[skjaeran]

Sadie3, on Jul 19 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

My rule book seems to be very sparse in detailing exactly how much penalty to impose for a lot of infractions. For instance, I can not find where it says to penalize a full board or a 1/3 board for cell phone usage. Can anyone guide me to where it tells this?

There's nothing on this in the Laws, it's up to the Regulating Authorities to define these things.

In Norway we have guidelines on this in an appendix to our Tournament Regulations.

[aguahombre]

skaeran, on Jul 19 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Sadie3, on Jul 19 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

My rule book seems to be very sparse in detailing exactly how much penalty to impose for a lot of infractions.  For instance, I can not find where it says to penalize a full board or a 1/3 board for cell phone usage.  Can anyone guide me to where it tells this?

There's nothing on this in the Laws, it's up to the Regulating Authorities to define these things.

In Norway we have guidelines on this in an appendix to our Tournament Regulations.

And they are?

[blackshoe]

The current ACBL General Conditions of Contest have this provision:

Quote

Except for health related equipment or by permission of the DIC, cell phones, pagers, and all similar communications equipment may not be operated or operable in the playing area during a session of play at NABCs.  Violations of this policy may be penalized without warning. Minimum penalties of one-quarter board for matchpointed events and three IMPs or one Victory Point for other events will be assessed if a player's cell phone or pager is audible or if a cell phone is being used in the playing area. Sponsoring organizations of other ACBL sanctioned events are strongly encouraged to adopt this policy.

So under the current regulations (revised in December of last year) either penalty Adam mentioned would be within the regulation - although it does beg the question why his penalty was three times larger than the other contestant's. Note that this revision occurred after the Summer NABC, so the regulation in force at the time may well have been different.

[gnasher]

I'm with Fred. I play bridge for enjoyment. I derive enjoyment from facing and solving difficult bridge problems, or, to a lesser extent, from facing them and not solving them. I enjoy winning by playing better than my opponents, as long as my opponents have themselves played well.

I don't at all enjoy winning because my opponents get easy problems wrong. Knowing your system is, or should be, an easy problem.

pclayton said:

If this were in a head to head team game, I would love nothing more than my opponents to forget their agreements, psyche randomly or drink, so lets forget about TGs.

Trinidad said:

Frankly, I just like it when I play against opponents who truely do not know what NT range they are playing.

I don't understand this attitude at all. Unless you have a financial interest in winning, what on earth do you get out of having a match thrown at you?

[gnasher]

One more thing. In this and the other thread, people have argued that forgetting your system is no different from any other bridge error, such as making a bad bid or play.

They're right: it is the same, and it's no more fun to play against comparatively weak players than it is to play against people who often forget their methods. Excluding weaker players is one reason that we have flighted events, representative events, and events requiring qualification.

Take the Blue Ribbon Pairs. In order to enter that you have to have earned a qualification*. That helps to exclude people who are going to repeatedly make bad bids and plays, thereby making the event better and more enjoyable for the people who are good enough to play in it. If we excluded people who don't know their methods, that would also make the event better and more enjoyable for the other participants.

* Or be a visitor from overseas. How come there's no smiley for "smug"?

[helene_t]

I suppose pairs who often forget their methods won't qualify for the Blue Ribbon Pairs.

So what's the problem? That pairs who forget their system are no challenge to play against? We already have all kind of barriers against weak pairs. That pairs who make fun of the event by deliberately having no system destroy the event? We already have rules against dumping. That pairs who claim to play ghestem very well know that they sometimes play natural 3♣ overcalls? We already have rules about inadequate disclosure.

I am not convinced that there is a problem. It is only a minor problem at the level I play, and I would expect it to be much less of a problem in events where zombies like me are barred from playing, or discouraged from playing by high entry fees.

If there is a problem, I can´t see a need for specific rules about system forgets. Why it can't be dealt with by applying the existing laws.

[cherdanno]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

I suppose pairs who often forget their methods won't qualify for the Blue Ribbon Pairs.

I don't think so.

[awm]

cherdanno, on Jul 19 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 19 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

I suppose pairs who often forget their methods won't qualify for the Blue Ribbon Pairs.

I don't think so.

Blue ribbon qualifications are not necessarily earned as a pair. I know of a couple local pairs who play complicated methods and have serious trouble remembering their agreements (they are also getting older). But all the players involved are considered good players and have had considerable success in other partnerships (and probably have a lifetime supply of blue ribbon qualifications).

[TimG]

cherdanno, on Jul 19 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 19 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

I suppose pairs who often forget their methods won't qualify for the Blue Ribbon Pairs.

I don't think so.

I've got enough Blue Ribbon Qs to last me until I'm a senior. (That is: they aren't that hard to come by.) And, I've had plenty of forgets and misunderstandings over the years.

[matmat]

gnasher, on Jul 19 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

I don't understand this attitude at all. Unless you have a financial interest in winning, what on earth do you get out of having a match thrown at you?

doesn't this just boil down to what your end goal is?

[Phil]

gnasher, on Jul 19 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

pclayton said:

If this were in a head to head team game, I would love nothing more than my opponents to forget their agreements, psyche randomly or drink, so lets forget about TGs.

I don't understand this attitude at all. Unless you have a financial interest in winning, what on earth do you get out of having a match thrown at you?

Andy, Fred's premise was that forgetting systems randomizes results, and thus should have a punitive element. In a direct match, there is no need for punishment, per se.

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Jul 19 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Andy, Fred's premise was that forgetting systems randomizes results, and thus should have a punitive element.

I think you missed Fred's main motivation. Forgetting systems spoils some of the fun for opponents.

[JoAnneM]

I agree with Fred, even though I am not a high level player, I experience the same frustrations at the club level.

