[mrdct]

At the start of a 9-board match I was playing earlier today in Melbourne, I handed a copy of our convention card to each of our opponents and said "we are attempting to play a fairly simple form of acol". My RHO said, "we are attempting to play 2/1 with a short club". I glanced at their convention card noting that it had a red sticker (systems employing artificial one-level openings that do not fall under the definition of Yellow (HUM) systems, other than Strong Club/Strong Diamond (Blue) systems), the "pre-alerts" section was blank and there was no brown sticker on the convention card. I didn't look at anything else on their convention card and tucked it away under my scoresheet.

About three board into the match, my LHO opened 2♠ which RHO alerted, partner enquired and the explanation was given as "at least 5-5 in the blacks or the reds". I felt a bit miffed as my partner and I hadn't been given any opportunity to discuss what we play over this convention so I called the director even though it wasn't my turn to act as I thought an irregularity had occurred in terms of inadequate disclosure by my opponents which the TD may be able to rectify by allowing us to quickly discuss a defence.

Somewhat to my surprise, the TD said "their opening twos are clearly written on the front page of their convention card and you two are experienced enough that your should know what you are doing against these sort of openings - please play-on". The hand itself was unremarkable, although there was a chance that we might've had a misunderstanding about whether lebensohl applied after my partner doubled 2♠ but we bid and made our making game for a flat board.

The Regulations for the event were limited to:

Regulations: VBA Regulations apply.
Systems: Highly artificial systems are not allowed. System cards are mandatory.
Alerting: Current ABF procedures are enforced.

Two questions:

1. Should the TD have allowed us to discuss a defence before partner acts over 2♠?

2. What UI might my calling the TD and enquiring about whether or not we can discuss a defence have generated?

[glen]

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 05:41, said:

1. Should the TD have allowed us to discuss a defence before partner acts over 2♠?

Depends on the conditions of contest (and please post a link to VBA regulations). Did you discuss with the TD that the BS was not on the pre-alert part of their cc, and that there was no pre-alert before the match started, and that the opponents do not have a recommended defense to their convention?

According to the ABF:

http://www.abf.com.au/system/

abf said:

If you are using Brown Sticker conventions you need two circles on your card, one for your basic system and a brown circle for the brown sticker conventions.

You could refer the TD to this document:

http://www.abf.com.a...e_of_Ethics.pdf

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 05:41, said:

2. What UI might my calling the TD and enquiring about whether or not we can discuss a defence have generated?

Nothing

[nigel_k]

Does a brown sticker convention cause the team to lose seating rights in Australia?

[mrdct]

VBA Tournament Regulations

As far as I can see, the regs don't deal with whether or not the TD should allow us to discuss a defense; so I was wondering if there was anything in the Laws that did.

It was certainly made very clear to the TD that there was no pre-alert, no brown sticker on the CC and nothing written in the pre-alert section on the CC.

I don't believe there is any requirement in Australia or Victoria for people playing BS conventions to suggest a defence or concede seating rights (that only applies to HUM systems).

The reason I asked about the UI implications is that my RHO actually suggested at the end of the hand that my side may have used UI to get to our game as I apparently would only have called the TD if I had some values. I thought that was rubbish, and indeed a tad offensive, as if I had an absolute yarborough it probably would've been even more important to that clarify with partner how I'm going to distinguish between a weak hand and strong hand if partner doubles (e.g. would lebensohl still applied even though 2♠ is unanchored).

[sfi]

There are a couple of practical points here:

- I've seen brown stickers available in Australia exactly once. If directors actually want to enforce this then tournaments (and clubs) need to supply them.
- The computer program used to generate printed bridge cards does not support having two stickers.
- The section for two-level openings is directly above the pre-alert section on the system card.
- Brown sticker conventions do not require a suggested defence, and a written defence is not allowed.

All manner of strange twos are really common in Australia, even at club games. It's not unreasonable to expect experienced tournament players to be prepared for them.

However, the alert regulations (section 3.1.2) talk about what to point out during the pre-alert phase and it does mention unusual two level openings as an example of what should be pointed out. This suggests that an irregularity has occurred and that the director should consider an adjustment if your side has been damaged.

As to the actual questions, I can't imagine a situation where the director would let partners discuss anything relating to system during the hand. I don't see how UI is generated by the question, but it's a situation entirely of the opponents' making anyway.

[mrdct]

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

- I've seen brown stickers available in Australia exactly once. If directors actually want to enforce this then tournaments (and clubs) need to supply them.

