[jillybean]

While reading the daily Bulletin from the SF NABC, you can't help but notice this prominent reminder.


Convention card reminder
Each player is required to have a
convention card filled out legibly and on the
table throughout a session. Both cards of a
partnership must be identical and include
the first and last names of each member of
the partnership.
If a director determines that neither
player has a substantially completed card,
the partnership may play only the Standard
American Yellow Card and may use only
standard carding. This restriction may be
lifted only at the beginning of a subsequent
round after convention cards have been
properly prepared and approved by the
director. Further, the partnership will
receive a 1/6-board matchpoint penalty
for each board played, commencing with
the next round and continuing until the
restriction is lifted. In IMP team games,
penalties shall be at the discretion of the
director.
If the director determines the
partnership has at least one substantially
completed convention card but has not
fully complied with ACBL regulations, the
director may give warnings or assign such
penalties as he deems to be appropriate
under the circumstances.
The objective of these warnings and
penalties is the encouragement of full
compliance with ACBL regulations.


My question, is this regulation only enforced at NABC's, in the National rated events?
What is the point of having the regulation for other games if it is not enforced? Club games, Sectionals, Regionals.

[aguahombre]

This part of the regulation seems impossible:

"Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6-board matchpoint penalty
for each board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the
restriction is lifted."

Once they are required to use the Yellow Card, they indeed have two indentical CC's. How can they continue to be penalized on future boards once they are in compliance?

Edit:
I believe that two identical CC's should be enforceable, but requiring a YC until the problem is fixed seems adequate. PP's in this area should only be for repeated violations or refusals.

Art's 1/4 board penalty (below) is truly silly, IMO

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-December-02, 12:39

[ArtK78]

My partnership received a 1/4 of a board penalty in the first qualifying session of my district's NAOP for having only 1 completed convention card on the table. This was the result of a silly director call by the opps after he couldn't figure out that I had led the 8 as the top of three small cards against a NT contract and tried to get a better result after the play by calling the TD. The TD gave the opp nothing, but penalized us for not having 2 completed identical CCs on the table.

Very silly.

[jillybean]

Agree, and very inconsistent. If the rule exists it must be applied consistently or scrapped.

[blackshoe]

The problem, or part of it, is that the notice in the bulletin does not quite accurately reflect the regulation. It appears that, for example, the TD in Art's case ruled on the basis of the notice rather than the regulation. This is the regulation, from the General Conditions of Contest dated October 3, 2011:

Quote

Item 5 under "Conventions and Convention Cards":
Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents.
• Both cards of a partnership must be identical and include the first and last names of each member of the partnership.
• If a Director determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after Convention Cards have been properly prepared and approved by the Director. Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6 Board Match Point Penalty for each Board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP team games penalties shall be at the discretion of the Director.
• If the Director determines the partnership has at least one substantially completed Convention Card but has not fully complied with ACBL regulations, then the director may give warnings or, if the deficiency is not corrected in a timely manner given the circumstances, assign such penalties as he deems to be appropriate.

My reading of the last bullet and Art's post is that the director gave an immediate penalty, which is not in accordance with the regulation — unless the TD was requiring an instant production of a second CC in order to be "timely".

The regulation does indeed require a 1/6 board MP penalty for each board played under the SAYC rule. Is it enforced? I doubt it.

The General CoC apply to "all ACBL events", which to my mind includes tournaments at all levels and club games. No doubt the anonymous phone answerer you reach at HQ will tell you, however, that clubs don't have to enforce it.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-02, 12:27, said:

Once they are required to use the Yellow Card, they indeed have two indentical CC's. How can they continue to be penalized on future boards once they are in compliance?

I think the intent is that they must bid in accordance with the YC. They don't necessarily have two printed copies of the YC, unless they happen to have copies of them or the director is nice enough to provide them.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2012-December-03, 00:11, said:

I think the intent is that they must bid in accordance with the YC. They don't necessarily have two printed copies of the YC, unless they happen to have copies of them or the director is nice enough to provide them.

This makes no sense. I don't know what is allowed on the YC, wouldn't know if I was violating it and without a copy of the CC it is very likely the opponents wouldn't know either.

[aguahombre]

There are YC's all over the place at a tournament. Of course, they are available if required of a pair to use them.

