System/Convention Cards
Traditionally, our club has not insisted that each playing pair displays their System/Convention Card.
This practice occasionally makes for misunderstandings when pairs introduce changes to their system or new inexperienced players arrive.
Does the absence of System Cards obliged players to give fuller explanations to Alerts and Announcements and to questions during the Clarification period?
Or should I simply insist on the use of System Cards in future?
Comments
3A1 Blue Book says:- Pairs are required to have two fully completed system cards. Both must contain the same information. At the beginning of each round they should exchange these with the opponents’ system cards. The TD may impose a penalty if a pair does not have two properly completed system cards.
3 B
Each club is entitled to use its own regulations instead of the EBU's if that works out better for the club. Being a "TD" at Cambridge University BC is an example of when insisting on system cards would be completely inappropriate, despite the club being affiliated to the EBU. However, if there was ever a misunderstanding that could have been resolved clearly by having a system card available, I would always rule favourably with the "non-offending side," which tends to be a more experienced pair in most cases anyway. If you oblige players to bring system cards, it may have the non-intended effect of deterring players from coming to a "serious" club. It all depends on the type of club environment you currently have and want to have, and what the players want!
[495670] " However, if there was ever a misunderstanding that could have been resolved clearly by having a system card available, I would always rule favourably with the "non-offending side," which tends to be a more experienced pair in most cases anyway."
I agree with this (maybe not "always", but close enough). I also favour a mixed policy on convention cards - pairs are only allowed to play complex systems if they exchange properly filled-out convention cards with their opponents at the start of each round.
There's often not going to be space on a systems card for a pair that plays a complex system. For example, I play a strong club system with one partner for which we have a 62-page document file. We have a systems card which covers the salient points but it's never going to cover the details of our many asking sequences. I have read of professionals with hundreds of pages of system notes.
As stated above, a club is, effectively, its own regulating authority with regards to the necessity of cards at club-level events. My local clubs, for example, only require cards for competition nights and not for regular sessions.
It's not even complex situations necessarily, there's so many different competitive sequences each with their own nuances, even playing fairly simple systems it's hard to fit everything on the card.
At club level, getting everyone to carry even a basic convention card is sadly a bit of a losing battle, which does irk me when quite good pairs with some advanced agreements don't have one. Our own club has recently adopted the policy of "if you don't have a convention card, please pre-alert your basic system", which I suppose is another compromise :).
One solution in a club where lots of pairs play the same simple system but a few stronger pairs have more complex systems is to only require the stronger pairs to bring a system card (these pairs are more likely to have a printed copy in any case). You would have to use your own discretion based on the particular club, but at least in our case we run a beginners' group in October and November so anyone who hasn't played before at a reasonable level will play the same known system; Only those pairs who have had prior experience will have different cards and might reasonably be expected to have a copy available (obviously being a university club this is rather unique to our circumstances).
It's important to ensure that the results are fair, including in situations where the lack of a cc might be disadvantageous to the opposition, but I consider it far more important (particularly at club level) to focus on a enjoyable and friendly atmosphere with some rules fairly relaxed to ensure that players return each week (that's not to say that calling the director should be discouraged, in fact the opposite would be desirable, but instead that the TD should take a reasonably generous view to less experienced players and partnerships when they are called).
Reading this thread causes me to wonder which came first - the regulations we have or the need for having regulations? Does having a rulebook introduce an opportunity for aggressive players to throw it at those who innocently infringe it through lack of knowledge of its intricacies and with no intention to gain advantage? Playing in a French Congress where no-one (except my partner and I) puts a convention card on the table I am sure there must be many infringements of the letter of the rulebook but there are few calls of "arbitre", one director being adequate to police an 80-table event. And these events attract international players and offer valuable prizes, so I am not just talking about social bridge. Perhaps in this country we have an attitude problem. Lets remember this is a game we play for enjoyment. Maybe the rulebook could be replaced by one edict: Play fair and enjoy your game!
It sounds so attractive but what happens when it's not clear what "fair" is? Some of the worst problems I've seen at the bridge table came from people putting their own sense of fairness above the rules. It's a game, which has rules, and consequences for not following them, even inadvertently. That shouldn't be hard to accept.
The problems is that the rules do not cover fairness.
For example, the alerting/announcing summary requires an alert after a 1C open...