They aren't always available, particularly at congresses, but I've certainly seen them more than once. Whether there are physical brown stickers available or not doesn't alleviate one from the requirement to disclose whether or not you are playing a brown sticker convention.

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

- The computer program used to generate printed bridge cards does not support having two stickers.

That's not true. The System Cards page on the ABF website has fairly simple instructions on how to put a brown sticker on your computer-generated convention card and I have seen some cards printed with same. In any case, there is "Brown Sticker" check-box on the Standard ABF System Card which doesn't require any special skills or knowledge to tick.

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

- The section for two-level openings is directly above the pre-alert section on the system card.

If the pre-alerts section on my opponents' System Card is blank, can't I reasonably assume that they aren't playing anything for which I might need to prepare a defense?

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

- Brown sticker conventions do not require a suggested defence, and a written defence is not allowed.

First part is true, but under ABF System Regulations (Section 7 to be precise) written defenses to brown sticker conventions are allowed at the table. As it happens, however, I have never seen anyone do it as they'd probably be a little bit embarrassed.

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

All manner of strange twos are really common in Australia, even at club games. It's not unreasonable to expect experienced tournament players to be prepared for them.

The problem here was that I was playing in a pick-up partnership, albeit both of us are experienced players, and have never played together and don't really move in the same bridge circle of system commonality. In an earlier round our opponents pre-alerted that they were playing a multi 2♦ and we had quick chat about that and if the people playing their RCO Twos had pre-alerted, we would've done the same.

[glen]

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 16:15, said:

... Brown sticker conventions do not require a suggested defence, and a written defence is not allowed. ...

Australia might want to align more with the WBF BS:

http://www.ecatsbrid...stemsPolicy.pdf

wbf said:

Up to three ‘Brown Sticker’ conventions per partnership will be permitted, subject to adequate disclosure, but players using them must submit their Systems Cards & Brown Sticker Announcement Forms (appendix 1) in advance in accordance with the Conditions of Contest. At the same time a viable suggested defence to any Brown Sticker convention must be filed. This will be deemed to be a part of the System Card and may be referred to by the opponents at the table.

[sfi]

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 17:29, said:

The System Cards page on the ABF website has fairly simple instructions on how to put a brown sticker on your computer-generated convention card and I have seen some cards printed with same. In any case, there is "Brown Sticker" check-box on the Standard ABF System Card which doesn't require any special skills or knowledge to tick.

So it does - good point. Curiously, there isn't a 'brown sticker' box on the blank system cards to be manually completed, unless the one sitting next to me is out of date (which may be the case).

Quote

If the pre-alerts section on my opponents' System Card is blank, can't I reasonably assume that they aren't playing anything for which I might need to prepare a defense?

Yes, which is why I would consider an adjustment. But you are expected to familiarise yourself with their basic system before the round, and it is on the same bit of paper.

Quote

First part is true, but under ABF System Regulations (Section 7 to be precise) written defenses to brown sticker conventions are allowed at the table. As it happens, however, I have never seen anyone do it as they'd probably be a little bit embarrassed.

True as well. I'll have to give this a try and see what sort of reaction I get from the directors.

Quote

The problem here was that I was playing in a pick-up partnership, albeit both of us are experienced players, and have never played together and don't really move in the same bridge circle of system commonality. In an earlier round our opponents pre-alerted that they were playing a multi 2♦ and we had quick chat about that and if the people playing their RCO Twos had pre-alerted, we would've done the same.

That doesn't really change the fact that you are expected to be prepared for a number of common conventions and systems. I still maintain that this is one of the ones that you would expect to see a few times in a session. I would have no sympathy if you had a misunderstanding after a multi-2D auction, but this situation is more arguable.

[sfi]

glen, on 2012-June-24, 17:37, said:

Australia might want to align more with the WBF BS:

http://www.ecatsbrid...stemsPolicy.pdf

Several years ago I actually posted a suggested defence on the notice board in Darwin for both brown sticker conventions my ex-partner and I were playing (Wilkosz Twos and 1NT overcall for takeout). In the next year and a half, a total of zero people looked at it during a session, asked for it, or referred to it.

I'm not convinced that making brown sticker conventions more restrictive would be seen as a positive thing by any more than a very small minority. We were getting pressure to allow them in our daytime duplicate sessions, which we have recently done. Nobody has complained and lots of people gave positive feedback. In club championship sessions, they're just normal - most of the pairs play artificial twos, and about 1/3 of those will be brown sticker (the rest being some sort of multi). And frankly, they don't cause problems for almost anyone even at club level.

Apart from anything else, the additional paperwork for the directors would be significant.