[barmar]

YC is pretty close to what most players consider "standard", which is why it's the forced default. Yes, there are usually copies all over the place at NABCs; if you don't want that clause to be applied against you, go find one ASAP. At other tournaments, though, they may not be available. If you don't know what YC is, that's your problem -- you should have shown up with the required CCs and you wouldn't be in this situation.

[Phil]

I liken this to a speed limit on a freeway.

Around Southern California, even those its posted 65 mph in most places, most drive around 70. I have driven next to a chp many times going *s fast as 75.

If the CHP did nothing but enforce these minor transgressions, that would eat up their day. Arguably, a speeding ticket is like a sin tax, and they could justifiably do that like many other areas I've been to. However, instead, the patrol cars wait for serious offenses like someone driving 90 or weaving in and out of traffic. Or they might be needed for an accident or a traffic break, where their presence would be delayed if they were writing tickets.

So why have a speed limit in the first place? Without one, things would degrade to chaos, even with 'safe' drivers. But a speed limit keeps 99% of those in check.

The same goes for directors. If they walked around the room doing nothing but checking cc's, that's all they would do. Yet, I think random audits (think safety checkpoint / speed trap) of sections is probably a smart idea, because you really want people to comply with these rules. It makes the game go smoother when people have completed, legible cc's.

ArtK78 is a safe driver that drives over the speed limit. He is an honest person but omitted the section on the cc that says what he leads from xxx. I think its grossly unfair for him to be penalized for this simply because his AR opponent misplayed a hand and wanted an adjustment based on an incomplete cc.

I'm also sure that there are drivers that keep it at 60 and harbor grudges about all of those speeding drivers that go 70. They should be content that following the letter of the law is virtue for its own sake, and not worry about others.

[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-December-03, 11:41, said:

I liken this to a speed limit on a freeway.

Around Southern California, even those its posted 65 mph in most places, most drive around 70. I have driven next to a chp many times going *s fast as 75.

If the CHP did nothing but enforce these minor transgressions, that would eat up their day. Arguably, a speeding ticket is like a sin tax, and they could justifiably do that like many other areas I've been to. However, instead, the patrol cars wait for serious offenses like someone driving 90 or weaving in and out of traffic. Or they might be needed for an accident or a traffic break, where their presence would be delayed if they were writing tickets.

So why have a speed limit in the first place? Without one, things would degrade to chaos, even with 'safe' drivers. But a speed limit keeps 99% of those in check.

The same goes for directors. If they walked around the room doing nothing but checking cc's, that's all they would do. Yet, I think random audits (think safety checkpoint / speed trap) of sections is probably a smart idea, because you really want people to comply with these rules. It makes the game go smoother when people have completed, legible cc's.

ArtK78 is a safe driver that drives over the speed limit. He is an honest person but omitted the section on the cc that says what he leads from xxx. I think its grossly unfair for him to be penalized for this simply because his AR opponent misplayed a hand and wanted an adjustment based on an incomplete cc.

I'm also sure that there are drivers that keep it at 60 and harbor grudges about all of those speeding drivers that go 70. They should be content that following the letter of the law is virtue for its own sake, and not worry about others.

Phil:

While your post has many interesting points, I want to correct the info about the "infraction" committed by me.

There was nothing incomplete on my CC. The section on the card about leading from 3 small was properly filled in (as was the section on the card about leading from 4 or more small). My opp just chose to misconstrue what was on the card. His error was entirely his own fault. For a reason known only to the TD, the TD decided to impose a penalty against my partnership as my partner did not have a convention card (let alone a fully complete and identical convention card). The TD did not give my opp any redress for his misplaying of the hand due to his misreading of my CC.

[blackshoe]

My understanding of the "must play SAYC" regulation is that the TD is supposed to be prepared to give the pair two copies of the YC and two copies of the booklet. If that's the case, then for the TD to impose the regulation without providing those things is just wrong. If it's not the case, and TD's are expecting people to play SAYC without a card, and without knowing what it is, that's not just wrong, that's plain crazy.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2012-December-03, 11:09, said:

YC is pretty close to what most players consider "standard", which is why it's the forced default. Yes, there are usually copies all over the place at NABCs; if you don't want that clause to be applied against you, go find one ASAP. At other tournaments, though, they may not be available. If you don't know what YC is, that's your problem -- you should have shown up with the required CCs and you wouldn't be in this situation.

