[barmar]

I think handing the opponents or TD hundreds of pages of system notes, when you have no real expectation that both of you are on the same wavelength regarding all of them, is misinformation in and of itself. Maybe partner read about Bazumba and remembered it, but unless you've discussed it you really don't know. I would be very suspicious of such a tome from any infrequent or new partnership, unless they can convince me that the one who didn't actually author the notes has a photographic memory.

Partnerships like Meckwell have system notes like these, but they've evolved over years of playing together, discussing situations that have come up and adding things as needed. I doubt even they could handle someone thrusting a hundred pages of notes into their hands and play that system a few days later.

[kenrexford]

I can just imagine the TD calls. 7 minutes per board, two boards a round, 20 minutes at the table reading the system notes, cross-referencing the TD call history this week and this month, e-consulting records bureaus, inquiries into causation, assessing damage if any, explaining and recording the warnings, and then moving on to board #2.

This would be particularly fun with the LOLs and LOM's. I'd like to be the first to initiate an interrogation of Edith and Bernie as to how often they forget transfers after 1NT is doubled, and then watching as the TD asks why they forgot, reading through the crumbled set of convention cards shoved in her purse, assessing whether transfers are too complicated for them, and issuing them a warning that they will lose points if they make a mistake again. This would be too rich. I'd really love the committee they would demand, where the inquiry is whether Edith and Bernie are too stupid to play transfers. Then, I would probably pass out laughing when they try to get Bernie to sign that he received a formal warning from the conduct committee for playing with Edith even though Edith is known to forget transfers, as if Bernie cheated for even deciding to play with Edith.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Jul 21 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

I think handing the opponents or TD hundreds of pages of system notes, when you have no real expectation that both of you are on the same wavelength regarding all of them, is misinformation in and of itself. Maybe partner read about Bazumba and remembered it, but unless you've discussed it you really don't know. I would be very suspicious of such a tome from any infrequent or new partnership, unless they can convince me that the one who didn't actually author the notes has a photographic memory.

Partnerships like Meckwell have system notes like these, but they've evolved over years of playing together, discussing situations that have come up and adding things as needed. I doubt even they could handle someone thrusting a hundred pages of notes into their hands and play that system a few days later.

I think this is a very good point.

Seperate remark: This thread must have set a BBF record for hyperbole. And for strawmen.

[TimG]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

I don't think this should apply more to people who play unwelcome methods than it should to people who play welcome methods. It doesn't strike me as more pleasant to encounter someone who forgets popular Convention A than someone who forgets unpopular Convention B.

I could easily fit into the pro "liberal system regulation" camp. I've played my fair share of unusual methods and can accept that along with the use of unusual or unfamiliar methods comes an extra disclosure responsibility. While a few words may suffice when describing a common method, more care and detail is generally needed with uncommon methods.

But, I don't think I have any more duty to know my agreements if I am playing the latest gadgets than if I am playing 1940s Goren (though I'm not sure which of those approaches would be more welcome).

In short, I don't think a responsibility to make sure that we know what we are doing in a serious event should be predicated on what methods we are using.

[fred]

TimG, on Jul 22 2009, 01:02 AM, said:

In short, I don't think a responsibility to make sure that we know what we are doing in a serious event should be predicated on what methods we are using.

Good - I agree 100%!

Unfortunately I perceived an early trend in this thread in which seemily all of the "liberal systems regulations" types appeared to be horrified by my suggestion that systems-forgets should be punished under some circumstances.

I am glad to see that, in your case at least, it appears my perception was wrong.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

I'm not opposed per se. I just think it's going to be a very difficult task to make such a regulation workable.

I think an appropriate place for such a regulation will be in serious competitions. We wouldn't want to start discouraging the rank and file from trying out something new.

So how do we propose to sort it out? What are the "basic auctions"? Is "no agreement" a satisfactory answer? How are you going to sort out the additional UI problems? ("Partner's call means clubs." <sneer from partner> "Oh. I mean no agreement." This is obviated with screens of course.) Are you going to create a disincentive for full disclosure?