[Cthulhu D]

glen, on 2012-June-24, 17:37, said:

Australia might want to align more with the WBF BS:

http://www.ecatsbrid...stemsPolicy.pdf

Many pairs use more than 3, with 2D through 2NT inclusive being brown sticker, so it's additional headache and more restrictive.

[mrdct]

sfi, on 2012-June-24, 18:02, said:

I'm not convinced that making brown sticker conventions more restrictive would be seen as a positive thing by any more than a very small minority.

I've got nothing against brown sticker conventions and think the current regulations in Australia dealing with them are fine; all I ask is that if my opponents want to play a brown sticker convention they disclose it in the manner set out in the regulations and that TDs enforce the rules.

[sfi]

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 18:25, said:

all I ask is that if my opponents want to play a brown sticker convention they disclose it in the manner set out in the regulations and that TDs enforce the rules.

What do you think the director should have done differently? IMO, allowing pairs to discuss defences during the hand is a non-starter - Law 73 is clear. No damage was done, so there was no reason to adjust in any case. Do you think the director should have warned your opponents, assigned a procedural penalty, informed the table to call him back if there was any damage due to the failure to pre-alert, or simply not acted so dismissively? He certainly did not seem to give much credence to any UI implications of the question.

(For the record, my answers would be 'yes' to verbally informing the opponents of their obligations and asking play to continue with instructions to be called back at the end of the hand if anyone feels there has been damage. I would have had more to say as director about RHO's comment at the end of the hand.)

[Cascade]

I have had a couple of TD/appeal committee rulings in Australia and NZ (similar regulations apply) which impact on this decision and some other comments to make:

1. I think that you are clearly within your rights to call the director after a bid has been made that has not been prealerted. There is no restriction on calling a director when it is not your turn to call or play.

2. It doesn't seem at all obvious that a TD call implies or even suggests that you have values. I suppose in theory it could but I would view very skeptically an opponents suggestion of such especially when they have primarily caused the problem by failing to disclose their system properly.

3. One ruling that I had at the Gold Coast Congress which was upheld by an appeal committee was that when I look at the opponents' system card I have a responsibility to get all information I need. I did not and still do not agree with this. The situation where this occurred for me was when looking at the opponents' leads. The box marked "underlead" was checked. Which I saw first and did not look further and so assumed that a jack lead in an unbid suit versus NTs was from QJxx or similar. However this check had been made in error and I might have noticed this. In fact as well as "underlead" being checked "overlead all" was also checked and so there was a clear contradiction. I didn't notice. Nevertheless even accepting the ruling it seems clear to me that the infracting side should not benefit from their infraction. That is even if you accept that the non-offenders have a duty of care in reading all of the leads section in my case and reading the prealert section in David's case. Nevertheless if there is damage the offenders should not keep their result if there has been damage as they have contributed to their good result by failing to meet the requirements of proper disclosure.

4. The second ruling I had was in the New Zealand National Trials in 2007 when my partner opened a natural 4+ card suit 1♣ and the opponent overcalled 1♠ some sort of "suction" or "super-suction" defense. I forget the precise options now but the bid was a Brown Sticker Convention as it was a multi-meaning overcall with no anchor suit. In my case this method was not on the opponent's system card which had been submitted in advance of the trial and it had not been prealerted. So in our case there was no way we could have been prepared for this and in fact we had never discussed a defense to this method. I called the director and explained that the Brown Sticker Convention was being used which had not been disclosed. The regulations for the event included that a pair effectively could not change their system from the system submitted to a more complicated system (perhaps it was possible with a couple of sessions notice to all other pairs). I asked for 5 minutes for my partner and I to discuss a defense. The chief director Arie Geursen refused that request simply saying we knew what the bid was now so we should just play. This seemed unduly harsh to me given that if the opponents had disclosed their Brown Sticker we would have been entitled to a written defense at the table.

5. Maybe sfi's suggestion that stopping midhand is problematic. If so then there should at least be an opportunity to discuss before any additional boards are played or for the opponents to be not allowed to play that method on subsequent boards.

[mrdct]

The suction example is quite interesting Wayne. As you would recall, in last year's APBF Championships your teammates were pinged 3-imps per board for each time it came up and lost a 6-imp gain versus my team due to it not being disclosed properly (wasn't on the prelodged WBF card but was on the card at the table). I think they were also barred from playing the convention for two matches.

[nige1]

Agree with Cascade and ...

