[axman]

lamford, on 2017-January-03, 20:30, said:

---

IMPS. Table Result 4S+1 Q♣ lead

I had my annual New Year's drink with SB last night, and he indicated that one of his resolutions was not to call the TD any more. Unfortunately, another of his resolutions was not to call the TD any less. It reminds me of my friend, the late Bob Brinig, who told me that he was not drinking any more ...

He played his first game of the year last night. On the above hand, SB, East, was up to his old tricks. North-South had not been to the North London club for a couple of years, and were also unfamiliar with the Blue Book. When North bid 4H, SB suspected it was probably a splinter, but when there was no alert, he passed. At the end of the hand, he was quick to pounce. "I think we need the TD", he said. "4♥ has been alertable for at least 12 months, and it is your job to read the regulations", he continued. "DIRECTOOOR"

South thought that bids over 3NT were not alertable, but the TD who arrived confirmed it was on the first round of the auction if artificial. "How were you damaged?" he asked. "Well," replied SB, "I would have doubled the splinter, and my partner would have had an easy 5♥ bid. That appears to be cold, so the score should be adjusted to 5Hx=".

"Why did you not ask?" the TD enquired. SB was ready with his answer: "If 4H was natural, the last thing I wanted to be doing is doubling as that would be take-out and partner might bid 5D. If it is a splinter, double would be lead-directing and suggest saving, as you can see from our system notes, TD. I could not ask without conveying UI to my partner who might have been bidding 4NT himself if he held both minors as seemed likely".

How do you rule?

I thought some years ago there was a regulation requiring the exchange of CCs- the idea being that the possession of the other side's card simplified reading it during the hand thus avoiding questions. And, perhaps the regulators have been remiss in not repealing the regulation? Notably, west asserted he was acutely aware at the time of 4H that the NS meaning was important to his action???

[weejonnie]

axman, on 2017-January-04, 12:20, said:

I thought some years ago there was a regulation requiring the exchange of CCs- the idea being that the possession of the other side's card simplified reading it during the hand thus avoiding questions. And, perhaps the regulators have been remiss in not repealing the regulation? Notably, west asserted he was acutely aware at the time of 4H that the NS meaning was important to his action???

There is - for EBU events certainly. However picking up the CC after the 4♥ call is going to pass some UI on as well. (Of course there may not have been any CCs around, as in many clubs).

Then you have the same problem. If partner does NOT pick up the convention card you are in a cleft stick. You KNOW the call is splinter and your double is lead directing with suggestions of sacrificing, but partner may not (and assume the double is for the minors) - and you cannot therefore ask South what the call means as that would be for partner's benefit.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 09:43, said:

In which case his proper procedure is to point it out and immediately call the director. In which case he has done just what he wants to avoid, giving UI to his partner.

so what? he gives UI to his partner that he would have made a lead-directing double and then the director offers to let him take his previous pass back and he makes a....yes....lead-directing double.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2017-January-04, 10:18, said:

Nitpick, irrelevant to this case - and all I can point to is my two DICs (both ACBL National TDs, and, well, "pretty good" National TDs) for this resolution, but it makes sense. Unfortunately, the Alert Chart and the Alert Procedure conflict on what calls require a delayed Alert.

Your nitpick is valid, and I have an email from Horn Lake (Dan Plato, I think) around here somewhere that says that the correct word is "bid" not "call" and that he would see that whichever one says "call" would be changed. Last time I checked it hadn't been yet, but that was a while ago.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure I buy this whole "picking up the system card conveys UI" thing. But I suppose you could eliminate any problem by picking up the card at every turn to call. Even if you only fake actually reading it. Of course, if they don't have one I guess you have to call the TD and complain. How far will that get you?

[lamford]

wank, on 2017-January-04, 12:38, said:

so what? he gives UI to his partner that he would have made a lead-directing double and then the director offers to let him take his previous pass back and he makes a....yes....lead-directing double.

