[ArtK78]

jillybean, on 2012-February-03, 17:07, said:

Why funny?

Essentially, what you said was that you made a terrible bid, and because of the bid your partner got off to a terrible opening lead that gave up a trick. Then you argued that the reason for your terrible bid was the failure to alert a forcing notrump that you assumed, without asking, was a nonforcing notrump. The fact that you made a terrible bid in and of itself has nothing to do with the alert or failure to alert. So, after making a terrible call and getting a terrible result because of your terrible call, you complain to the director who agrees with you that you wouldn't have made the terrible call if the 1NT call had been alerted. And the director changes the result to give you your trick back!

Totally absurd. Perhaps your opponents should be given some penalty for their failure to alert, but you should not be allowed a double shot with your bid. In other words, if the bid had worked in your favor, you would not complain and the score would stand, but if the bid worked out badly, you complain and are given an adjustment. The argument that there was a link between the non-alert and your terrible bid is strained, to say the least. But the director let you get your trick back! Absurd.

[MickyB]

Er. Jillybean has only told us six of the cards that she held. What makes you think it was a terrible bid?

Kathryn - while you may well have chosen to pass if you had known 1NT was forcing, most people wouldn't make this distinction, and I am unconvinced that your argument has any merit. If you bid now, LHO is reasonably likely to be declarer, regardless of whether the 1NT response was forcing or not. If you had said that you bid because you didn't know what to lead against 1NT, or just because you wanted to push them out of their comfortable 1NT contract, that would make more sense IMO. As TD, I would have been unlikely to adjust the table result, but I share your discontent with the opponents' disclosure, and would issue an official warning to fix their convention card and to alert in future. To give a PP at this time having not previously given a warning would be harsh but not ridiculously so.

[jillybean]

I never said it was a terrible bid.
What I think is absurd is my lho didn't wake up when I paused, looked over at the card, bid and then cried foul because "2/1" was indeed marked on the card.

MickyB, if 1nt was indeed nf I thought there was a good chance that we had a heart fit and partial game. If 1nt had been forcing
I would have waited until I heard openers rebid, I was 2 suited, hearts and a minor. Maybe that is not how the experts think, but it was my thinking on this hand.

[barmar]

wyman, on 2012-February-03, 12:49, said:

I would say the most common responses I hear at club games to the question "leads and carding?" are, in some order: "standard," "odd/even," "lavinthal," and just looking at me dumbfounded. In fact, once, a woman told me "lavinthal," and I repeated "sorry, not your first discard. Your leads and carding agreements please?" And she snapped back "well we don't play that way."

You don't really need to worry about people like that. If they give an answer like that, they probably don't know how to signal in the first place.

[Cthulhu D]

paulg, on 2012-February-03, 12:26, said:

I think Phil will be happier to move to Scotland rather than England

The ABF simple system card has most of the back for carding which is good (and some decent questions but not quite good enough), but I think the EBU has the best arrangement. At least at the club here everyone has a filled out convention card though some (and by some I mean two particularly annoying) people just have stuff like 2S: Weak 2 which annoys the toss out of me, and the carding parts are always completed.

I wish it was 100% mandatory to give your opponents a copy of your CC when you sit down. I always give them mine and ask for theirs as a matter of policy now, but it should be automatic.

[gartinmale]

Having played EHAA in the ACBL (albeit never in a serious event*), we always pre-alert as follows:

"We can, will, and even frequently must open and overcall extremely undisciplined weak twos, with no requirements on strength nor length save 5 cards in the suit and 6-12 points".

We also tell people that 1NT is 10-12, that our 1-level overcalls are stronger than they might expect, and that we have no forcing opening bid, although these things are not pre-alertable.

We also alert non-forcing responses when we're supposed to.

We've occasionally gotten pretty annoyed when we overcall 1X and one of our opponents says "Now remember, partner, that's 13+ points", but other than that have had no problems.





*Okay, we played EHAA while our teammates played Phantom Club in a pretty reasonable one-session BAM once. It, uh, didn't work out very well.

[TimG]

MickyB, on 2012-February-04, 00:12, said:

while you may well have chosen to pass if you had known 1NT was forcing, most people wouldn't make this distinction

I think it quite reasonable to consider things differently after a non-forcing 1NT and a forcing 1NT. I've had discussions with partners about the differences. I've had reference to the difference documented in system notes. Maybe that's going too far, but I expect that most thinking players evaluation the situation differently after a forcing 1NT and a non-forcing 1NT.

[crazy4hoop]

One problem, and I think Debbie Rosenberg pointed it out some months ago (my apologies Debbie if I am attributing this to the wrong person) is that the score card is on the back of the CC (in ACBL) so players think they have to keep them to keep score. Granted, they should just realize that they can use another CC to score while keeping the actual CC they play in a place where the opponents can refer to it most easliy. One solution could be to stop printing the score card on the back of the CC and to put in its place a more general description of methods cited by Phil (or is it Plol?) containing, but not necessarily limited to, the 5 items he likes to check out at the start of the round. Score cards could be printed on a separate sheet or sheets (and even be 2-sided for those who wish to save paper). If need be, players can still keep their score cards in those plastic holders that they so desperately have to have and be returned their CC at the end of the round. I know this is no cure-all but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[jillybean]

The (ACBL) score card is on the back of the CC but a seperate CC or score sheet is used to keep the score.
You can only score on your CC once and most people don't even do that. I write system notes on the score side of my CC.