[the hog]

You don't need a complicated system to stuff things up. I have played in a national event and had the following happen behind screens:
(1NT) X (2C)
What is 2C? One said "Stayman", the other "Runout into Clubs". Now this was also against a top pair who had been playing together for years and were playing Acol, so nothing complicated. I hope those advocating penalties for forgetting your system would treat this pair equally to a pair playing complex methods. I HOPE so, but I suspect not. This thread really seems like another system bashing thread to me.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Jul 21 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

You don't need a complicated system to stuff things up. I have played in a national event and had the following happen behind screens:
(1NT) X (2C)
What is 2C? One said "Stayman", the other "Runout into Clubs". Now this was also against a top pair who had been playing together for years and were playing Acol, so nothing complicated. I hope those advocating penalties for forgetting your system would treat this pair equally to a pair playing complex methods. I HOPE so, but I suspect not. This thread really seems like another system bashing thread to me.

Excellent example.

I thought this thread was all about this exact pair who keep forgetting their system playing behind screens?

NOt this pair at my local club.

I guess somehow we know this pair keep forgetting their system ...now what?

[mike777]

side note.....assume we have a pair who play together at your local club and we know they forgot their system often........now what?

[glen]

mike777, on Jul 21 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

I guess somehow we know this pair keep forgetting their system ...now what?

You point them to this thread and they say "foget 'bout it" (see thread title)

[Sadie3]

Depends on what your local club is like. Mine is at least half players over 70, and several of them forget stayman on occasion. This club is not a "serious" event, and enforcement of penalties for forgetting serve no purpose but to make those that are already having difficulties remembering things feel worse about themselves. Stratifying the games help this situation, and several of the life masters, silver life masters...etc. are being downgraded to flight C as their skill level decreases. These players still love the challenge of the game and know better than to attend regionals, nationals, and world events because they are out of their element. Everything needs to be put in perspective.

[helene_t]

I don't think anyone is arguing that an automatic procedural penalty should be mandated by the laws so that all events have to enforce it. It would be in the CoC for events at a certain level.

As such, those of us who only play and/or direct in club games and minor tournament have little interest in this discussion. But I would be worried that it could drift downwards.

Hopefully at least those of us who don't live in ACBL-land have little to fear.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Jul 22 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

I don't think anyone is arguing that an automatic procedural penalty should be mandated by the laws so that all events have to enforce it. It would be in the CoC for events at a certain level.

As such, those of us who only play and/or direct in club games and minor tournament have little interest in this discussion. But I would be worried that it could drift downwards.

Hopefully at least those of us who don't live in ACBL-land have little to fear.

I think a Conditions of Contest for a high-level event should very seriously consider this type of rule. However, to be fair, I think that this should be tempered with a requirement to have fully-developed agreements and not seat of the pants as an agreement.

[TimG]

I think mandatory (even for 2nd or 3rd offenses) penalties for system forgets is a bad idea. Consider the case of a proper alert and explanation of a mistaken bid.

• You will be relying upon the opponents to report the mis-bid.
  
• The mis-bid will often lead to a poor result for the "offending" side. If the non-offenders (who have just received a good result) now call the director to report the mis-bid and have the mandatory penalty applied, that will be seen as unfriendly (and piling it on).
  
• "Professional courtesy" may preclude some players from calling the director to report some other players.
  
• Some players may be more likely to report certain forgets (such as when opponents are playing methods they don't approve of in the first place).
  
• All this will mean inconsistent application of penalties.
  
• Even when a mis-bid is reported, there may be difficulty in determining whether the deviation was intentional: "our agreement is that 1N denies a 4-card major, but I intentionally bypassed this one for tactical reasons". How would it be determined whether the mis-bid was intentional or mistaken?

