[Mbodell]

fred, on Jul 16 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

I know Fred was talking about serious players in serious events and the OP probably wasn't, but I do find it funny that the "convention" that the bidder forgot in the OP was that tricky complex natural bidding. Let's ban those natural bid agreements!

The last convention that my partner forgot this week was trickier than that, but still not that complex: Texas transfers. The fact that my 4♥-2 got 0 MP when 4♠+1 was super common was, I feel, the sufficient penalty for forgetting the convention.

The other issue that comes up is sometimes, but certainly not always, a more complex system isn't actually more complex but is instead just more well discussed and agreed and better disclosed. So you can penalize a pair that has good understandings about their 3rd and 4th bids versus a pair that just relies on a poorly disclosed bridge logic.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 17 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

In Fred's defense, the comparisons between what he is saying and play situations are comparing apples and oranges. Your bidding system is agreed ahead of time, so if you make a mistake then you have made an agreement that you either don't know how to use or can't remember. If you make a play error that is just part of the game, you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game like you can with bidding. The play comparisons are equivalent to poor bidding judgment, not bidding system forgets.

I agree that it's not quite apples to apples, but don't think it is quite apples to oranges, either.

Take this thread, for instance. Maybe the misunderstanding (and the disagreement amongst those who responded) is a result of lots of us not understanding negative doubles. Or, maybe it is the case that many of us have made an error in bridge reasoning. I would contend that "you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game" for every bidding eventuality.

There may be a difference between forgetting that you are playing Texas transfers and not fully understanding follow-ups in negative double auctions. But, to me, it is a minor distinction.

Over 20 years ago, my partner and I started an uncontested auction 1♦-1♠, 1N-2♣. One of us thought this was forcing and one of us thought it was non-forcing. Should we have been forced to play a less complex system as a result of our misunderstanding?

Should Hanoi5 and his partner have been asked to remove negative doubles from their card as a result of their misunderstanding (in the above linked thread)?

I believe there is a provision in the Laws that makes "paying insufficient attention to the game" (or something like that) a violation. I think habitual system forgets due to complexity would qualify as paying insufficient attention (perhaps what qualifies as "habitual" should change as the seriousness of the event changes). I also think that the occasional forget or misunderstanding is as inevitable as mis-playing a hand from time-to-time, and in general neither should be subject to a procedural penalty.

[fred]

Codo, on Jul 17 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

But there is no reason and no law why a mistake in your preparation should be handled different then a mistake in the play itself.

Here is a reason:

Players have a responsibility to know the system they are playing. They do not have a responsibility to play the cards perfectly.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Mbodell, on Jul 17 2009, 03:19 AM, said:

fred, on Jul 16 2009, 10:57 AM, said:

Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

I know Fred was talking about serious players in serious events and the OP probably wasn't, but I do find it funny that the "convention" that the bidder forgot in the OP was that tricky complex natural bidding. Let's ban those natural bid agreements!

It happened because he plays a convention on other partnerships. If, hypothetically, he were banned from doing so, then he would not forget that this 2♦ were natural when it came up.

TimG, on Jul 17 2009, 10:06 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 17 2009, 01:50 AM, said:

In Fred's defense, the comparisons between what he is saying and play situations are comparing apples and oranges. Your bidding system is agreed ahead of time, so if you make a mistake then you have made an agreement that you either don't know how to use or can't remember. If you make a play error that is just part of the game, you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game like you can with bidding. The play comparisons are equivalent to poor bidding judgment, not bidding system forgets.

I agree that it's not quite apples to apples, but don't think it is quite apples to oranges, either.

Take this thread, for instance. Maybe the misunderstanding (and the disagreement amongst those who responded) is a result of lots of us not understanding negative doubles. Or, maybe it is the case that many of us have made an error in bridge reasoning. I would contend that "you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game" for every bidding eventuality.

I think your example is apples to oranges as well. My understanding of the discussion is that it's about forgetting a convention, not misunderstanding an auction the player may never have even had before. There are few things you agree first before playing than your convention over the opponents' 1NT opening bid.

[fred]

bluejak, on Jul 17 2009, 12:24 AM, said:

Penalising players for not knowing their system is an appalling idea.  What next: are you going to penalise them for not leading fourth highest?

If their convention card says that they lead 4th highest and they have a habit of leading something other than 4th highest on a regular basis, then yes they should be punished (for not filling out their convention card properly).

