BBO Discussion Forums: misinformation? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

misinformation?

#21 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-September-03, 09:16

View PostLanor Fow, on 2014-September-02, 14:45, said:

1. If your partner frequently forgets an agreement, then you should disclose this. let's say 3c showed the reds, but partner often forgets and has clubs. If clubs or the reds is an illegal agreement per system policy, then if yoour partner (or you) forget it enough for it to be an implicit agreement that it could be clubs instead of the reds, then this is now an illigal agreement and you can't play it until your partner (or you) remember it better (though how that's meant to happen without practicing it I'm not sure).

Suppose you decide to play 3 = reds, but partner frequently forgets; implicitly he's playing 3{CL] = clubs or reds. So you get told that you should stop playing it, and you take it off your card.

But now partner forgets that you made this change, and keeps bidding like that. What can you do now? There's nothing to take off your card. Must you disband the partnership? Is the forgetter just too hopeless to play duplicate bridge?

#22 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2014-September-03, 09:22

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#23 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-September-03, 09:36

View Posthelene_t, on 2014-September-03, 09:22, said:

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?

It seems like doing this should usually result in a bad result for your side when he forgets. If the opponents are not damaged, I don't suppose they'll complain.

But if this happens too much, the confusion it creates will ruin many players' enjoyment. But there's nothing in the Laws that requires that the game be enjoyable (unless you interpret the proprieties as implying this).

#24 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2014-September-03, 10:27

View Postbarmar, on 2014-September-03, 09:36, said:

It seems like doing this should usually result in a bad result for your side when he forgets. If the opponents are not damaged, I don't suppose they'll complain.

But if this happens too much, the confusion it creates will ruin many players' enjoyment. But there's nothing in the Laws that requires that the game be enjoyable (unless you interpret the proprieties as implying this).

Law 74A2 seems pretty clear about this:

Quote

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with
the enjoyment of the game.

Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#25 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,627
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2014-September-03, 10:55

View Postgordontd, on 2014-September-03, 10:27, said:

Law 74A2 seems pretty clear about this:

Perhaps when the laws are revised they will refer to non-bridge actions. I remember being pretty annoyed last time an opponent found the only lead to beat my slam by giving his partner a ruff. I saw no signs of him trying to carefully avoid annoying me in this way. Should I have called the TD to ask for an adjustment?
2

#26 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2014-September-03, 11:02

View PostWellSpyder, on 2014-September-03, 10:55, said:

Perhaps when the laws are revised they will refer to non-bridge actions. I remember being pretty annoyed last time an opponent found the only lead to beat my slam by giving his partner a ruff. I saw no signs of him trying to carefully avoid annoying me in this way. Should I have called the TD to ask for an adjustment?

Are you sure his action did not disappoint you rather than annoy you?

I have the feeling that it takes a very special mind to confuse these terms.
0

#27 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2014-September-03, 11:53

View PostLanor Fow, on 2014-September-02, 14:45, said:

1. If your partner frequently forgets an agreement, then you should disclose this.


Or ask yourself why you are playing an agreement that partner can't remember...

The problem I have is what all this does to the opponents. I don't have a defence to "clubs or the reds". So I will have to base my bidding and/or play on the "actual" agreement. But if the opponent has indeed forgot what this is, then I get no redress if I am damaged.

Quote

you can't play it until your partner (or you) remember it better (though how that's meant to happen without practicing it I'm not sure)


Players who can't remember an agreement without practising it should practise on bid em ups or on an online site where you can play against two bot (perhaps you can even do this on BBO).

Although a couple of rulings of red psyches (which is what I think should happen) ought to improve their memory very quickly.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#28 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-September-03, 12:44

View PostVampyr, on 2014-September-03, 11:53, said:

Or ask yourself why you are playing an agreement that partner can't remember...

If your partner has a general forgetfulness problem (bridge players are mostly elderly, and this is a common symptom of aging), it might not be specific to a particular convention. Do you have to play all natural bids just in case he forgets?

#29 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2014-September-03, 13:34

View Posthelene_t, on 2014-September-03, 09:22, said:

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?


Actually, your are obliged to play to win (72A). There is some argument about what "win" means in this context (board or tournament -- sometimes it is better to loose a board to get a better result in the tournament) but intentionallz playing bad is not an option.

Your proposal to always play assuming partner bids correctly will get you out of trouble as you will end up with a bad score (i.e. no damage) but you will violate 72A. You practically play to get a bad score to stay "clean". This hurts players. "Donating a top" is good for your opponents but bad for all other players.
0

#30 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2014-September-03, 13:42

View Postbarmar, on 2014-September-03, 12:44, said:

If your partner has a general forgetfulness problem (bridge players are mostly elderly, and this is a common symptom of aging), it might not be specific to a particular convention. Do you have to play all natural bids just in case he forgets?


That's one approach,and just above I mentioned another one. There are probably other possibilities.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#31 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-September-03, 15:16

View Postszgyula, on 2014-September-03, 13:34, said:

Actually, your are obliged to play to win (72A). There is some argument about what "win" means in this context (board or tournament -- sometimes it is better to loose a board to get a better result in the tournament) but intentionallz playing bad is not an option.

Your proposal to always play assuming partner bids correctly will get you out of trouble as you will end up with a bad score (i.e. no damage) but you will violate 72A. You practically play to get a bad score to stay "clean". This hurts players. "Donating a top" is good for your opponents but bad for all other players.

Law 72A doesn't say that. Even if it did, you take the argument too far.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#32 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2014-September-03, 15:20

South's proper answer to West's "may I bid again" would be "ask the director".

West should have called the director immediately when he realized his explanation was incorrect. So when did he realize it?
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#33 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,760
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2014-September-03, 16:28

View Posthelene_t, on 2014-September-03, 09:22, said:

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?


This is an easy thing to say but maybe more difficult to do in practice. Say your partner bids 3 for the reds but has clubs. How many subsequent club bids from your partner before you pass? If ever then there maybe some point at which you have catered for the forgets.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon

#34 User is offline   szgyula 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 2011-May-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Budapest, Hungary

Posted 2014-September-04, 07:46

View Postblackshoe, on 2014-September-03, 15:16, said:

Law 72A doesn't say that. Even if it did, you take the argument too far.

Law 72A says "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants". I think there is a point that you should not reach in trying to ignore the obvious as that hurts the other players. I am not saying that in the example used before (3C is reds or clubs) with 4441 you must assume it is a mistake (i.e. WJO in clubs). Even with 6502 you can still bid 3S but after 4C-5H-6C you are probably obliged to accept the obvious and you must not bid 6S...
0

#35 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2014-September-04, 08:41

View Postszgyula, on 2014-September-04, 07:46, said:

Law 72A says "The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants".

Um, no. It says "[...] The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." So an argument of the form "I don't have to do X because 72A requires me to play to win" is never valid; the requirement to play to win is secondary to all other ethical and procedural requirements in the laws.
0

#36 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2014-September-04, 10:54

View Postcampboy, on 2014-September-04, 08:41, said:

Um, no. It says "[...] The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." So an argument of the form "I don't have to do X because 72A requires me to play to win" is never valid; the requirement to play to win is secondary to all other ethical and procedural requirements in the laws.

And even if it didn't have that "whilst" clause, it could be argued that it's implicit because specific laws take precedence over general laws, and this once is about as general as they come.

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users