[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2013-October-02, 18:15, said:

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

Rulings are based on Laws and/or regulations -- not on the feelings of those affected.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2013-October-02, 18:15, said:

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

Neither.

[ddrankin]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-02, 18:19, said:

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.

Unfortunately, this may not be possible. The director at I/N tournaments does not have to be an ACBL TD. It can be any experienced club TD, which essentially means that the tournament is run as like a club game that pays silver points.

That doesn't mean that he or she can't be fired, but it may simply lead to switching to yet another club TD with the same results.

And I believe district supervisors are called field supervisors now.

[akwoo]

With regards to the situation jillybean described:

1) Just stop playing in I/N games, especially I/N pair games. Bad directing is the least bad thing about them.

2) I would certainly call the director back a second time after that remark. Especially since I tend to ask a lot of questions, especially at the end of the auction, on a "just in case I need to know" basis.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2013-October-02, 20:16, said:

1) Just stop playing in I/N games, especially I/N pair games.

While this might seem to be a no-brainer to many if not most on these forums, it is important to keep in mind that not everyone has the same goals.

[RMB1]

sfi, on 2013-October-02, 18:00, said:

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?

As a practical alternative, the TD could offer the offending pair not to play the next board (AVE-/AVE+) and they spend the time filling in two convention cards.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2013-October-02, 20:59, said:

As a practical alternative, the TD could offer the offending pair not to play the next board (AVE-/AVE+) and they spend the time filling in two convention cards.

While I suggested upthread an alternative regulation that does effectively the same thing, that is not the regulation we currently have, and under the current regulation, I don't think this solution is legal. For that reason I do not think the TD should offer it (see Law 81B2).

Added: I really can't imagine that a North American pair might not know the rudiments, at least, of Standard American. There isn't much that goes beyond that in SAYC — off the top of my head only the Jacoby 2NT response to 1M, and even that is fairly common.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-02, 23:41, said:

Added: I really can't imagine that a North American pair might not know the rudiments, at least, of Standard American. There isn't much that goes beyond that in SAYC — off the top of my head only the Jacoby 2NT response to 1M, and even that is fairly common.

Having now actually looked at a writeup that purports to be SAYC, I still am interested in finding out what would happen if a pair being required to use this on a hand uses Roman Key Card, support doubles, or New Minor Forcing for example (even correctly alerting and explaining it to the opposition). It's easy enough to see this happening because I was rather surprised they aren't on the card.

[blackshoe]

I imagine if they disclose whatever properly (via alerts, or explanations during the clarification period, as appropriate) nothing will happen, because the director will not be involved. If the director does get involved, he's got a bit of a problem. Basically, though, when he instructs a pair to use SAYC until further notice, and they go beyond what's on the card, they are failing to comply with the TD's instructions, and that could rate them a PP or DP. It's a TD judgment call.

[blackshoe]

ddrankin, on 2013-October-02, 19:18, said:

That doesn't mean that he or she can't be fired, but it may simply lead to switching to yet another club TD with the same results.

I did say "educated or fired".

[gnasher]

Giving the offenders a standard convention card is counter-productive. The only effect is that they're now carrying around a convention card that doesn't accurately describe their partnership understandings.

I can't see any need for that anyway. We can deal with it perfectly well by applying the Laws:
- Issue a procedural penalty for the offence of not having a convention card.
- Give the offenders a deadline for having a completed convention card, and possibly a further deadline for having two convention cards.
- If they don't meet the deadline, issue a further procedural penalty and a new deadline. The penalties would escalate, obviously.
- If the NOS are damaged by the lack of a convention card, adjust the score under Law 23. The main cause of damage is the information conveyed when the NOS are obliged to ask a question instead of looking at the card. There might be either UI that constrains the NOS, or useful information conveyed to the OS.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-02, 23:41, said:

While I suggested upthread an alternative regulation that does effectively the same thing, that is not the regulation we currently have, and under the current regulation, I don't think this solution is legal. For that reason I do not think the TD should offer it (see Law 81B2).

Added: I really can't imagine that a North American pair might not know the rudiments, at least, of Standard American. There isn't much that goes beyond that in SAYC — off the top of my head only the Jacoby 2NT response to 1M, and even that is fairly common.

I believe that Robin is on target here with respect to the law.

Once the regulation is published for completed CCs, then when the issue is raised it is incumbant on the offenders to come into compliance immediately. Therefore, whatever boards cannot be played in the time allotted [because offenders are completing their CCs] are by law subject to an adjusted score [A+/A-] and a PP [in my book not merely any old PP but 100% for each adj score].