I don't think that he is allowed to call the director or do anything just because he now believes that North has a splinter, until it is his turn to call. And at that point it will be too late. Law 20 allows him to call the TD if his own or his partner's explanation was erroneous, but he cannot call the TD because he thinks the opponents have failed to alert. He can ask at his second turn to call, of course, but by then the horse had bolted.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 22:13, said:

I'm not so sure I buy this whole "picking up the system card conveys UI" thing. But I suppose you could eliminate any problem by picking up the card at every turn to call. Even if you only fake actually reading it. Of course, if they don't have one I guess you have to call the TD and complain. How far will that get you?

Some players routinely open their opponents' system card and leave it on their lap for the whole round. Trickier to do in the ACBL if they have their score on the other side!

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-January-05, 06:31, said:

Some players routinely open their opponents' system card and leave it on their lap for the whole round. Trickier to do in the ACBL if they have their score on the other side!

On their lap? I have not seen much of this, but we of advanced years would not be able to read it at that distance anyway. So the actual reading of the card is going to be obvious.

In the ACBL, they could use a different card for scoring and for their system. We manage to keep track of a scorecard and a convention card. Theirs are the same size, so players can paperclip them together or put them in those plastic jobbies. An added benefit is if the card is a printout or a photocopy the back can be used as well.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-05, 10:46, said:

On their lap? I have not seen much of this, but we of advanced years would not be able to read it at that distance anyway. So the actual reading of the card is going to be obvious.

In the ACBL, they could use a different card for scoring and for their system. We manage to keep track of a scorecard and a convention card. Theirs are the same size, so players can paperclip them together or put them in those plastic jobbies. An added benefit is if the card is a printout or a photocopy the back can be used as well.

Even if one had a system card open, that would not remove the necessity for the opponents to alert, nor would it create a requirement to look at the card if an un-alerted 4H was bid. One is entitled to assume that an unalerted bid does not fall into an alertable category.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-05, 10:46, said:

On their lap? I have not seen much of this, but we of advanced years would not be able to read it at that distance anyway. So the actual reading of the card is going to be obvious.

In the ACBL, they could use a different card for scoring and for their system. We manage to keep track of a scorecard and a convention card. Theirs are the same size, so players can paperclip them together or put them in those plastic jobbies. An added benefit is if the card is a printout or a photocopy the back can be used as well.

If it's in one of the plastic jobbies, then handing the opponent your jobby also hands them your personal score, unless you take it out every time you hand the card to the opponent (which negates the point of putting it into the back of the jobby in the first place).

[mycroft]

Yes, in the ACBL at least, we should figure out a way to dissociate the scorecard from the convention card. Having said that, it will only happen when we aggressively regulate the Tournament rule on CCs - and make clear that when we mean "pairs have" we don't mean "in their purse, a 2 minute search deep" or "folded up in their pocket and unreadable" or "pulled from plumber's butt". That will never happen, unfortunately; and the advanced part of actually giving it to the opponents, rather than keeping it as if it were your passport, will never never happen. That doesn't mean that my card isn't face up, UNFOLDED, facing (usually, with one partner we use left-handed bidding boxes, so everything gets twisted 90 degrees so the opponents get all of the free corners) RHO, at all times. Because *I* believe in the spirit of the regulation. Doesn't mean anybody looks at it, either, of course.

Frustrated? Yeah...and as always, only speaking for myself.

[blackshoe]

Barmar's right. The inclusion of both cards in the "plastic jobby" means your opponent, if s/he gives you the jobby at all, is going to insist on getting it right back.

Changing this little bit of ACBL "culture" is probably damn near impossible, and almost certainly not worth the effort, much as I'd like to see it changed.

Seems mycroft and I cross-posted. I share his frustration.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2017-January-06, 10:14
Reason for edit: crossposted

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Ah yes I knew this - I was referring to SB's mention of "12 months". I thought the timeframe might be relevant but I suppose not. Should people be given a grace period for change of regulations? I.e. if this all happened the day after the regulation changed can a director be more sympathetic to the OS.

Indeed a grace period has been given in the past with changes to give players time to get used to it. There is some dramatic licence here as the Blue Book 2013 included these changes so 3.5 years not 12 months. The following is inaccurate

Quote

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid over 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England.

And it is a suit bid i.e. you still don't alert 4NT.