Quote

No, they are not ruining the game for people:

Well I suppose it depends on the people. They are ruining the game for me.

Do you really enjoy playing a hand when your partner opens 1NT, your RHO overcalls 2D, and it is more or less random whether or not your RHO has diamonds (his partnership's agreement) or the majors? Do you like having to spend your time and energy trying to figure out if your LHO behaved properly in these circumstances (to say nothing of the time and energy you have to spend trying to solve an absurd bridge problem you are likely to face)? Is calling the TD and explaining the situation to him and likely getting into a big argument with the opponents something that enriches the bridge experience for you? Do you relish the concept of, when all is said and done, having 2 minutes left on the clock to play the remaining board of the round?

If that is your idea of fun then I suppose it doesn't ruin the game for you, but it does ruin the game for me.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Fred's reasoning certainly seems to indicate that he should rarely, if ever, play with or against those of lesser caliber (which is most of the bridge playing community) but it would certainly seem to make opportunities to play at all rather few and far between.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Jul 17 2009, 04:10 PM, said:

Fred's reasoning certainly seems to indicate that he should rarely, if ever, play with or against those of lesser caliber (which is most of the bridge playing community) but it would certainly seem to make opportunities to play at all rather few and far between.

In fact, I play bridge in only a handful of tournaments a year these days and that is just fine with me. When I do play it is almost always in a "very serious tournament" where there is almost always some significant financial upside for me. Perhaps sadly, playing bridge is little more than a job for me now.

However, the amount that I play is not at all a function of the fact that I find it annoying to play against people who don't know their systems. In my experience playing club-level bridge and minor tournaments (something I once did a lot) most of the players are pretty good at remembering what they have agreed to play. In any case, I don't really care about that (or much else for that matter) when I play in a club game or a not-so-serious tournament.

The main reason I don't play very much these days is that I am just not that interested in playing anymore. Not sure why - maybe because I am busy with other things, maybe because I don't get that much of a thrill out of winning while the much more frequent cases of losing are really painful, maybe because years of frequent travel made me rather sick of it, maybe because being a professional bridge player seems to eventually suck the bridge-life out of many of those who once really loved playing...

Anyways, it is no big deal - I am happy with the way my life is going

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Happy is good.

I don't really have a problem with a regulation like the ACBL's that requires that players know what they're doing - at high levels. I do have a problem when that regulation is imposed, or suggested to be imposed, at lower levels. I don't think it's good for the game at those levels.

[Echognome]

I think the issue here is that a regulation based on penalties of "forgetting" one's system is overly harsh. Do we believe that people forget their system on purpose? I know it's quite common to forget a card that has been played or to remember exactly what spot the cards were. So why have such a harsh view on forgetting one's agreement?

I understand there were a lot of problems with, say, Ghestem, where people were forgetting often. But why does it ruin your enjoyment if you sometimes are on the wrong end of "rub of the green"? I mean isn't this a similar attitude to people that don't like psyches? It's somehow unfair that it has happened to them.

[fred]

Echognome, on Jul 17 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

I think the issue here is that a regulation based on penalties of "forgetting" one's system is overly harsh.  Do we believe that people forget their system on purpose?  I know it's quite common to forget a card that has been played or to remember exactly what spot the cards were.  So why have such a harsh view on forgetting one's agreement?

As I have said (more than once now I think) it is a question of responsibility. If you can accept my contention that players are responsible to the field for knowing their partnership agreements, then not knowing your agreements is a violation of this responsibility to the field.

Players do not have a responsibility to anyone (except perhaps their partners) to remember which spot cards have been played.

Quote

I understand there were a lot of problems with, say, Ghestem, where people were forgetting often.  But why does it ruin your enjoyment if you sometimes are on the wrong end of "rub of the green"?  I mean isn't this a similar attitude to people that don't like psyches?  It's somehow unfair that it has happened to them.

I don't see this is a "rub of the green situation" (by the way, I like that term much better than the much more common and much uglier way of saying the same thing - "we got fixed").

For me an anology more appropriate than psyching would be playing against a pair who were using an illegal convention - they would also not be living up to their responsibility to the field (in this case the responsibility being to make sure your system is legal in the event you are playing in).

It wouldn't change anything if the convention in question resulted in a top board for me or I got a terrible result that the TD adjusted to average plus or whatever. For me the net result would be that one board in my session of bridge had been destroyed by my opponents lack of responsibility to the field.

