[Phil]

Thumbs up to directors enforcing no ccs with mandatory SAYC. I think its great.

If we are in a long team match I want to understand the nuances of your system and to the extent I can glean this from your cc and by asking questions I will. Many players keep wadded up cards in their back pocket, and grouse when you ask for a copy. These same players will often give you dismissive answers when you ask about their methods which is irritating and against the spirit of disclosure.

[blackshoe]

There is a regulation requiring both players in a partnership to have a completed system card (and such cards have to match, and to have both players' names on them). In the ACBL this is part of the general conditions of contest applicable to every tournament and every club game (unless the club specifies otherwise) in the jurisdiction. There are those who think they're above this (we have a player locally who never carries his own card — either the pair has only one, or his partner carries both); there are those who think its a waste of time; there are those who will say "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions". But the regulation is there, and bridge is to be played according to the laws and regulations in force. If you think changing (or deleting entirely) the regulation is a good idea, post your argument in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here.

[sfi]

pran, on 2011-June-04, 14:42, said:

[...]

According to what law?
From L40B2{c}: Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card[...]
This law doesn't say "Player except dummy" (Dummy must of course be very careful not drawing attention to any aspect of the game while looking at opponents' card.)

It's the rest of that law that you elided that is relevant. None of those three conditions are in force - I believe the decision (and it took a number of directors a fair while to work out whether they had to accede to this call) was that dummy does not have a "turn to play" during the play of the hand.

Dummy reaching for the card because they want to follow the opponents' signals is a different issue. I was just bored and looking for something to read at the time though - it was all pretty amusing.

Quote

Forcing them to play SAYC (in ACBL) or a corresponding basic system elsewhere is a simple, effective and IMHO very fair ruling for so long as they do not comply with the rules on system cards.

This seems to be the crux of my disagreement. I don't think it's fair at all for something that can be easily dealt with and rectified without what I see to be draconian measures.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-04, 15:53, said:

But the regulation is there, and bridge is to be played according to the laws and regulations in force. If you think changing (or deleting entirely) the regulation is a good idea, post your argument in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum, not here.

Please don't post it there, either. There are more important things to consider for the next Laws changes than accommodating people who don't have the courtesy to produce a document containing their agreements.

[sfi]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-04, 17:00, said:

Please don't post it there, either. There are more important things to consider for the next Laws changes than accommodating people who don't have the courtesy to produce a document containing their agreements.

I wasn't planning to - the laws don't cover this topic at all.

[pran]

sfi, on 2011-June-04, 16:25, said:

It's the rest of that law that you elided that is relevant. None of those three conditions are in force - I believe the decision (and it took a number of directors a fair while to work out whether they had to accede to this call) was that dummy does not have a "turn to play" during the play of the hand.

Here are the rest of that law which I left out as (I belived) being irrelevant for the question:
(i) prior to the commencement of the auction,
(ii) during the Clarification Period, and
(iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play.
Now please tell me in what way the third condition (as the only one possibly being relevant on dummy) prohibits dummy from looking at opponents' card. You are aware I assume that dummy is in turn to play once for each trick although the actual play of dummy's cards is made by declarer?

You might find some interest in learning that the corresponding law before 2007 said: During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents’ convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. (My enhancement)

sfi, on 2011-June-04, 16:25, said:

Dummy reaching for the card because they want to follow the opponents' signals is a different issue. I was just bored and looking for something to read at the time though - it was all pretty amusing.

Quite, and I have absolutely no sympathy for any player trying to deny dummy the chance to familiarize himself with opponewnts' agreements by looking at their card so long as he does so without in anyway interacting or interfering with the play.

[sfi]

pran, on 2011-June-04, 17:42, said:

You are aware I assume that dummy is in turn to play once for each trick although the actual play of dummy's cards is made by declarer?

I don't have a strong feeling about it, but the group of directors at a national event disagreed with you on this point (and that would certainly change the ruling, although maybe I would only be allowed to look at the convention card between the time he played and partner called for a card from dummy). To be fair, they were somewhat bemused at being called about this in the first place, so they may not have spent too much time worrying about the subtleties of the wording.

Quote

You might find some interest in learning that the corresponding law before 2007 said: During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents’ convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. (My enhancement)

I may bring up your point about the change in laws when I see one of them this week - it will make for an interesting second encounter if I come up against this particular opponent again.

[dcrc2]

Assuming that the one convention card they had was "substantially" completed, the ruling seems wrong to me. The regs that Ed quoted imply that a second convention card should be produced "in a timely manner", which surely does not mean "immediately". Making everyone wait while a second card was produced seems like a severe overreaction.

[blackshoe]

The ruling was within the parameters of the regulation, so it wasn't wrong. I do wonder, though, why it took five minutes. The player should have been able to copy his partner's card in three minutes or less, I would guess. OTOH, it's not unusual for an annoyed opponent to overestimate the length of time something that annoyed him took.