For an experienced player, this would ring alarm bells and we would know to ask further what the 1C open means... Ah, a precision... no problem, we know how to bid against that.
For a new player perhaps taught ACOL only, not used to the alerting/announcing process yet, this just strikes them as strange.
In that instance, I would advocate that an alert happens and an announcement to the inexperienced opposition of something like, '16+ points, says nothing about clubs'.
I know of a couple that play precision and they used to do this when playing against new players, but now that those players are used to playing against them, they reverted back to just alerting. Until there is another new pair from the classes, at which point they revert back to alert/announce their 1C open.
This may be less of a problem if players introduce their system at the start of the round, something like, 'Welcome, I'm Bill and this is Ben, we play Precision and Italian discards.' 'Hi, I'm Jack and this is Jill, we play ACOL and we don't have a discard system, I don't think. What's precision, what's Italian?'
For me the alerting and announcing regulations work well where everyone is reasonably experienced and where convention cards are in use. Where there are inexperienced players and where convention cards are not used, I think that they do not go far enough to cover 'full disclosure'.
So, on the odd occasion where I play in the club and have a go at 2/1 or a short club system against inexperienced players, I go further than the regulations - I might alert and tell the ops, 'you probably should ask what this bid is, before you take any action.'
For example, one very unusual system I play with 1 partner is that a jump shift response in a higher ranked suit is the same as a weak 2 open in that suit. However, a jump shift into a lower ranked suit is 6+ cards and less than a responding hand (so 0-5 points) - both jump shifts are alerted. Against experienced players after 1H - 3C, I would alert and it is up to them to ask (it is also on the convention card, on the front, in bold). For inexperienced players I would alert and say, 'you should probably ask what this means', to prompt them. This seams fair to me, we want to get good scores through good play, hand evaluations, bidding etc, not by duping the opposition and hide behind the regulations.
Imagine that in a club against a fresh-out-of-classes pair, without a convention card, it goes 1H - 3C (alert) - Pass... we go 2-off undoubled and they can make game or slam in spades... then they ask, what was 3C and I say, 3C shows 0-5 points 6+ clubs. What did you have then, I had 2 points with 7 clubs. Perhaps they feel cheated? Now, even after full disclosure, they may still miss their game etc, but then it feels more like their lack of experience rather than the opposition 'cheating'?
Similarly I would not psych against new players. I did once years ago when I had only just come out of classes myself, it went pass pass and I had 1 point, so I opened 1H... they overcalled, partner raised, they bid again I passed, partner raised me again and the ops finally stopped in 3S making 12 tricks. 'Well played partner', says my RHO. After that, I felt bad as not only had I 'cheated' them out of a game/slam, but they didn't even realise it. Strictly speaking, the regulations see no difference between new and experienced players. So, experienced players are actively encouraged to psych against new players (it is legal and good scores are the aim of the game). However, a sense of fairness dictates that one should not psych against new players.
So, if we can see that 'fairness' may fall outside of the regulations, I see no problem in applying fairness in situations (if new player leads face up and out of turn - pick it up, don't worry about it, but be aware that in future x may happen)
The fact that the regulations change over time tells us that either what is fair changes, or that the regulations are not fair. An example of this, perhaps 5 years ago, say, in a friendly club someone opens 1C out of turn... the right hand op doesn't accept it and opens 1H. The director decides, this is a social friendly occasion, this person is not trying to cheat or take advantage, I will let them overcall 2C and let the auction continue unabated. Now, 5 years ago this would be unfair, today that would be fair - at least according to the new regulations.
I play a lot of board games and roll playing games on top of playing bridge. Almost all of these have 'house rules' where the rules set by the game designer does not work for us and a better rule is applied.
Imagine teaching someone new how to play chess and they touch their Q and then realise that if they move it they are hanging a piece - do we allow them to play something else, but let them know about the touch-move rule for future, or do we make them move it and take full advantage of their inexperience?
There are many barriers (both real and imagined) to getting people to first learn, then play and finally improve in their bridge. The rules are one of the very real barriers.
Sorry about that long and rambling post, this will be much shorter...
For me the primary function of a director is not to sort out the movement, or the correct application of the rules or anything technical like that. The primary function is to make the event as welcoming, relaxed and enjoyable as possible, so that everyone comes back next time for another game.
