[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
I'm sure this topic has come up here many times
but I've not seen it.

Playing at a 299er game today I pointed out to our
opponents that if they play a short club opening
(2 or less clubs) it is colored blue on the
convention card indicating it should be announced.
They said they don't bother because there's no
penalty for not announcing it. Is this correct?

jerryd

[S2000magic]

That's contrary to the rules of the ACBL, which requires announcement of items in blue.

It sounds as if these opponents could use a lesson in active ethics. I would report their behavior to the director.

[jerdonald]

S2000magic,

Thanks for the reply.

What would be the range of penalties or adjustments
for this infraction?

jerryd

[S2000magic]

Sorry, Jerry: I don't know that one.

I do know that penalties of, say, half-a-board or one board can be levied for infractions such as slow play; it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be similar penalties for willful disregard of announcement rules.

If I think about it, I'll ask the director at my local club the next time I'm there.

In the interim, perhaps someone with more procedural knowledge than I will chime in.

[barmar]

You should only get an adjustment if you can show that the lack of announcement actually caused damage on a hand -- with a proper announcement you might have competed or defended differently and gotten a better score.

The opponents could get a procedural penalty, though. I expect that on the first offense they'll get a warning, and if they repeat it they'll get a penalty, perhaps 1/3 of a board. But unless they're playing a long match against you, there's a good chance the second offense will go unnoticed -- some future opponent would have to call the TD about it.

So in a practical sense, they may be right that they're unlikely to be punished for it. It's like not coming to a full stop at a stop sign when you don't see any cops around.

[aguahombre]

Does anyone know if the recent Board action, where they decided opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 was natural, will affect whether this opening should be announced?

I don't see why they did this; but, I guess they felt like fixing something that wasn't broken.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 22:51, said:

Does anyone know if the recent Board action, where they decided opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 was natural, will affect whether this opening should be announced?

There was a thread on rec.games.bridge asking about this. The concensus was that since they didn't say anything about changing the alert chart, it won't change the announcement. But we'll know for sure in January when the new alert chart is published (they need to do that because they had another Board action that DOES change alerting -- it will no longer be necessary to alert variations of Stayman, e.g. Puppet Stayman).

[Elianna]

I just want to point out, that the reason it's blue on the convention card is because you're supposed to announce it. It's not announceable because it's blue. (I just wanted to clarify the cause and effect.)

And you should report that conversation to the director, who should clarify the requirements of active ethics for your opponents.

[mike777]

Blue......on convention card?


geez stop playing live bridge a few years and things really change fast....


never heard about this one but ok......thanks to the forums.

--


As far as trying to cheat and get away with it well.......if the jails are full or the police are not watching,....lets not worry about ethics........geez....

See Joe paterno thread.

[aguahombre]

Elianna, on 2011-November-14, 23:43, said:

I just want to point out, that the reason it's blue on the convention card is because you're supposed to announce it. It's not announceable because it's blue. (I just wanted to clarify the cause and effect.)

Yes, those who announce their short club will be glad to know they are obeying the ACBL regulations, not just obeying the printer.

[mycroft]

That should prompt an immediate call to the TD, who should explain the rules.

Sure, there's no penalty that will be automatically applied for not Announcing (unless it causes damage, and the 199ers aren't going to know what damage is, frankly - which is another reason to Announce it), but there *is* a penalty for "failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director." Were I called to the table, I would explain that it is, in fact, required. If they told *me* that they weren't going to do it anyway, because there's no penalty, they'd get one for that; they'd get another every time they didn't announce from then on that I heard about, double because it was both a failure to comply with Tournament Regulations *and* with instructions of the Director.

But any pair who will only do not do things they'll get penalized for need either a quick wakeup or a quick usher from the game. The game doesn't need *them*.

Having said that, it's best for the TD to do the education, not the players - especially in the 199er game. After all, it's been known for players - especially 199er players - to be wrong with the technical details (not that the OP is, but that's what his opponents will think as they ignore him).

[mikestar13]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 22:51, said:

Does anyone know if the recent Board action, where they decided opening 1C with 4-4-3-2 was natural, will affect whether this opening should be announced?

I don't see why they did this; but, I guess they felt like fixing something that wasn't broken.

Don't know, but my guess is that so the weaker pairs who use short club rather than convenient minor is an otherwise vanilla SAYC framework won't be subject to the conventional defenses that would be allowed over a conventional 1♣ opening. Advanced pairs who use T-Walsh or the like don't care if the enemy want's to use something like a midchart 1NT defense over thier 1♣--but it would drive an average ACBL LOL/LOM nuts. I'm not saying this is a sensible decision, but I would be unsurprised at this sort of action from ACBL.

[S2000magic]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 22:51, said:

I don't see why they did this; but, I guess they felt like fixing something that wasn't broken.

In their defense, it's not as if they have anything that's actually broken, that needs fixing. They have to fix something.