• The presence of a pre-alert section on the system-card implies that such conventions should be explained there.
• Even if the rules don't stipulate it, it's common courtesy for opponents to announce their system idiosyncrasies, especially after MrDict explained his.
• MrDict's director-call created UI but there was a possible disclosure irregularity that justified it..
• The rules should stipulate that if you play a brown-sticker convention you must supply an approved written defence.
• In any case, had the direcotor ruled that there was a disclosure-irregularity, then he should have the power to allow the defenders to cobble together an ad-hoc defence.
• Even if the director offers MrDict no redress, he should consider penalizing MrDict's opponents.
• Uniform global rules with a standard system-card lay-out would remove problems of this nature..

[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 20:04, said:

The suction example is quite interesting Wayne. As you would recall, in last year's APBF Championships your teammates were pinged 3-imps per board for each time it came up and lost a 6-imp gain versus my team due to it not being disclosed properly (wasn't on the prelodged WBF card but was on the card at the table). I think they were also barred from playing the convention for two matches.

Yes.

It wasn't the same pair.

Actually my recollection of last years APBF incident is slightly different. I think the suction was on their card but only in the supplementary notes and not on the front of the card.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on 2012-June-24, 22:21, said:

Actually my recollection of last years APBF incident is slightly different. I think the suction was on their card but only in the supplementary notes and not on the front of the card.

Suction was certainly on the WBF card that Bach-Cornell brought to the table, but I can't recall if it was on the front or in supplementary pages. The issue, however, was that the WBF card which had been prelodged on the championship website on which I based all of the player briefing notes on things they might need to prepare defences to was substantially different to the card they had at the table and my pairs had therefore not prepared a counter-defence to "suction" which, imho, caused some damage on one of the two hands in the match where it came up. It was interesting that nobody picked-up on the problem until early in the second round-robin, which probably says something about how closely lodged convention cards get scrutinised at that event; but when I'm NPC I always print-out two full sets of date-stamped convention cards as lodged and give those to my players before each match so they have a litle of extra time to confer on any funny stuff and don't need to do it in front of the opponents. If the opponents turn up at the table with a different convention card, as your teammates did, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

[Cthulhu D]

mrdct, on 2012-June-24, 23:00, said:

If the opponents turn up at the table with a different convention card, as your teammates did, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

Does anyone actually disagree with this? Also, shouldn't the penalties in all these case be average+ (or whatever) if you are damaged and 'play what you are supposed to be playing' from the director?

[mrdct]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-June-25, 00:07, said:

Does anyone actually disagree with this? Also, shouldn't the penalties in all these case be average+ (or whatever) if you are damaged and 'play what you are supposed to be playing' from the director?

I think it depends on when it's picked up. In the OP here, I think it would've been reasonable for the TD to tell the OS that they can't play RCO Twos for the rest of the match (which would've been a shame for us as we gained 12 imps a few boards later when they went for a number in a hopeless vulnerable misfit). In the APBF example, the discrepency between the lodged system card and the card at the table wasn't confirmed until after the match and the TD scrubbed the affected boards and awarded A+/A- on those boards which I think gave us a 12-imp turn-around from memory.

I put this problem to one of Australia's top TDs who opined:

"I might let an unprepared pair confere if this came up in a 2 or 3-board Mitchell or Howell encounter. However in an environment involving longer matches, I would have expected any pair worth their salt to have already made themselves aware of the opponent's 2-level structure before they started the match and I would thus be much more reluctant, especially in respect to something as common as an RCO".

I actually think this is quite unreasonable. I ascertained that they were playing 2/1 with a short club and had no pre-alerts or brown sticker conventions listed on their convention card, so quite reasonably assumed that whatever their twos are they will at least be anchored or be a normal multi for which we had agreed defences. I don't see why it should be up to me to carefully review my opponents' convention card to determine whether or not they are hiding some funny conventions for which I might want to prepare a defence. The whole idea of the pre-alerts section on the convention card and the pre-alerting process itself is to make sure attention is actively drawn to the unusual stuff at the start of the match. If there are no pre-alerts, I assume there is no unusual stuff in their system that I need to discuss with partner before we start.

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2012-June-25, 01:10, said:

I don't see why it should be up to me to carefully review my opponents' convention card to determine whether or not they are hiding some funny conventions for which I might want to prepare a defence. The whole idea of the pre-alerts section on the convention card and the pre-alerting process itself is to make sure attention is actively drawn to the unusual stuff at the start of the match. If there are no pre-alerts, I assume there is no unusual stuff in their system that I need to discuss with partner before we start.

I agree with this. I wouldn't have allowed you to discuss your defence during the hand, but I would have been prepared to consider an adjustment after the hand if you had been damaged, and I would have allowed you some time to discuss a defence after the hand for the rest of the match.