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-October-03, 02:38, said:

Giving the offenders a standard convention card is counter-productive. The only effect is that they're now carrying around a convention card that doesn't accurately describe their partnership understandings.

Could they be penalized for MI any time they deviate from the agreements on the card? Or do they get around this because the law says you aren't required to bid in accordance with your agreements? But it seems like partner would expect these deviations (because he's actually bidding in accordance with the agreements on their nonexistent card), so they're implicit agreements which must be disclosed.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-October-03, 07:18, said:

Could they be penalized for MI any time they deviate from the agreements on the card? Or do they get around this because the law says you aren't required to bid in accordance with your agreements? But it seems like partner would expect these deviations (because he's actually bidding in accordance with the agreements on their nonexistent card), so they're implicit agreements which must be disclosed.

There's a practical problem that opponents on later rounds may not realise that they've been misinformed. That can occur particularly with carding, but also with inferences from the bidding.

[Bbradley62]

Since

• this is the "Simple Rulings" section, not the "Suggestions for Changes" section
  
• OP is playing in an ACBL-sanctioned event, and
  
• OP asks "how do you respond?"

director must enforce ACBL regulations, which means handing OS SAYCs, etc., rather than improvise based on what people in other parts of the world think would be better. Deliberate disregard of director's instructions (continuing to play conventions that are part of OS's agreement but not on the SAYC, even common ones like NMF) should incur a huge PP or DP, whichever is applicable.

[hrothgar]

I've always thought that the requirement that one plays Standard American is be rather silly.

1. The vast majority of the time, the pair missing a CC will be playing some version of standard
2. Lord knows what will happen once you force the pair in question to play a complete undiscussed system

Why not require the offending side to pass at every turn until they complete a convention card

If you think that this is too charitable to the pairs forced to play them in future rounds, send the offending side off to complete their card, assigning them zeros for every board that they miss.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-October-03, 02:38, said:

Giving the offenders a standard convention card is counter-productive. The only effect is that they're now carrying around a convention card that doesn't accurately describe their partnership understandings.

I can't see any need for that anyway. We can deal with it perfectly well by applying the Laws:
- Issue a procedural penalty for the offence of not having a convention card.
- Give the offenders a deadline for having a completed convention card, and possibly a further deadline for having two convention cards.
- If they don't meet the deadline, issue a further procedural penalty and a new deadline. The penalties would escalate, obviously.
- If the NOS are damaged by the lack of a convention card, adjust the score under Law 23. The main cause of damage is the information conveyed when the NOS are obliged to ask a question instead of looking at the card. There might be either UI that constrains the NOS, or useful information conveyed to the OS.

There is a legal regulation in place. Therefore, whether we can deal with the situation by applying the laws alone is irrelevant. The TD is bound to apply the regulation. The regulation says "the partnership may only play the ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) and may only use standard carding." IOW, once the TD has given them the YC, that defines their partnership understandings, whatever understandings they may have had going in.

The regulation also says that having been found in violation, the pair must produce two compliant cards, not one.

[blackshoe]

axman, on 2013-October-03, 05:47, said:

I believe that Robin is on target here with respect to the law.

Once the regulation is published for completed CCs, then when the issue is raised it is incumbant on the offenders to come into compliance immediately. Therefore, whatever boards cannot be played in the time allotted [because offenders are completing their CCs] are by law subject to an adjusted score [A+/A-] and a PP [in my book not merely any old PP but 100% for each adj score].

I disagree. There is a legal regulation in place; the TD is bound to enforce it.

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a PP of 100% of a board.

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2013-October-03, 09:20, said:

I've always thought that the requirement that one plays Standard American is be rather silly.

1. The vast majority of the time, the pair missing a CC will be playing some version of standard
2. Lord knows what will happen once you force the pair in question to play a complete undiscussed system

Why not require the offending side to pass at every turn until they complete a convention card

If you think that this is too charitable to the pairs forced to play them in future rounds, send the offending side off to complete their card, assigning them zeros for every board that they miss.

If the regulation said that's what the TD should do, fine. It doesn't. BBradley is right.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-03, 13:21, said:

There is a legal regulation in place. Therefore, whether we can deal with the situation by applying the laws alone is irrelevant. The TD is bound to apply the regulation.

Yes, I understand that when a regulation tells the director what to do he should obey it.

When you said, one of your posts, "What alternative would you like?" I thought you were inviting us to offer improvements on the ACBL's approach, but I expect I misunderstood.