at CC and asking questions.

Relevant law:

Quote

20F
1. ... Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.         
...
5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction...
-  The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
- for a defender, at the end of the play.
- for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

[blackshoe]

If you have UI, it's up to you to not use it (Laws 16 and 73C). Law 16 tells me, as your opponent, that if I believe you may have done so, I should call the director. It also tells me that when I believe UI has been transmitted, I should ask if you agree. More precisely, it says I should "reserve my rights", but that seems a bit rude. IAC, if you disagree that you have received UI then you should call the director.

That said, it is true that Law 20 makes a bidder whose partner is demonstrably unable to explain your partnership agreement may not say anything (even to be helpful) at the time. In view of that, perhaps the best thing for such player to do is keep his mouth shut, call the director at the appropriate time, and live with the consequences, if any.

Getting back to my previous comment, I was referring to your "I guess opponents did not want you get away with it and decided to force you to voice that UI."

First off, a player might "give UI" in a number of different ways — he doesn't have to voice it. If it's given, then its recipient may not use it, voiced or not. And the appropriate time, as an opponent, to deal with that is when the UI may have been used, not when it may have been (or was) given. Second, you can't "force" a player to do something. That's the part I consider silly.

[bluejak]

First, let me repeat: giving MI to opponents is an infraction: giving UI to partner is not.

Second, we have here a player who did his best to help opponents. Did he do the right thing? Possibly not, in theory, but actively ethical players do such things and let us not get too worried about it.

Third, what is the theoretically correct thing to do? I am afraid the answer is nothing, until the end of the hand. I prefer what the OP did, even if it was wrong.

Fourth, should we not protect foreigners in ACBL events since they will not have a clue what they are doing? Not really, inexperienced players do not travel much to another continent to play, and experienced players who do not know the TD should be called are not worth worrying about. I would be amazed if anyone tried to protect me!

Fifth, whether Systems On means over a double or further bid or not is not worth considering, because some say Yes, some say No, and if you look at a checked SC you do not know whether this player says Yes or No. But what has it got to do with anything? The OP was pointing to relevant things which obviously applied to him.

Finally, back to the start: do not worry about giving partner UI. If the silly fool cannot remember your agreements, give him another problem, let his mother worry.