I try to take my responsibilities to the field seriously. When I am playing in a tournament I care about, what I want is to play all of the boards against players who are willing to do the same.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Bridge players make mistakes, I'm sure Fred understands that. I've even read tournament reports where a world class pair had a misunderstanding in a major event because they'd recently made a change to their system and one of them forgot it (or maybe didn't realize it applied to the situation). ***** happens, you live with it.

What I hope he's talking about is players who regularly forget their agreements. Bridge is a game of full disclosure, and you can't obey that requirement if a player habitually misbids. It's really difficult to determine when the misbids occur frequently enough that you need to alert the opponents.

It's your responsibility to tailor the complexity of your agreements to your ability to remember them. In my regular partnership, we've occasionally added some conventions that didn't come up until 6 months after we discussed it; by that time one of us had forgotten about it, and we got a bad result. When this happens, we usually remove the agreement -- such infrequent uses are not worth the confusion they cause.

If you play a particular agreement with 99% of your partners, and you don't have the flexibility to remember the difference with the other 1%, don't let them talk you into playing a different agreement. Or if you're the partner, don't try to teach an old dog new tricks.

[blackshoe]

What is the basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing? What are its limits? For that matter, what is "the field"?

[fred]

blackshoe, on Jul 17 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

What is the basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing? What are its limits? For that matter, what is "the field"?

The field is the other players in the event.

The basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing is IMO common sense. Maybe there is a legal basis as well - you would know better than me

Imagine the hypothetical and admittedly unrealistic scenario in which a given pair screwed up their system every time it was their turn to make a bid. The result would that random tops and bottoms thrown to the pairs who were lucky/unlucky enough to play against this pair thereby ruining the integrity of the contest (to say nothing of ruining the bridge experience for people like me).

I think common sense dictates that it would not be "responsible" for a pair to show up to play in a serious tournament this unprepared thereby having this much random impact on the results. Wouldn't you agree?

Doesn't your common sense also dictate that such a high degree of irresponsibility should not be acceptable and/or should be punishable according to the laws?

If your lawbook saws "no" then please use your brain instead (that was not intended as an insult - I know you are not one of those TDs who thinks the lawbook was given to Moses on Mount Sinai). If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the laws (commendably in my view) try to stop that from happening with respect to constant psychs and IMO they should do the same thing with respect to constant systems screwups (for all I know they do already).

Since forgetting your system is obviously legal and since it is obviously always going to happen on occasion to everyone, the question becomes where to draw the line in terms of how often it should be allowed without punishment and, when the line is crossed to various degrees, how severe the punishment should be.

The answers to such questions have to be largely arbitrary of course. As I have said, I agree with those who believe that the seriousness of the event matters. To me, in a serious tournament, forgetting your system "only" a few times per session is not acceptable. To me, if you are playing in a serious event and you are tempted to explain a bid in a common sequence like "it shows X according to our agreement but he might have Y", that is a sign that your partnership has already crossed the line.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

fred, on Jul 17 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

I think common sense dictates that it would not be "responsible" for a pair to show up to play in a serious tournament this unprepared thereby having this much random impact on the results. Wouldn't you agree?

Doesn't your common sense also dictate that such a high degree of irresponsibility should not be acceptable and/or should be punishable according to the laws?

I would say no.

Lesser players randomize the results in all kind of ways. Like bizarre opening leads that occasionally work, and system screwups that sometimes damage opps more than the pair themselves. That is unfortunate, but hardly illegal. One could try to achieve a higher (and non-random) standard by charging high entry fees and awarding correspondingly high prices. A procedural penalty does not address the "problem" adequately - first, a incitement in the form of IMPs is hardly effective since system screwups already cost IMPs, second the damage to the field is most often that some random opps get an "undeserved" gift, which won't be addressed by a penalty.

How does the occasional partnership with non-solid agreements differ from the novice pair that makes anti-percentage plays? The only difference I can conceive of is that one can't blame novices for making random bad plays and bids, while one can blame a pair for forgetting their agreements - they could play with fewer different partners, or they could play simpler or more standardized systems. However that is not always feasible. Some players try to keep it as simple as possible, but have problems remembering their agreements nonetheless. And personally I would say that it is in the interest of the bridge club that players play with many different partners (it improves social cohesion and also reduces the problems with implicit agreements that are hard to disclose), and also in the interest of the game that there are players who experiment with innovative methods.

