[peachy]

At the NABC IMP Pairs, I played against a few foreign players. Some seem to have no idea what and where any information is on the ACBL system card although they generally did have their own ACBL system cards filled out (probably by someone else, why else would some of them be acting like deer in the headlights) and little or no understanding about ACBL Alerting Regulations such as they are - but at least they are available to anybody.

Example:
Opp1 Pd Opp2 Me
(1D) 1NT (X) 2C

Opp1 asked my pd what 2C means. To my surprise, partner said he does not know what our agreement is. Opp1 looks confused. To be helpful, I suggest he look in our system card which was on the table next to him. He looks at the front and asks where is it. Away from partner's sight, I show where NT Overcalls are on the system card. The box *Systems On* next to it is ticked. He puts the card on the table and then asks me, "so what is 2C?" I show again - trying to do it again out of partner's sight to avoid UI to partner - the NT overcalls, the *systems on*, turn the card front up for him and show where the NT systems are listed. He doesn't want to look at the card and then gives me hand gestures to put the card away.

I tried to do the right thing by law, be kind, be hospitable, and be helpful toward a visitor. Should I have said *Stayman*? Beat up my partner for having forgotten a simple agreement? Go home, have a warm bath and a cup of tea? Call the Director?

[FrancesHinden]

You seem in a remarkably bad mood after this event!

It's courteous for foreign visitors to fill out ACBL convention cards - which they did. And which, according to debrose on another thread, is sadly pretty unusual.

There was then an auction in which your partner forgot your agreements. An opponent then couldn't understand what was written on the card. The correct thing to do at this point was to call the TD, but instead you seem to very put out by this.

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

[helene_t]

You could have asked your p to leave the table while you explained it but you don't have to explain.

Just call the TD. Then at least it will be his fault if it becomes a mess

[gwnn]

Systems on after 1NT overcall does not necessarily mean that they're on if they double it. In fact you showing them the CC could be construed as UI, maybe your partner knows you ticked the box but wasn't sure about after the double. I think you shouldn't speak when opps talk to your partner, except maybe at the club or with very good friends ("LOL at partner! haha he had too much to drink again")...

[paulg]

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.

[peachy]

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

You seem in a remarkably bad mood after this event!

It's courteous for foreign visitors to fill out ACBL convention cards - which they did.  And which, according to debrose on another thread,  is sadly pretty unusual.

There was then an auction in which your partner forgot your agreements. An opponent then couldn't understand what was written on the card.  The correct thing to do at this point was to call the TD, but instead you seem to very put out by this.

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

I was in good spirits and being helpful. In my "lesser moods", I would sit still and wait for the next person, whether foreign or not, to act by either a TD call or by looking at my card. The information is preprinted with a tickbox, not handwritten.

I enjoy visitors and guests BTW.

Again, what should I have done? Really, call the TD seemed to me unnecessary, but perhaps you are right.

[peachy]

gwnn, on Mar 14 2010, 10:53 AM, said:

Systems on after 1NT overcall does not necessarily mean that they're on if they double it. In fact you showing them the CC could be construed as UI, maybe your partner knows you ticked the box but wasn't sure about after the double. I think you shouldn't speak when opps talk to your partner, except maybe at the club or with very good friends ("LOL at partner! haha he had too much to drink again")...

Agree about UI. That is why I showed the information to him in a manner partner could not see.

[gwnn]

The point I was trying to make was that even if your partner can't see what you are showing your opps, chances are that he will still see that you are showing something. He may now subconsciously conclude that for you it is clear that "systems on" means that 2♣=stayman even over the double because he knows that there is a box for "systems on" but there is none for "systems on even if they double".

[peachy]

http://web2.acbl.org...y/newss1131.pdf

Perhaps this helps in understanding what I said. A blank ACBL Convention Card.

[gwnn]

Well that doesn't quite help me. I have actually used an ACBL convention card a few times even though I have never played in America before. Also it was quite clear from your opening post (which I took the time to read thoroughly) that there is a space on the CC about 1NT overcalls and you pointed to the box about "systems on".

I will try to explain to you again what my point was, no doubt very poorly explained with faulty English and lack of coherence.

• I think "systems on" refers to (1x)-1NT-p-?
  
• It may or may not be true that it is also extended to (1x)-1NT-(Dbl)-?. I don't think it is clear and I think I am not alone in this uncertainty.
  
• Apparently you are quite sure that "systems on" also applies to the case when they doubled 1NT.
  
• Partner may know about the ticked box on the CC about systems on over 1NT overcalls but may not be sure if it applies here
  
• By showing the CC to the opps you are making it quite clear that you think the ticked box applies to this case.
  
• Therefore the act of showing something on the CC may help partner to decide what 2C means.
  
• This information is unauthorised.

[gordontd]

peachy, on Mar 14 2010, 07:07 PM, said:

Really, call the TD seemed to me unnecessary, but perhaps you are right.

Why unnecessary? The TD is there to help, and it sounds as though help was needed at your table.

btw I certainly wouldn't have interpreted a Systems On tickbox to apply to this situation.

[blackshoe]

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

The real problem here is that the ACBL CC sucks. Actually, saying it sucks is too kind. It's terrible. It needs a complete redesign.

In the meantime, we're stuck with it. I suppose the best we can do is append a note as to whether systems are on over calls by third seat other than pass.

There's also the question of discussion. Many pairs, including most of mine, just check boxes, and don't really discuss anything further. And then they're surprised when this kind of thing comes up. I know it's a PITA, a "waste of time", to sit down and discuss system for a couple of hours, but it pays off in the long run.

[jnichols]

The "Systems On" checkbox in the notrump overcall section on the ACBL system card is just too small of a space for a good description. SOME people check it to apply after any interference, SOME people check it meaning only without interference, SOME people check it meaning "look at the 1NT opening section to see when systems apply," and SOME people probably use a different approach. All this simply won't fit in a binary checkbox.

So, if you need to know you must ask.

And yes, if there is (any) problem at your table, call the director. No problem is too big or too small.

[gwnn]

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)

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Mar 14 2010, 02:29 PM, said:

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

The real problem here is that the ACBL CC sucks. Actually, saying it sucks is too kind. It's terrible. It needs a complete redesign.

In the meantime, we're stuck with it. I suppose the best we can do is append a note as to whether systems are on over calls by third seat other than pass.

There's also the question of discussion. Many pairs, including most of mine, just check boxes, and don't really discuss anything further. And then they're surprised when this kind of thing comes up. I know it's a PITA, a "waste of time", to sit down and discuss system for a couple of hours, but it pays off in the long run.

The situation was discussed, agreed, and been the same for long time. My partner had some senior moment apparently. In the end, I think the opponent should have called the director, and when the opponent did nothing, then I should have stepped in and called the director. It backfired when I tried to be as helpful as I could. I didn't (and still don't) think I am allowed to say to the table what the systemic meaning of my own call is.

[helene_t]

peachy, on Mar 14 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

I didn't (and still don't) think I am allowed to say to the table what the systemic meaning of my own call is.

Of course. But you aren't allowed to do what you did either (see Csaba's point).

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.

[peachy]

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

[*]Apparently you are quite sure that "systems on" also applies to the case when they doubled 1NT.

Yes, I am sure. And it also was so shown on the system card.

[gwnn]

where?

I just see two blanks to define the range and a box for systems on.

the line under this line is for Raptor NT or others.

maybe you could attach a photo on how this was marked on the CC?

[peachy]

gwnn, on Mar 14 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

where?

The front. Here is again the picture of the card
http://web2.acbl.org...y/newss1131.pdf

[gwnn]

ok thanks, never mind... And sorry for barging in like this..