Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Kathryn Shannon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
and Directors condone it, and SO's couldn't care less.
So why is it not removed from the laws?
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Penalty” would be fine, if it means what John says above.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Very clear regulations. Do players generally abide by them and are they enforced?
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't want or expect complete system notes to be on the CC.
The CC is clearly designed with room for players to provide details of their
defences to weak and strong NT openings. This is reinforced by
various statements regarding the use of convention names vs. details and
Full Disclosure.

Many people are saying “for heavens sake, just ask!”

“Asking” has the downside of creating potential UI for partner. It also carries the downside of the opponents possibly giving and using MI.
“Asking” relies on the opponents providing accurate, full disclosure, and recognizing and announcing where there is MI, and in that situation, relying on the director to get all the facts, make the correct ruling, and restore equity.

This should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as pickup partners getting their agreements mixed up or when a player falls ill and another sits in. This should not be used for regular partnerships who simply do not bother completing a CC. It is not an onerous task to provide full disclosure on the CC.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The articles also appears on the ACBL Website under “How to Complete Your Convention Card” It was first published in July 2006
.https://www.acbl.org/learn_page/how-to-play-bridge/introduction-to-duplicate/convention-cards/how-to-complete-your-convention-card/
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm still breathing, Ed. :-)

Yes, laws sorry, not regulations. The laws tell me that I MUST have a fully completed CC and half the pairs I play against don't. Which MUST's , must we follow?
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There thus appears to be little value in requiring a fully completed convention card.
I will stop “banging my head on the wall” and worrying about expecting, or providing one. Under General Approach, I will enter “OBFUSCATION”
I'm not sure which other regulations I can ignore, but likely those that tell us we should advise the opposition that there has been misinformation or a failure to alert at the end of an auction or play.
Without a CC these could be very tricky to unravel.
Nov. 13
Kathryn Shannon edited this comment Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Playing in the A/X Swiss today, we sit down and I reach for my LHO's convention card.
Under Defense vs. NT is written (Nat - Blooman).
I ask LHO, can you explain your defense to NT please?
LHO shrugs and replies, I don't know, ask him“, gesturing to his partner.

The ACBL Convention Card Wisdom clearly states that you must NOT use convention names in these fields, in the interest of Full Disclosure.

This appears to be another suggestion rather than a requirement. I am dumbfounded.

If you can't beat em, we will join them. We play transfers over the oppositions NT. I will remove the meaning of the bids from my CC and replace it with ”Modified Biggles".
Nov. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
PVR it and go play bridge.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Namyats has been off our card for almost 2 years, I doubt that South knew we once played it.
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not a serious error but wouldn't you call it a gambling action?
Sept. 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Andy. Please explain in layman's language, what North did wrong and why he can't take advantage of his partners question.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tom, AI for whom?
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For the record, North doubled 5 not 4

I am East, my partner was confused. We had namyats on the card but took it off some time ago. 4 would have been a transfer to 4

I am somewhat aware of the rules concerning the use of UI. It wasn't until after the hand that I realized I had obviously taken advantage of my partners answer. It is a wake up call for me.

I posted the hand not to confirm the use of UI, but to determine if anyone thought N/S actions were strange. I am not concerned with Souths question.

Result 4-7
Sept. 29
Kathryn Shannon edited this comment Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
4 was not alerted, experienced players.
Sept. 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed. I assume, if the opponents do not agree there was a BIT, and don't call the TD then the “non offending” side should or must call?

(RY, I've called this the “non offending” side even though no offence has been established at this point.)
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What did I do wrong here? Should I not have called the director?

Although this is how it is adressed at times, I'll stand corrected regarding rolling back auction vs. Adjusted score.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
These are seasoned players, not newbies. What is the “spirit” of the regulation requiring convention cards? I thought it was there for your opponents information, If we are now saying it is quite okay if you don't have one, or have one partially completed, your opponents can ask. I could simply remove useful information and sit on the card.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's get real. Pairs not having 2 substantially completed cards in an ongoing problem with chronic offenders. There are players who never have a CC, at the club or at a tournament.
And I'm the bitch who calls the director every time I encounter this. In these cases of repeat offenders I think the Directors could do a lot more to enforce the regulations.
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here's another example of my concerns expressed in this post.
I initially posted this hand as a “bidding problem” but the thread was later deleted as it appeared in the “Articles” category, rather than bidding polls.

The hand is
AQ8432, 64, T874, A 1st seat vulnerable match points.

The auction: 2 (P) P (3)

The question was: do you take another bid?
The result was 72 NO 1 YES

My follow up comments, before the thread was deleted are below.

I'm East here, if I was sitting North I would have opened 1♠ in a heartbeat.
After North opened 2♠ I duly studied my hand for 10 seconds, did not drum my fingers on the table or stare into space, and then passed. South then tanked for 15 seconds and passed. My partner bid 3♥, North then bid 3♠.
I asked North if he agreed that South had hesitated?
His reply “Come on, this isn't the Blue Ribbon. Anyway, I wasn't paying attention, I was writing in my score card”

FWIW North is an experienced player with 1,300 master points.

Director/Club owner was called to the table and allowed the 3♠ bid to stand.

I believe an ethical player, having opened 1 would have to pass after their partner tanked and a capable Director would roll this auction back.
Sept. 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
.

Bottom Home Top