Thanks Martin, it's a very well written and thought out post. Arguably something like a Level 2/Level 4 equivalent for regulations as well as system cards would be appropriate, but it would also take a huge amount of time to look into every law and regulation and then give a "fairer" equivalent for when playing against a "less experienced" player. Many clubs have their own "house rules" as you call them on this, so perhaps we should just be encouraging clubs to have these written more formally? Even then, the main laws cannot be changed at club level for the results to be recognised by the EBU.
It would certainly be an interesting project but it almost defeats the point because less experienced players don't want to be burdened by the laws or need to know them. Clubs where players take matters into their hands when playing beginners by saying "don't worry about the dropped card, you can pick it up", or "you may want to check what 1C means" are arguably much more welcoming than those that say "we've designed a new 50 page law book so that beginners have more rights." Of course every player in the club would need to share that same vision, but many clubs do already follow that same principle. Only county and national events tend to follow the laws to the letter at present.
18800 said that French Congress events have far fewer director calls... that's not because the laws are different but because the approach to playing the game is different, and that should be the main focus of this exercise. It's not an easy one, but the only way of making bridge more welcoming is for players to be more welcoming as opposed to having regulations that mandate it :)
Thank you 495670, you understood my point. Is it the emphasis on laws in this country which is creating the serious atmosphere in our affiliated clubs which then puts off social players? Or is it English people's serious approach to a game that gives rise to a greater need for complete convention cards with the structure of directors, rulings and appeals procedures that follow?
A game of Monopoly comes with a set of rules, but it is left to a free for all round the board to interpret them fairly. If we don't like the interpretation of our fellow-players we have to decide whether to have a tantrum or accept the views of the majority. There isn't a director to call upon or a Laws and Ethics Committee to appeal to. There is just Dad. Who'd choose to be in his position? It doesn't bear thinking about.
I wonder whether while we are all playing online we should explore what happens if instead of requiring full disclosure we played a new game, call it "underpass", in which there is no disclosure. You could try any system you like to ensure the oppo didn't get to understand your system. Anything goes. You would have to learn to bid your own hands without taking too much notice of the opposition's bids as they might or might not be natural. It would be a very different game. Would it be as much fun as bridge? It might be. It would certainly eliminate the need for sharing convention cards with your opponents.
Another idea is that we use the computers to standardise the time between bids at say ten seconds, extending the time from making your bid to the point of it appearing on the other players' screens. What if you want longer than ten seconds? You can't have it. The computer chooses a bid at random from the next six available bids. That would surely encourage slow players to get a move on. Similarly the computer could choose a random card if a play isn't made by a time limit - perhaps allowing longer for the first trick decisions than subsequent ones.
In F2F bridge at clubs not that many have system cards not least because they are often fairly casual partnerships. Some might fill out a few bits on the front of their scorecard. Its hard to play if you have no idea what your no trump range is or what your two level openings are so you are likely to have a few basic agreements! Since announcements came in someone will say 12-14 or Weak in reference to a two level opening reducing still further the need for a card at this level and quite a few will tell the opponents their basic method alongside their greeting at the start of the round. As said above it is not the law you must have a system card but regulation and any club is free to relax the requirement and many do, at least, unofficially. Online a few have online system cards but I'm not sure many look. It is enough if someone starts the round by saying "Hi we play 15-17NT etc etc" and clicks the explanation button if needed. None of this F2F or online is onerous and, personally, I can't see why it should be a problem or reduce anyone's enjoyment.
If you play any game you must have some understanding of the law, in Bridge the requirement to follow suit if you can, for example. In Monopoly the requirements to buy a house or hotel or which way to move round the board. You don't need to be an expert and that is why there is a director. Even so many will say "oh pick the card up" if one is dropped on the floor and if everyone is happy then what is the problem? Problems tend to occur perhaps when opponents come from a different club or level and have different expectations and, of course, sometimes because the laws are over-complicated. I'd favour some simplification and to have less regulation. I notice for those that care that we can manage with about 36 pages of regulation about what you can play instead of about 75. I can't recall anyone saying this is a loss and indeed halving it again would likely be popular with most.
Some things are a bridge too far and the computer making random bids for me because I choose to spend my 14 minutes for two boards differently to some or worse a random card because I thought for too long removes skill and enjoyment. I'm not slow but to give one example time is often used up both online and F2F by people relentlessly playing out the cards when they have nothing but winners in both hands.