[ahydra]

It's amazing how often people simply don't get the concept of full disclosure. I'm reminded of a recent case in a tournament where I had to ask about 6 questions in order to improve the opponent's very vague explanation to one that at least made some sense (but still wasn't complete) - yes, I should have called the TD. And the people who say "it's just Acol" or "you can figure it out" or similar really get on my nerves (partner included, unfortunately).

In the OP's case opps should be offering a complete explanation by default - "at least 5 hearts, at least a 4-card minor, about 8-14" or whatever. OP should however have asked for further information and/or called the TD since the missing details were rather crucial to the subsequent auction. Perhaps a split or weighted score (not sure which) could be appropriate.

As for CCs, it's just hopeless. No TD enforces even having a card, let alone one that's accurately filled in. (As such, to be fined a VP for having the footnotes misnumbered is just ridiculous.) FWIW I would rule misinformation in the case CY described where the top of the card says "Benji" but 2C could also be a weak two in diamonds, even if the 2C opening box is filled in correctly.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2018-July-31, 17:54, said:

As for CCs, it's just hopeless. No TD enforces even having a card, let alone one that's accurately filled in.

I don’t think TDs should enforce this at the club level, as the partners may have been paired up shortly before the start of the game. But in tournaments we do have checks, although on possession of a CC rather than accuracy and thoroughness. I fill out my CC pretty thoroughly, but a lot of the comments here make me realise that I’m doing it wrong, and the less information I provide, the better.

For example, some people are adamant that you are notentitled to know of the agreements for any future bids. Well, after a weak two and a 2NT enquiry, I list the continuations because some opponents like to follow the action by reading. There are loads of other examples where being economical with the truth puts you at an advantage.

[blackshoe]

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-31, 22:19, said:

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

I wish we could clone you for our own clubs then; economy is all the rage.

I have to say I don't think it's very realistic to expect a pick up pair to fill out a card before a tournament: many of them could not manage it even given a day. Perhaps a more realistic approach is to have available "standard" CCs for the most frequently played systems and to ask people without their own CCs to select and play a standard CC, filling out a list of exceptions if appropriate. It doesn't take long to write down a short list of exceptions "1NT 15-18 including 5-card major, no transfers to minors, etc etc".

But even that would be very difficult to enforce, at least here in Italy at club level. Organisers TDs and most players are pretty much aligned, CCs are a good idea but not here or now please.

[barmar]

ahydra, on 2018-July-31, 17:54, said:

It's amazing how often people simply don't get the concept of full disclosure. I'm reminded of a recent case in a tournament where I had to ask about 6 questions in order to improve the opponent's very vague explanation to one that at least made some sense (but still wasn't complete)

Last night my partner asked the opponents about their leads and carding when he became declarer. The answer was "If I bid a suit, she normally leads that suit." He had to do a bit of grilling to get the information he was actually looking for. They were a pair of older women who were experienced in bridge, but not duplicate -- this was their first foray out of the Gold Rush Pairs into the open game. After the hand was over we told them that they can expect this question routinely, and should have a set answer (I gave them a script they can use).

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2018-July-31, 22:19, said:

Even in a club, the TD should investigate. If it's a pick up pair, he should probably give them time to fill out a card, but no cards is not kosher. Even one card is problematic.

Your agreements should go on the card. If at the time an opponent looks at the card, he sees what future bids will mean, that's not a problem, and players should not be parsimonious with what they put on the card to avoid that possibility.

I can't speak for other directors, but being economical with the truth will not get players very far with me.

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

[Vampyr]

Vampyr, on 2018-August-02, 05:20, said:

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

Or Jacoby t2NT. I’ve just put forcing raise and not indicate what my rebids will mean. In these examples the disclosure is quite sufficient.

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2018-August-02, 05:20, said:

But you’re one of the people who is most adamant about not being entitled to knowing about future calls. So in that way of thinking, it would be illegal for me to write e.g. Ogust rather than 2NT forcing relay. People who fill out their card more thoroughly are placed at a disadvantage. Why do you think this is good?

There was a day when by law the expectation was to be informed before the hand what the methods were. As in, complete method. Perhaps that day was prior to the emergence of someone called Meckwell.

