[epeeist]

I know in individual ACBL tournaments, simply agreeing e.g. sayc or 2/1 and appropriate alerts is fine (at least, that's what directors have told me), but what about pairs? Depending on the tournament, sometimes it seems half my opponents don't have a convention card open.

If they're no longer required (despite what the tournament info says), fine, and I don't normally care if playing sayc opponents who don't have a card open. But in that case, the requirement to have a convention card should no longer be listed as a requirement.

I was particularly annoyed in one recent ACBL tournament, and asked for an explanation of every bid, because opponents ("experts" of course... ), though they said they had a convention card prepared, didn't open it after repeated requests! I sent the director a message, and the director agreed it was reasonable for me to ask for an explanation of every bid.

Now, you might think, who cares about convention cards if you can just ask what any bid means? Two reasons, first it slows down the game to ask each time, especially since some opponents tend to be slow and/or incomplete in explaining (and with private chat, other opponent may draw inference from delay, while p is ethically obligated NOT to draw any inference...which can lead to p being overconscientious and not making the bid that he/she would have made had their been no delay...).

More importantly, asking may give your opponent the information that you care what the bid means (which may lead to an inference that you have length in the suit bid, or a greater share of the outstanding points than your partner, or whatever). Similarly, having to ask what defensive leads/signals mean is also a significant delay, and again lets opponents know that distribution and/or location of particular cards may be significant, which may encourage deceptive signals to prevent you from reading the hand...

Oh, and of course, a surprisingly large number (still a minority, in my experience) of those who explain a bid, "accidentally" tell the table (and thus their partner) what the bid means, instead of only the opponents. But that's another topic, bad alerting/explaining...

[inquiry]

I can't speak for what is required, but I will say to require a convention card for an individual is just silly. You change partners every round, and to take the time to prepare one each round would be too big a time drain....

So my guess would be, for pairs event a CC is "required", for individual, unless "BBO Standard" or "BBO Advanced" is announced before hand as what has to be played, just try to get by. I recommend you have a generic CC ready and post it each round and ask your partner to play it... would be a good idea (try to get them to play YOUR card, and make YOUR card very simple for this purpose).

Ben

[epeeist]

Sorry if I was unclear, I agree for individuals it's silly.

My questions/complaints were about pairs, where despite a cc being stated as "required", it doesn't actually seem to be "required" in practice. So my thinking is, either require it, or not, but don't continue to state it's required if it's not going to be enforced.

[TimG]

I've played in only four 12-board ACBL tournaments. But, I've not once needed to look at an opponent's cc. And, in the process of filling out my own, I've found the BBO cc of very limited utility -- the stuff that you might want to ask about is either hidden or not included.

Tim

[Frosty]

Agreed - CC's in ACBL Indy's is not the issue - its the Pairs games that matter.

I've run into this challenge in almost every ACBL tournament I've played it. The TD announces that a CC is required but does not enforce this policy. I've called TD's several time's because of missing CC's when I need one to understand the Opps bidding and the only thing that's happened is that they've been "reminded" to post one. An even worse situation is when the opps have no profiles and no CC's and nothing changes even after the TD is called and they are warned.

IMN2BHO - if CC's are required, this needs to be enforced. Players with no profile who fail to file a CC should be removed.

Frosty