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-February-04, 12:35, said:

The (ACBL) score card is on the back of the CC but a seperate CC or score sheet is used to keep the score.
You can only score on your CC once and most people don't even do that. I write system notes on the score side of my CC.

Yes, of course. Do you offer your card to your opponents at the start of a round? Where do you keep it on the table? Do you keep it on the table?

The problem is that the culture and regulations in the ACBL dictate that cards, even when properly filled out, are kept close by players, not by their opponents. Of course, it doesn't help that those opponents aren't typically interested in what's on the card. I once had an opponent tell me, after I suggested that she look on our card instead of badgering my partner, that "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions".

[Bad_Wolf]

ArtK78, on 2012-February-04, 00:03, said:

Essentially, what you said was that you made a terrible bid, and because of the bid your partner got off to a terrible opening lead that gave up a trick. Then you argued that the reason for your terrible bid was the failure to alert a forcing notrump that you assumed, without asking, was a nonforcing notrump. The fact that you made a terrible bid in and of itself has nothing to do with the alert or failure to alert. So, after making a terrible call and getting a terrible result because of your terrible call, you complain to the director who agrees with you that you wouldn't have made the terrible call if the 1NT call had been alerted. And the director changes the result to give you your trick back!

Totally absurd. Perhaps your opponents should be given some penalty for their failure to alert, but you should not be allowed a double shot with your bid. In other words, if the bid had worked in your favor, you would not complain and the score would stand, but if the bid worked out badly, you complain and are given an adjustment. The argument that there was a link between the non-alert and your terrible bid is strained, to say the least. But the director let you get your trick back! Absurd.

Perhaps they will remember to alert next time.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-04, 16:08, said:

Yes, of course. Do you offer your card to your opponents at the start of a round? Where do you keep it on the table? Do you keep it on the table?

The problem is that the culture and regulations in the ACBL dictate that cards, even when properly filled out, are kept close by players, not by their opponents. Of course, it doesn't help that those opponents aren't typically interested in what's on the card. I once had an opponent tell me, after I suggested that she look on our card instead of badgering my partner, that "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions".

I do offer my cc in team games, after I ask the opps for theirs. During club games I keep mine on the table, next to or under the bidding box. Easy reach for my rho. I have seen others keep it on the floor, in their bag, on the table in front of them and perhaps best yet, unfolded on their knee so that when they are looking at their hand they can easily sneek a peek. I remember my first duplicate games trying to sneak a look at my card. I am not sure I knew it was against the laws (what laws) but I did know enough to know it wasn't done.

It would be most useful for pairs to swap cc's but I doubt that we will ever see that happen.

[barmar]

Even if you use separate cards for conventions and scoring, many players use a convention card holder: a plastic case where you can put the convention card on one side and the score card on the other. However, in my experience this has never created a problem letting opponents look at my CC. It needs to be on the table so you can score on it, so it's convenient for opponents to grab.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-February-03, 10:48, said:

Move to England. As I understand it, exchanging CC's at the beginning of a round is common practice over there.

I think he can move anywhere he likes, as long as it is outside the ACBL.

The only places I have ever played where CCs are not exchanged are in beginner clubs (where there are no CCs) and the ACBL (where there are CCs, but they are kept away from the opponents).

Rik

[mgoetze]

Trinidad, on 2012-February-05, 03:40, said:

I think he can move anywhere he likes, as long as it is outside the ACBL.

The only places I have ever played where CCs are not exchanged are in beginner clubs (where there are no CCs) and the ACBL (where there are CCs, but they are kept away from the opponents).

In Germany, most people at club games don't even have a CC they could exchange, much less any interest in seeing mine. It is different for tournament and league play, though.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-February-04, 23:43, said:

Even if you use separate cards for conventions and scoring, many players use a convention card holder: a plastic case where you can put the convention card on one side and the score card on the other. However, in my experience this has never created a problem letting opponents look at my CC. It needs to be on the table so you can score on it, so it's convenient for opponents to grab.

It's kind of weird though, if they have to give it back to you between hands for you to score on the other side.

Anyway where is there space to describe your methods except in the back?

[blackshoe]

I have often wondered if the people who designed the ACBL CC deliberately left little space on the card for descriptions on the theory that "if there's not enough space to describe it, you can't play it".

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-05, 06:38, said:

It's kind of weird though, if they have to give it back to you between hands for you to score on the other side.

Opponents don't need to hold on to your card, they just grab it when they need it: at the beginning of the round to look over your general system, when you make a bid they want to look up (although 99% of the time they just ask verbally), and when they become declarer to look at your carding.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-February-06, 09:41, said:

Opponents don't need to hold on to your card, they just grab it when they need it: at the beginning of the round to look over your general system, when you make a bid they want to look up (although 99% of the time they just ask verbally), and when they become declarer to look at your carding.

That means that you have to tell the whole table what it is that you want to know. The advantage of exchanging convention cards is that you can look at the card without making it obvious that you're doing so, thereby avoiding either transmitting UI or giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-February-06, 10:15, said:

That means that you have to tell the whole table what it is that you want to know. The advantage of exchanging convention cards is that you can look at the card without making it obvious that you're doing so, thereby avoiding either transmitting UI or giving the opponents information to which they're not entitled.

Maybe barmar's assumption is that the ACBL card, with its checkboxes and lack of space for description, can be absorbed in one glance.

But it is different with cards that are a lot larger and have a lot more information on them.