[bluejak]

At any event where SCs are required, eg any ACBL, EBL, WBF or EBU event, a player has a right to find out his opponents' methods by

• asking questions at his turn to call or play, or
  
• looking at an opponent's SC at times when the SO allows it

One of the strange things of many answerrs to disclosure questions on rec.games.bridge over the years, which now seems to creeping in here, are people who believe they have a right to tell other players that they should do one or the other. How can anyone believe they have a right to deny a player a right he has under the Laws and Regulations?

Some people believe you should ask questions and never consult SCs: fine for them, but why should they inflict this view on others? Some people believe the reverse: same comment. A player who does not have an SC when required is flouting the rules and putting his opponents at an unfair disadvantage, and saying he can ask questions is no answer.

Of course different situations are handled differently: that is part of being a TD. It is very different dealing with a pair that was made up at the last second to stop a half table, and dealing with a pair who cannot be bothered to fill in SCs. But while we deal with both sensibly, let us not forget the opponents have a right to find out methods in whichever way they prefer, and other people's views on what is the best way are irrelevant.

<wail> I wish my spellchekka was working! </wail>

[blackshoe]

Get a Mac!

[bluejak]

<puzzled> It isn't raining. </puzzled>

Anyway I have tried the traditionauninstallafolloweded by rinstallal: let's see how it goes.

Ok, there's your answer.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

How can anyone believe they have a right to deny a player a right he has under the Laws and Regulations?

Oh but they do. I played a match recently where we were playing strong club. We gave convention cards to our opponentsw. They didn't have any. One opponent was apologetic and told us what they played. It wasn't trivial and whether I would have remembered was another matter.
The other one told me I should be happy to play against a pair with good disclosure and no convention cards rather than the other way round. She didn't seem impressed by my answer that I hadn't been given the choice.
The view was roughly "we don't have them, we forgot, what is your problem?, haven't you got anything better to do" It was a shame it wasn't an EBU event because if it had been there might have been the simple card produced from the TD's pocket .

[mycroft]

Oh yes, I'm always happy when I'm required to rely on their explaining their system to their partner to figure out what they're playing - especially when it comes to unusual carding and the kind of negative inferences I can make from the whole information.

But the thing is that ZOs are allowed to make regulations about system cards and disclosure, that that includes regulations about what happens when players choose not to follow the other regulations. Since the ones that are there aren't enough to stop 20+% of players (in my estimation, in my part of the ACBL) from meeting it (more if you count the ones whose system cards are permanently stored under butt/in purse/covered in stickers/"oh that's what I play with someone else"), *if* it's important enough, the penalties should be obnoxious enough that they will choose to follow it next time. Forcing them to play a well-known simple system that has a system card already filled out for them until they can meet the regulations for their own system is, I think, "obnoxious enough".

Yes, we *could* be less obnoxious about it (and to be fair, we in the ACBL largely have been, by not actually enforcing it), but then even more people would flout the rule.

I have no problem, in a 5+board team game, telling them "stop, now, fill out the card, follow the law; if you end up being late as a result of this, you'll get the penalties; NOS, don't deliberately slow the game down, but don't feel under any pressure to speed up your game." seems about right.

[tciacio]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-04, 15:53, said:

In the ACBL this is part of the general conditions of contest applicable to every tournament and every club game (unless the club specifies otherwise) in the jurisdiction.

Last year the rulings group at ACBL cited Duplicate Decisions, page 40, as the published regulation and stated it was binding at the club level. Of course, they don't link to it on the Charts, Rules and Regulations web page.

[blackshoe]

Who is "the rulings group at ACBL"? I don't think I know them. And the ACBL has said before, repeatedly, that Duplicate Decisions is advice, not regulation.

Added: What's in Duplicate Decisions is essentially a restatement of the actual regulation, which as I said is in the General Conditions of Contest. That said, if there's disagreement, the CoC govern, because that is the regulation, and because the General CoC were revised in 2009, and DD was published in 2008.

[tciacio]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-06, 16:36, said:

Who is "the rulings group at ACBL"? I don't think I know them. And the ACBL has said before, repeatedly, that Duplicate Decisions is advice, not regulation.

Added: What's in Duplicate Decisions is essentially a restatement of the actual regulation, which as I said is in the General Conditions of Contest. That said, if there's disagreement, the CoC govern, because that is the regulation, and because the General CoC were revised in 2009, and DD was published in 2008.

That would be the people who answer e-mail for rulings@acbl.org. It surprised me too. I agree with your impression about Duplicate Decisions, but they were quite specific. If you want, I'll be glad to sift through my old e-mail and see if I kept it.

[blackshoe]

Mike Flader writes a column for the Bulletin called "Ruling the Game". Mr. Flader is, I believe, a National Director. However, his pronouncements are his opinion, and not legally binding. Even more, J. Random Somebody who answers an email because Mr. Flader is not available to do so for some reason is expressing his opinion, which again is not legally binding. Duplicate Decisions was written, I believe, by Gail Greenburg. I have no idea what her qualifications as an interpreter of law are.

Put it this way: until the ACBL Laws Commission or the Board of Directors officially designates Duplicate Decisions as binding legal interpretation, it's not.