How is this enforced, if it is enforced at all? AFAIK the CC is not for the use of the owners but of the opposition to refer to prepare any defense and avoid asking questions which could lead to UI or wake up the opponents. Not having a CC is a problem for the opposition and I assume also a problem for the directors if they need to sort out a case of MI.

Phil, I don't expect the directors to walk around the room checking CC's but if they are called because of a CC irregularity then I think it should be dealt with, consistently or the law should be tossed out.

[pigpenz]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-03, 12:30, said:

Phil:

While your post has many interesting points, I want to correct the info about the "infraction" committed by me.

There was nothing incomplete on my CC. The section on the card about leading from 3 small was properly filled in (as was the section on the card about leading from 4 or more small). My opp just chose to misconstrue what was on the card. His error was entirely his own fault. For a reason known only to the TD, the TD decided to impose a penalty against my partnership as my partner did not have a convention card (let alone a fully complete and identical convention card). The TD did not give my opp any redress for his misplaying of the hand due to his misreading of my CC.

Art then in that case the TD did rule correctly about your pair not having two identical cards filled out.
having been away from tourney bridge for twenty years with bidding boxes and wireless scoring I find that at the table anymore no one puts their card out in a position where it can be see.....it would seem that a pre announcemnt of nt ranges would be better than announcing when the call is made.

[barmar]

The rule that there must be TWO CCs also seems pretty silly. Obviously, if there are two CC's, it makes sense to require that they be identical, since the inconsistencies can result in MI (if an opponent looks at the wrong one) and prevents the director from using the CC as evidence in determining MI or LAs. But how are opponents impacted if the partnership only has one CC? If we had a tradition of exchanging CCs at the beginning of a round, it would make it difficult for each opponent to review the CC at the same time, but we don't geneally do this so there's little harm (in my experience, if a pair likes to review the opponents' CC at the beginning of the round, often just one of them does it and he mentions the important features to his partner).

[blackshoe]

pigpenz, on 2012-December-03, 18:50, said:

Art then in that case the TD did rule correctly about your pair not having two identical cards filled out.

Except that he seems to think that "in a timely manner" means "instantly".

[mycroft]

Two cards comes from the fact that it should not be necessary to ask for a CC if you want to look at the one that's on your left. Doesn't help when a) there's only one, b) it might be for the wrong partner, and c) it's under his butt or in her purse, but that's the theory.

And yes, I have copies of the YC in my director's bag quickly to hand along with all the other forms I rarely need. Not the booklet though. And yes, I've handed them out.

I think we should be much more stringent about this regulation (and the names bit, too); but we aren't, so I go with what is expected.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2012-December-04, 12:02, said:

Two cards comes from the fact that it should not be necessary to ask for a CC if you want to look at the one that's on your left. Doesn't help when a) there's only one, b) it might be for the wrong partner, and c) it's under his butt or in her purse, but that's the theory.

If that were the intent of the regulation, shouldn't it also say that the CCs have to be put on the table, and on opposite corners so that each opponent can look at them without having to ask for it? What sense does it make to penalize having only one CC, but not penalize butt-CCs?

And even if both CCs are on the table, players often fold them in half so they don't take up so much room. As a result, you still have to ask for it if the information is on the side that isn't face up (in my experience, the defensive carding section is almost always face down, and it's what I most often need to peek at).

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-December-04, 13:23, said:

If that were the intent of the regulation, shouldn't it also say that the CCs have to be put on the table, and on opposite corners so that each opponent can look at them without having to ask for it? What sense does it make to penalize having only one CC, but not penalize butt-CCs?

And even if both CCs are on the table, players often fold them in half so they don't take up so much room. As a result, you still have to ask for it if the information is on the side that isn't face up (in my experience, the defensive carding section is almost always face down, and it's what I most often need to peek at).

The regulation should simply clarify that the CC's are for the opponents. It should say: "At the start of the round a CC is handed to each of the opponents. These CC's must be filled out completely and must be identical." It could add (but won't ): "The opponent is allowed to put it under his butt. You aren't."

Rik

[barmar]

I think we need signs that say "We provided chairs for you to sit on. Please don't use your convention card."