[NickRW]

fred, on Jul 17 2009, 08:21 PM, said:

As I have said (more than once now I think) it is a question of responsibility. If you can accept my contention that players are responsible to the field for knowing their partnership agreements, then not knowing your agreements is a violation of this responsibility to the field.

Players do not have a responsibility to anyone (except perhaps their partners) to remember which spot cards have been played.

I really don't track with this at all.

Scenario 1: You're sitting NS. I'm at another table EW in a Mitchell movement pairs. Every EW bar me is in a totally obvious 4♥ contract. My partner or I screw up the bidding and end up playing a partial. We get a bottom - the lucky NS at our table get a top. All the other EW pairs get slightly above average and all the NS pairs, including you, get slightly below average. In this scenario I agree our lousy bidding has contributed to you getting a poorer score than you deserved.

Scenario 2: On the next board, NS pairs are all playing 3NT. The opening lead is a totally obvious text book thing. You and nearly every other NS make your 3NT on the nose. I however, when defending this, forgot the size of the spot card my partner led and, as a result, miscount the hand and gift declarer an overtrick. Again, through no fault of your own, you get a worse than average score, just the same as in scenario 1.

How, then, is responsibility to the field in the bidding one iota different to card play?

Nick

P.S. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (and I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree with me), sorry to hear that you feel a bit jaded about the game at the moment.

[mjj29]

fred, on Jul 17 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

The basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing is IMO common sense. Maybe there is a legal basis as well - you would know better than me

If there is no legal basis, then TDs should not be awarding any sort of penalty. A TD awarding 'random' penalties and adjustments with no legal basis is more of a dereliction of duty than anything that's been mentioned here.

fred, on Jul 17 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

If your lawbook saws "no" then please use your brain instead (that was not intended as an insult - I know you are not one of those TDs who thinks the lawbook was given to Moses on Mount Sinai). If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the laws (commendably in my view) try to stop that from happening with respect to constant psychs and IMO they should do the same thing with respect to constant systems screwups (for all I know they do already).

Regardless of your opinion of what _should_ be in the laws, a TD can only rule what _is_ in the laws. Now, it may be separately useful to discuss what people think should be in the laws, but that's not the primary intent, AIUI, of this forum, which is to discuss how TDs should rule under the current laws.

The laws say very clearly L40A3 "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement, provided that such a call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding", L40C1 "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", L40C2 "Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announnced methods", L75C "the partnership agreement is as explained ... the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law ... they have no claim to an accurate discription of the North-South hands".

So, forgetting your system per-se is not illegal and must not be punished by a TD.

fred, on Jul 17 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

Since forgetting your system is obviously legal and since it is obviously always going to happen on occasion to everyone, the question becomes where to draw the line in terms of how often it should be allowed without punishment and, when the line is crossed to various degrees, how severe the punishment should be.

There are some specific situations where you may be able to adjust, but they are not just "they forget a lot". Firstly if it is not clear what the correct agreement is L75C "the Director is to presume Mistake Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary", which allows you to adjust under L21B3 if the other side would have got a better score if they had been properly informed (but note, not a PP). Secondly, if the specific cirmunstance comes up a lot then you may judge there to be a Concealed Partnership Understanding (L40C: "Repeated deveations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed ... If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaed the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty"). The same adjustment can be made because that implicit agreement isn't legal to use in that event (L40B).

Matt

[blackshoe]

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum.

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

Quote

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.
There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Jul 18 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum.

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

Quote

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.
There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

As I stated from the beginning, I have no expertise in this area - I basically have no idea about what the laws have to say about how a TD should handle most situations. Thanks to mjj29 for enlightening me about what the laws relevant to this discussion actually do say.

Of course I agree that the TD has to follow the laws even if he happens to disagree with what some of the laws should be.

Not knowing what the actual laws are (until now at least) I have been arguing for what I think the laws should be. Sorry that I have apparently misused this Forum by placing such thoughts here. I will stop now.

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mjj29]

fred, on Jul 18 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

If you actually want to get it considered as a law change then you probably want to contact the appropriate people at the WBF, which is one of the reasons there isn't such a forum here, people miight expect that posting a desired change here constitutes an official request to the WBF laws and ethics committee

[blackshoe]

Actually, I think you'd have to go through your NBO. And in the case of the ACBL, at least, there's probably not much chance you'll get anywhere.