[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

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 think that you entirely agree with me. My point was that whilst miscounting a hand and forgetting your system are both bridge errors, I don't want to play against opponents who do either. We find ways to separate weak players from strong players, and I'd be happy if we could also separate serial system-forgetters from the rest of us.

[Trinidad]

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

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?

I probably didn't phrase this right. Indeed, I don't get anything out of having matches thrown at me, other than the possibility to qualify to play against better opponents.

However, opponents are going to make mistakes. And the real question is: Should I be picky about which mistakes they make? Do I care whether they misbid, miscount, or forget their system? My answer: No, I don't.

Would you feel better qualifying for the Bermuda Bowl because an opponent miscounted the hand or because they had a bidding misunderstanding? My guess is that you don't consider it your problem.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on Jul 20 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 20 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

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 think that you entirely agree with me. My point was that whilst miscounting a hand and forgetting your system are both bridge errors, I don't want to play against opponents who do either. We find ways to separate weak players from strong players, and I'd be happy if we could also separate serial system-forgetters from the rest of us.

What is a serial system forgetter other than 'a type of weak player'? The system that separates the miscounters from the correct counters is the same one that separates the system forgetters from the pairs with solid agreements.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jul 20 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

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.

There is a very simple metric here (and least for ACBL tournaments)

If the pair in question is playing Standard America, let them play the convention. If they're playing Precision, throw the book at them.

[hrothgar]

JoAnneM, on Jul 20 2009, 04:00 AM, 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 has always struck me as incredibly shortsighted:

Let's assume that some random is screwing up Smolen.
You force them to stop playing the convention.

Does this somehow improve their ability to show game foricng hands with 5-4 in the majors opposite their partner's 1NT opening? Hardly... At it does is make sure that the next time they get dealt a Smolen hand they're going to be completely confused about what they should be doing.

The pairs I know rarely adopt conventions at random. They adopt conventions to plug specific holes in their bidding methods. Taking their conventions away doesn't suddenly improve their ability to bid. If anything, it exacerbates the problem while simultaneously pissing off the non offending side.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2009, 10:16 AM, said:

Echognome, on Jul 20 2009, 08:32 AM, said:

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.

There is a very simple metric here (and least for ACBL tournaments)

If the pair in question is playing Standard America, let them play the convention. If they're playing Precision, throw the book at them.

I would be worried about that, too.

Many people consider their own methods "simple" and everything else "complex". For example, here in England many people think that weak notrump is easier and more natural than strong notrump. I can imagine a novice pair messing up Jacoby transfers would be tolerated, while a novice pair messing up the relay to a Precision 2♣ would be punished.

I am sure most TDs will enforce the rules wisely, whatever the rules are. But it is already a problem that the rules are too complicated and give the TDs too much leeway for judgment which some of them are not capable of.

OK, I know Fred is addressing "serious" competition, but the laws are applied (or at least: TDs and club boards try to apply them) at all levels. If the needs wrt laws are different for ordinary clubs and for serious events, I think the serious events are the ones that should have to live with inadequate laws. For two reasons. First, there are much more nonserious events than serious events. Second, it is mainly the organizations behind serious events that have the expertise to formulate custom rules for their own events. Case in point: the Dutch people here are probably familiar with the mess the Amsterdam district made of it when they tried to customize the regulations for weak two openings for their own district competition.

If there is a need for law reforms (the thing I hear people complaining about most is that the laws change to often), then the aim should be to make the laws simpler.

Btw, out of curiosity: Are notorious system-forgetters so prevalent at serious events that there is a need for addressing the issue explicitly? It sounds strange. If I were somehow to qualify for an event several levels too high for me, then I am sure I would randomize the results a lot with my bad judgment and bad play, but the one thing that would be easy to keep at low frequency would be system forgets. In my own partnerships I have often experimented with badly-worked-out methods at club nights and at home practicing with teammates, but for external competition the main system selection criterion is "the one we are least likely to screw up".

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on Jul 20 2009, 05:35 AM, said:

Btw, out of curiosity: Are notorious system-forgetters so prevalent at serious events that there is a need for addressing the issue explicitly? It sounds strange.

I strongly agree with Helene. Are there really many (any?) pairs in serious tournaments who frequently screw up basic auctions? If not, why are we discussing this?

The answer that I see: Because the real problem isn't with opponents screwing up their system. We wouldn't care, we take the good result. The real problem is with people alledgedly screwing up disclosing their system. And that is a communication problem with cultural (what is 'standard'?) and linguistic aspects. (And keep in mind that 'communication' involves the 'sender' as well as the 'receiver'.)

Rik

[glen]

Trinidad, on Jul 20 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

... Are there really many (any?) pairs in serious tournaments who frequently screw up basic auctions? ...

Yes, there are pairs that will sometimes "screw up basic auctions" in serious tournaments. For example this will occur in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl.

[kenrexford]

Doesn't this whole concept open up a can of worms?

I mean, what is the functional difference between non-disclosure of a written-down agreement and non-disclosure because the partnership lacks any agreement as to a specific auction? If a series of calls leads to a certain bid that neither partner has any agreement on, then disclosure is off, and results can be affected.

Should we then penalize people who have insufficient complexity also? If two peeple end up indicating "no agreement" too often, is that also actionable?

What if the agreement is insufficiently stated?