[blackshoe]

When you fill out a system card, It is not unreasonable, particularly where space is at a premium, to refer to a particular convention name. However, if you're going to do that, you should provide a footnote that explains fully what the agreement is. Where much of the card consists of pre-printed checkboxes, you may not have a choice. In particular, the ACBL card, under "Response/Rebids" after a 2 level opening has a checkbox for whether 2NT is forcing, with no room by the checkbox for anything. There is a short blank line above the box on which most people will write "Feature" or "Ogust" or whatever. There isn't room to go into detail, so there should be a footnote, with an explanation somewhere else. On pre-printed cards, there's very little room on the front, and no room on the back, which has a pre-printed personal score sheet. Computer generated cards typically only print the front, so you can put your expansions on the back, but then there's the problem that card holders are typically designed on the assumption that there's not going to be anything to look at on the back of the card. My solution: after I get everything printed where I want it, laminate the damn thing. If I'm writing a card by hand, usually with a pick-up partner, well, I've got a problem, don't I?

Law 40 no longer refers to "prior disclosure" (meaning disclosure prior to the start of a segment). That's unfortunate.

What I'm adamant about is that a player is not entitled to be told verbally, in response to a question, what future calls will mean. If you write down your systemic responses to, e.g., an Ogust 2NT, then if an opponent actually looks at the card, he's entitled to read and assimilate what's there. OTOH, most players around here never look at system cards.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2018-August-02, 12:26, said:

When you fill out a system card, It is not unreasonable, particularly where space is at a premium, to refer to a particular convention name. However, if you're going to do that, you should provide a footnote that explains fully what the agreement is. Where much of the card consists of pre-printed checkboxes, you may not have a choice. In particular, the ACBL card, under "Response/Rebids" after a 2 level opening has a checkbox for whether 2NT is forcing, with no room by the checkbox for anything. There is a short blank line above the box on which most people will write "Feature" or "Ogust" or whatever. There isn't room to go into detail, so there should be a footnote, with an explanation somewhere else. On pre-printed cards, there's very little room on the front, and no room on the back, which has a pre-printed personal score sheet. Computer generated cards typically only print the front, so you can put your expansions on the back, but then there's the problem that card holders are typically designed on the assumption that there's not going to be anything to look at on the back of the card. My solution: after I get everything printed where I want it, laminate the damn thing. If I'm writing a card by hand, usually with a pick-up partner, well, I've got a problem, don't I?

Law 40 no longer refers to "prior disclosure" (meaning disclosure prior to the start of a segment). That's unfortunate.

What I'm adamant about is that a player is not entitled to be told verbally, in response to a question, what future calls will mean. If you write down your systemic responses to, e.g., an Ogust 2NT, then if an opponent actually looks at the card, he's entitled to read and assimilate what's there. OTOH, most players around here never look at system cards.

Just addressing one issue, which is that it is not the first time that the ACBL convention card has been demonstrated to be hopeless. Why not use a 2-sided convention card and have the scorecard separate? Also, checkboxes take up a lot of room, since you are not checking all of them. What is the reason for not having player write what they are doing instead of using a lot of space to print what they are not doing?

Here we exchange convention cards and people often look at them. But initially, the normal verbal general description of system is all they need, possibly similar in the ACBL.

[blackshoe]

We are told that the card is being revised, or at least looked at for revision. When or if that will actually happen, I don't know. Even if it does, I'm not all that convinced it'll be an improvement. We'll see.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2018-August-02, 20:12, said:

Just addressing one issue, which is that it is not the first time that the ACBL convention card has been demonstrated to be hopeless. Why not use a 2-sided convention card and have the scorecard separate? Also, checkboxes take up a lot of room, since you are not checking all of them. What is the reason for not having player write what they are doing instead of using a lot of space to print what they are not doing?

Checkboxes have two benefits:

1. When you're filling out a CC with a new partner, they act as a guide to the most common agreements you need to make.

2. When an opponent wants to see if you're playing something common, they can quickly look for the familiar checkbox.

The CC is obviously not designed to be a replacement for detailed system notes, just a basic summary.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2018-August-04, 15:25, said:

Checkboxes have two benefits:

1. When you're filling out a CC with a new partner, they act as a guide to the most common agreements you need to make.

2. When an opponent wants to see if you're playing something common, they can quickly look for the familiar checkbox.

The CC is obviously not designed to be a replacement for detailed system notes, just a basic summary.

On the EBU cards, items are also in places that people can find easily. Somehow people don’t need a “guide” to help them decide on their agreements.