[jillybean]

ACBL

0-500 NLM Sectional, you are called to a table by a player complaining that the opponents have no Convention Card.
The players with no CC have ~200 Master Points each.

How do you respond?

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2013-October-01, 22:48, said:

ACBL

0-500 NLM Sectional, you are called to a table by a player complaining that the opponents have no Convention Card.
The players with no CC have ~200 Master Points each.

How do you respond?

If convention cards are required for the event, I will request that the opponents produce at least one completed convention card by the end of the following round. If they are unable to comply, then I will have to check the CoC -- perhaps giving them a Yellow Card (do they still exist) to play until they come up with a CC.

[blackshoe]

Quote

ACBL General Conditions of Contest, #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.

The Director should have a supply of Yellow Cards on hand. I would add that the pair should not be permitted to delay the game in order to complete their cards.

[Vampyr]

What is the relevance of 200 masterpoints? Are you saying that they are experienced or inexperienced?

[billw55]

Pretty simple one. I'm guessing that the director failed to apply the correct action.

[jillybean]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-02, 05:02, said:

What is the relevance of 200 masterpoints? Are you saying that they are experienced or inexperienced?

I included the 200 master point comment to indicate that the pair were not complete rookies.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2013-October-02, 08:53, said:

I included the 200 master point comment to indicate that the pair were not complete rookies.

And in the context of the 500 MP limit, they're actually fairly experienced.

I'd be more interested to know whether they're a pick-up partnership or they have a history of playing with each other. If they just met 5 minutes before the game, and didn't have time to make many agreements, the lack of CC is actually a pretty good representation of their agreements, so it doesn't seem like the opponents are damaged. It might be a violation of the CoC, but I might let it slide on "no harm, no foul" principles. If this is the first session and they plan on playing together in the second, I'd tell them they should work on this during the break.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-October-02, 09:46, said:

It might be a violation of the CoC, but I might let it slide on "no harm, no foul" principles. If this is the first session and they plan on playing together in the second, I'd tell them they should work on this during the break.

A nice (to the OS, at least), friendly, and completely illegal ruling.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-01, 23:34, said:

If convention cards are required for the event, I will request that the opponents produce at least one completed convention card by the end of the following round. If they are unable to comply, then I will have to check the CoC -- perhaps giving them a Yellow Card (do they still exist) to play until they come up with a CC.

ACBL CoC very clearly state: "Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents" and "Official ACBL convention cards or convention cards which are similar must be used at all ACBL sectional or higher-rated events".

I think the offending pair should immediately be given SAYCs and told that this is their convention card until they have completed their own convention cards and call me back to confirm their compliance, at which point they can start to use their own card in the following round.

[sfi]

What if the side without a convention card doesn't know SAYC? Forcing them to play it doesn't do anybody any good in that situation, and my experience with people who say they play it is that their understanding varies widely.

[mr1303]

Totally agree with sfi. I had the same thought - if the EBU tried making me play simple Acol, I would have to tell them that I don't know how.

[nige1]

sfi, on 2013-October-02, 15:20, said:

What if the side without a convention card doesn't know SAYC? Forcing them to play it doesn't do anybody any good in that situation, and my experience with people who say they play it is that their understanding varies widely.

mr1303, on 2013-October-02, 16:39, said:

Totally agree with sfi. I had the same thought - if the EBU tried making me play simple Acol, I would have to tell them that I don't know how.

I think the director should allow a couple of minutes for players to read the card or for somebody to read it to them.

[sfi]

nige1, on 2013-October-02, 16:47, said:

I think the director should allow a couple of minutes for players to read the card or for somebody to read it to them.

That seems fair. Surely someone could "substantially complete" a convention card in a similar amount of time, but the SAYC approach at least provides a standard default approach until one of them winds up as dummy.

For what it's worth, the only time I've ever complained about this (in an Australian teams event), the opponents showed up late and were given about 5 minutes to fill it out. It was annoying at the time, but it made little difference in the 20 board match.

[jillybean]

The pair had played together before, they had not bothered to complete a CC. Why should they?

I don't recall exactly what the director said, something to the effect of "you should have a CC" and left the table.

The pair were asked what carding they played.."standard", what is your defence to No Trump? to which they replied "what is this, an inquisition"?

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2013-October-02, 15:20, said:

What if the side without a convention card doesn't know SAYC? Forcing them to play it doesn't do anybody any good in that situation, and my experience with people who say they play it is that their understanding varies widely.

Doesn't matter. What alternative would you like? How about "okay, you can play your system, but you can't play any boards until you satisfy me that you have complied with the CC requirement. Each board you miss will be awarded an artificial adjusted score, A- to you, A+ to your opponents, and you will receive an additional 1/6 board procedural penalty for each board you miss". Then the TD will tell each opposing pair that they will be sitting out until the offending pair is in compliance, and the consequences on the boards they miss.

That may or may not be "better" in some peoples' minds (including, quite possibly, mine) but the fact remains we have a different regulation in place.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-02, 17:49, said:

Doesn't matter. What alternative would you like?

It's just a practical question - I'm not trying to say the regulation is wrong but it's not clear from a distance that it's workable. If you tell someone they have to play a system and they don't know it, what happens? What if they make a bid that doesn't fit the system - do they get punished for providing misinformation? If they use a bid that they both understand but isn't part of SAYC, what happens?

For what it's worth I'm not sure that Australia even has prescribed penalties if the players don't have a system card. The regulations simple don't seem to address the possibility.

[GreenMan]

As a practical matter almost everyone in NorAm learns something resembling SAYC on the way to wherever they are at the moment, so handing them a yellow CC would not strand them in the wilderness*.

*Though the pair jillybean describes should probably be driven into the woods and told to find their own way back.

[blackshoe]

If they provide MI, they get whatever ruling the laws require. That's not punishment, that's rectification.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-02, 18:05, said:

If they provide MI, they get whatever ruling the laws require. That's not punishment, that's rectification.

Do you genuinely think this is how this pair will feel, or are you simply playing semantic games?

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2013-October-02, 17:27, said:

The pair had played together before, they had not bothered to complete a CC. Why should they?

I don't recall exactly what the director said, something to the effect of "you should have a CC" and left the table.

This director should be educated, or fired. I would so recommend to his (or her) district supervisor, or whatever the ACBL calls them these days.

jillybean, on 2013-October-02, 17:27, said:

The pair were asked what carding they played.."standard", what is your defence to No Trump? to which they replied "what is this, an inquisition"?

This remark is not called for, and is a violation of the proprieties. Call the TD back and tell him what the opponent said. After he does nothing (based on his previous "ruling") ask him to remain at the table as long as you are playing against this pair, as clearly you are going to have a lot of questions to ask.