I am not clued into the mechanics of the Cavendish, but I get the impression that a lot of these games are pro/client type situations. Who is the responsible party?

Or, if it is two professionals, players who are accustomed to playing with pages and pages of notes, how do they switch from partner to partner without meltdown?

I can see lots of scenarios here that might lead to this problem at the table, many of them not deliberate. Maybe they should throw out the high and low scores.


As an aside, I know you aren't interested in the club aspect, but if I have a pair who misbids or fails to alert a convention more than twice I make them take it off their card until they can prove to me they know what they are doing. And I do this in a mentoring way, usually with a short private lesson.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jul 20 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

One more thing. In this and the other thread, people have argued that forgetting your system is no different from any other bridge error, such as making a bad bid or play.

They're right: it is the same, and it's no more fun to play against comparatively weak players than it is to play against people who often forget their methods. Excluding weaker players is one reason that we have flighted events, representative events, and events requiring qualification.

Take the Blue Ribbon Pairs. In order to enter that you have to have earned a qualification*. That helps to exclude people who are going to repeatedly make bad bids and plays, thereby making the event better and more enjoyable for the people who are good enough to play in it. If we excluded people who don't know their methods, that would also make the event better and more enjoyable for the other participants.

* Or be a visitor from overseas. How come there's no smiley for "smug"?

I would strongly agree with Gnasher here. Many posters, I think including Fred, are forgetting that bidding is just as valid a part of the game as card play or defense. A system error, because you don't know your system 100% is akin to miscounting someone's hand. Are you also going to impose penalties for bad defence and bad declarer play? If not, then the case for imposing a penalty for a system error is inconsistent.

[spotlight7]

Hi Everyone

So Zia will not be allowed to play in 'serious' events because of his bidding?

Regards,
Robert

[Echognome]

JoAnneM, on Jul 19 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

As an aside, I know you aren't interested in the club aspect, but if I have a pair who misbids or fails to alert a convention more than twice I make them take it off their card until they can prove to me they know what they are doing. And I do this in a mentoring way, usually with a short private lesson.

This sounds awful to me. As far as I am aware, it is not the director's job to tell people how to play bridge. If a TD told me to take a convention off my card (that was a legal convention), I'd be outraged.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jul 19 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 20 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

One more thing.  In this and the other thread, people have argued that forgetting your system is no different from any other bridge error, such as making a bad bid or play.

They're right: it is the same, and it's no more fun to play against comparatively weak players than it is to play against people who often forget their methods.  Excluding weaker players is one reason that we have flighted events, representative events, and events requiring qualification.

Take the Blue Ribbon Pairs.  In order to enter that you have to have earned a qualification*.  That helps to exclude people who are going to repeatedly make bad bids and plays, thereby making the event better and more enjoyable for the people who are good enough to play in it.  If we excluded people who don't know their methods, that would also make the event better and more enjoyable for the other participants.

* Or be a visitor from overseas.  How come there's no smiley for "smug"?

I would strongly agree with Gnasher here. Many posters, I think including Fred, are forgetting that bidding is just as valid a part of the game as card play or defense. A system error, because you don't know your system 100% is akin to miscounting someone's hand. Are you also going to impose penalties for bad defence and bad declarer play? If not, then the case for imposing a penalty for a system error is inconsistent.

I don't know how many times I can say it, but the comparison does not hold. Bad defense or declarer play is equivalent to bad bidding judgment, not to forgetting your system. Yes it's more like forgetting there is a trump out, but for one thing I don't find it particularly fun when my opponent does that, and for another I have never even once seen someone gain from that.

[awm]

There's a general point that the laws usually attempt to restore equity rather than punish offenders. While this is fine in principle, there is merit to the idea that very frequent offenders should be punished in some way. The laws even provide for the possibility through procedural penalties. There is a difference between frequent offenses of this sort and simple poor play. Examples include:

(1) Repeatedly failing to alert particular methods (even after being told to alert by director).
(2) Repeatedly psyching or forgetting particular calls, such that partner knows they're suspect.
(3) Repeatedly making insufficient bids or leading out of turn or revoking.
(4) Continuing to play illegal methods even after the director orders them taken off the card.

All of these indicate either insufficient attention to the game or the director. All have the potential to make a substantial number of boards basically "unplayable" such that the director is forced to assign or at least consider artificial scores. And they all generate a huge amount of work for the directing staff. Again, these sorts of problems happen occasionally to almost anyone, but doing these things repeatedly and with high frequency should be subject to an actual penalty rather than just an attempt to restore equity. In some cases these things might be deliberate attempts to cheat, in that if the opponents don't realize what has occurred and don't call the director (or if the director makes a bad ruling) some advantage can accrue to the offending side... and if the worst thing that ever happens to the offenders is for equity to be restored, it remains to their advantage to do this stuff.

Again, these are different from "bad play" or "bad bidding" in that they require interaction with a director and are really violations of law (although usually inadvertent).

[Echognome]

Maybe as a constructive point, someone can attempt the wording of a regulation (or amendment to the law) along with guidance to the TD's (am thinking of something like the EBU White Book) with an example of where a TD should give a penalty and an example where a TD should not give a penalty. Maybe as a starting point to it, just a few examples where people will think it is clear enough to give an additional penalty and where it is not.

[Codo]

The discussion did not reflect about Gonzalos (Fluffy) main point:

When people do not care enough for a good result to prepair their methods, they may not care about penalties either.

The guys who play the Cavendish do care, so I guess that they will know their system well enough.

I am with Andy and Ron that people who really forget their agreements are as bad as opponents as people who make serious errors in card play. There is no joy in killing sheeps.

So I would like to get more penalites in case people forget their system and partner may field the misunderstanding, but I would not like to introduce a pp just for the fact that someone simply forgot his system.