[dickiegera]

Something needs to be done about pairs with no cc.

Seems like half the time opponents do not have a cc.

[nige1]

dickiegera, on 2020-September-18, 10:08, said:

Something needs to be done about pairs with no cc. Seems like half the time opponents do not have a cc.

Rudyard Kipling, in the Just So Stories, the Beginning of the Armadillos said:

'Son, son!' said Mother Jaguar ever so many times, graciously waving her tail ...

• BBO should publish and publicise simple clear rules about disclosure. including ...
• All pairs must display an accurate complete system card.
• If necessary, a pair can adapt/adopt a standard BBO system card for their basic system.
• Tournament organisers should provide each pair with a default "simple system" card e.g. SAYC.
• Players would still be still obliged to explain each call before making it.
• BBO should re-implement a facility like full-disclosure or -- better -- Kungsgeten's simplification.

Arguably, this is an integral part of the future of Bridge.

[TylerE]

nige1, on 2020-September-18, 11:07, said:

Tournament organisers should provide each pair with a default "simple system" card e.g. SAYC.

100000% disagree.

Never set a CC that the pair isn't actually playing. That is far worse than no CC at all.

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2020-September-18, 13:45, said:

100000% disagree.

Never set a CC that the pair isn't actually playing. That is far worse than no CC at all.

Could you please explain why?
So long as that is obligatorily their actual set of agreements, and they have a right to consult it at least initially, this makes the situation for Director, opponents and partner much clearer.

[TylerE]

pescetom, on 2020-September-18, 14:24, said:

Could you please explain why?
So long as that is obligatorily their actual set of agreements,

Because no director will ever (or could ever enforce that).

Even people who CLAIM to play sayc never actually play it right, for a start (Pop quiz, what's 1m-2NT?)

But fundamentally having a CC posted means *you actually play that*. If I, as an opponent can't take that 100% to the bank, that is far more disadvantageous to me than not having any CC posted at all.

Known unknowns vs unknown unknowns.

[dave1hall]

TylerE, on 2020-September-18, 14:47, said:

Because no director will ever (or could ever enforce that).

Even people who CLAIM to play sayc never actually play it right, for a start (Pop quiz, what's 1m-2NT?)

But fundamentally having a CC posted means *you actually play that*. If I, as an opponent can't take that 100% to the bank, that is far more disadvantageous to me than not having any CC posted at all.

Known unknowns vs unknown unknowns.

I recently ran into some peoples answer to required cc. They posted a card that was totally blank. playing flannery, udca, splinters, - maybe others - but that was in 3 hands
somehow forgot to alert

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2020-September-18, 14:47, said:

Because no director will ever (or could ever enforce that).

Even people who CLAIM to play sayc never actually play it right, for a start (Pop quiz, what's 1m-2NT?)

But fundamentally having a CC posted means *you actually play that*. If I, as an opponent can't take that 100% to the bank, that is far more disadvantageous to me than not having any CC posted at all.

Known unknowns vs unknown unknowns.

Opponents should be able to take it to the bank in the spirit of the laws of bridge and a fair tournament, "these are the agreements they declare".
If the opponents do not obtain satisfaction, that is a failure of the bank (organizer/director) to pay out (impose discipline) rather than an inherent defect of the laws or the idea of full disclosure.

[mycroft]

Some people play "your profile, pard".
Some people play "guess and hope, we got put together 2 minutes after game time."
Some people play "it's just standard, nobody else has a problems with it, why do you care?"
Some people play "why should I tell you?"
Some people are just oblivious to the Law.
Some people are just jerks (note, the nature of the system is that these people tend to end up doing one of the first two a lot, because they're part of the "permanent online partnership desk" - for good reason).

[barmar]

Don't forget about substitutes.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2020-September-23, 13:47, said:

Don't forget about substitutes.

Standard simple basic system-cards are especially useful for substitutes and pick-up partners

[pilowsky]

nige1, on 2020-September-23, 16:16, said:

Standard simple basic system-cards are especially useful for substitutes and pick-up partners

Right up until the moment when they pass your texas transfer...

[mycroft]

There are two reasons that by preference I play South African Transfers. This is one of them.
(The other is that it gives 1NT-4♣ a good meaning, so they can't won't bid Gerber).

Yes, I know I can't do this with pickups...

[pescetom]

dave1hall, on 2020-September-22, 12:12, said:

I recently ran into some peoples answer to required cc. They posted a card that was totally blank. playing flannery, udca, splinters, - maybe others - but that was in 3 hands
somehow forgot to alert

This happened to members of my club recently in a team tournament. They were otherwise impeccable opponents (alerting regularly) and I assumed it was just an automatic consequence of our pair posting a card and the opponents having none. The odd thing is that the empty card was ACBL format whereas opponents were Polish.