Suppose I'm playing in a 4-session NABC pair event. I'm playing with someone with whom I don't have a longtime partnership. We've discussed our system, played a couple of other events, practiced online, etc., but are far from polished. The first day goes smoothly, we have some good fortune, and just make the cut for the second day. Early in the 3rd session we make some mistakes, get a bit discouraged, start thinking about what's been going wrong and one of us mis-bids. I'm a passed hand, my partner opens 1S, I have clubs and bid 2C even though we had agreed to play Drury -- I don't play Drury with many partners and I just bid what was in front of my face, I always got this right during bidding practice, but lost focus here. The director is summoned and it is recorded that we've had a forget. 4th session comes along, our game probably is worse than the 42% we had in the afternoon and I'm getting tired -- this takes more out of me than playing Saturday and Sunday at a local sectional. Round 8 comes along, the auction is 1C-(P)-1H-(1S) and despite playing support doubles and holding three hearts, I rebid 1N with the spades well under control. My partner correctly explains that I've denied three hearts. Director is called and my mis-bid is reported. Director says "Don't I recognize you from this afternoon? That's a 1/4 board procedural penalty because this is your second offense."

I don't think this is the scenario that anyone is looking for. But, I'm not sure how you go about crafting a rule for this without running into such a problem.

[Trinidad]

TimG, on Jul 22 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

I think mandatory (even for 2nd or 3rd offenses) penalties for system forgets is a bad idea.

[]

I don't think this is the scenario that anyone is looking for.  But, I'm not sure how you go about crafting a rule for this without running into such a problem.

Exactly. This is a case where the cure will be much worse than the disease.

Rik

[nige1]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

[snip] I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing". [snip]

I want system regulations scrapped but, of course, I agree with Fred. For exampe, the rules can define a standard system (I'd prefer a global standard but a local standard would be OK. Then the rules could stipulate ...

• If you play the standard system without addition or amendment (deletion allowed) then the director will tolerate most misexplanations (For example, if you are beginners or in a pick-up partnership).
  
• Otherwise, if you are playing some other system and you don't know, then you may guess. The director treats a wrong guess as a misexplanation.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then an opponent may ask your partner to explain his own call (usually you must first leave the table to minimise unauthorised information).

Simple

[JLOGIC]

I miss fred posts/threads

[Dirk Kuijt]

I've read all 11 pages of this discussion. Fascinating, yet it is clear that there is nothing close to agreement.

(I've said before, and want to go on record again here, that my answer to these questions is: no requirement to disclose and no limitation on systems, and that I'm fully aware that this answer is incompatible with the current laws.)

However, I would like to repeat a question to Fred that was asked before, but not, as far as I can tell, answered:

1. What is a 'serious' event?
2. How significant a problem is this, anyway?

I realize that definitions of "basic sequence" and "frequent misinformation" are inherently vague. Basic in some relay system might go several rounds, simply because the bidding goes more 'slowly'. On the other hand, a second round sequence, especially in competition, may be 'rare'.

And frequency is very hard to measure, since we are talking about rare events. If your opponents screw up twice in the eighth round of a Swiss team event, you are likely to conclude that they don't know their system. Of course, you haven't played against them on the previous seven rounds; if they were correct over that period, are they on the wrong side of the law or not?

Defining a 'serious' event, however, is a different story. You know, or at least, should be able to know, when you enter an event, what the rules are for that event, before you start. So, I'm going to ask Fred to define, precisely what is a 'serious' event.

The other question is even more basic. Is this really a problem, anyway? Of course, in bridge, rare things can be interesting (when was the last time you played a guard squeeze?). But interesting doesn't mean that we need to change rules to handle a super rare case. People that habitually make system mistakes aren't likely, in my humble opinion, to qualify for the semifinals of the Spingold. Are there people at that level making a bunch of system errors? Or is this whole thing just a tempest in a teapot?

[nige1]

IMO

• Bridge events should be fun not serious -- another good reason for scrapping system restrictions.
  
• But Fred is right: "forgetting" and inadequate disclosure is a serious problem of frequent occurrence at all levels. Sometimes, when leaving a table where you suspect opponents of prevarication, you overhear a post-mortem that confirms your suspicions. On two occasions, when I've called a director to report this, the facts weren't disputed, but no action was taken against putative "offenders".

[JLOGIC]

nige1, on Jul 17 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

[*] Bridge events should be fun not serious -- another good reason for scrapping system restrictions.

lol?