I mean, as a person who, for instance, has developed cuebidding style into a complicated but precise structure, should I be able to call the TD because my opponents have a more free-style general values cue style, where neither of them really knows what the other means by his cues or by inference of not taking another call? Whereas I can fullyu discclose the "meaning" both definitionally and inferentially, which is full disclosure, others cannot. Should that be punished by an adjustment?

My point is that there seems to be a bias against systemic errors or forgetting when the system is deemed different from standard, but the standard approach is a mess of jumbled nonsense itself and seems to more often lead to wags and hunches than a structured approach. And, the "nuances" from "style" are never deemed systemic, subject to disclosure, and sometimes "forgotten." The "that's common sense" type of response, if there even is one, stands in stark contrast to the incredibly tight definitional glitches that raise ire when a "different" approach is used.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, most times that I am playing in a "real" event my partnership will contribute 1-2 very random boards that result from a system foul up. The reason for this is fairly simple: I'm not playing in any serious partnerships these days. As a result, there are plenty of auctions in which I assume X, partner assumes Y, and the result gets very screwed up.

The following hand is a classic example:

http://forums.bridge...topic=32675&hl=

Sue and I were up in Portland playing an event with TimG and IdiotVig...

I passed in direct seat, Sue balanced with 3♠, and I needed to decide what to do. I decided to advance 4♦ (since I was sure that this couldn't be passed). Sue assumed that i was broke with long Diamonds. So, I go to declare 4♦

or what its worth, I can definitely see how events like this can be seen to randomize the results. However, foricng us to change system in the midst of an event won't have ANY significant impact on the number of times these sorts of things happen.

What it might do is get me annoyed.
And I tend to get "creative" when I get annoyed...

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

Doesn't this whole concept open up a can of worms?

I mean, what is the functional difference between non-disclosure of a written-down agreement and non-disclosure because the partnership lacks any agreement as to a specific auction? 

The functional difference that in one case the opponents tell you "no agreement" and in the other case they tell you "our agreement is blah blah blah" and "blah blah blah" turns out to be wrong.

The term "misunderstanding" has been used by several people. The way I see it, a misunderstanding is what happens when you don't have an agreement about a sequence and the two members of the partnership interpret the sequence in two different ways. This happens to top players a lot more often than pure system-forgets.

Quote

If a series of calls leads to a certain bid that neither partner has any agreement on, then disclosure is off, and results can be affected.

Agree. I am not suggesting that the laws should try to do anything about these kinds of misunderstandings (provided of course that the call in question is explained as "no agreement" - unfortunately it is the case that some people, who are no doubt trying to be helpful, sometimes say instead something like "I am taking it as blah blah blah" which creates yet another slippery slope on which yet another arbitrary line must be drawn).

Quote

Should we then penalize people who have insufficient complexity also?  If two peeple end up indicating "no agreement" too often, is that also actionable?

This is an interesting question. In a "serious tournament" I would answer "yes" on the Cavendish-like basis of "players are required to know they system" which to me presupposes that the players must have some kind of system to remember. It would not be acceptable in a tournament like that to have, say, one player open 2D and his partner to explain 2D as "no agreement".

For sure it is hard to know where to draw the line, but in my experience this is very much a non-problem.

Quote

What if the agreement is insufficiently stated? 

Also not acceptable and also subject to penalty, but I don't see what this has to do with the current discussion.

Quote

I mean, as a person who, for instance, has developed cuebidding style into a complicated but precise structure, should I be able to call the TD because my opponents have a more free-style general values cue style, where neither of them really knows what the other means by his cues or by inference of not taking another call?  Whereas I can fullyu discclose the "meaning" both definitionally and inferentially, which is full disclosure, others cannot.  Should that be punished by an adjustment?

I think this is very different from the pair who does not know what their own 2D opening means. IMO your example falls on the other side of that hard-to-define line which is intended to define the minimum set of agreements it is reasonable to expect a pair to have.

IMO it is not reasonable, in a serious event, for people to say "I don't know what a 2D opening means", "I don't know what our 1NT range is", "I don't know what it means if you open 1NT and I overcall 2D", etc. However, it is equally unreasonable to force every pair to have agreements about every possible call in every possible auction.

Quote

My point is that there seems to be a bias against systemic errors or forgetting when the system is deemed different from standard, but the standard approach is a mess of jumbled nonsense itself and seems to more often lead to wags and hunches than a structured approach.  And, the "nuances" from "style" are never deemed systemic, subject to disclosure, and sometimes "forgotten."  The "that's common sense" type of response, if there even is one, stands in stark contrast to the incredibly tight definitional glitches that raise ire when a "different" approach is used.

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gordontd]

fred, on Jul 19 2009, 04:07 PM, said:

I learned in the IBLF Forum that apparently the law can't do much in terms of "punishing" players who don't know their systems.

There's bound to be a problem with attempting to "punish" players for doing accidentally something that they would be permitted to do deliberately.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on Jul 20 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

There's bound to be a problem with attempting to "punish" players for doing accidentally something that they would be permitted to do deliberately.

I think that is moot. We are talking about frequent system forgets.

If partner psychs a particular bid frequently, then it's not a psych anymore but has become an implicit agreement.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

I mean, as a person who, for instance, has developed cuebidding style into a complicated but precise structure

Should we infer anything from your calling it "precise" rather than "accurate"?

[fred]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

If you suggesting that scientists intentionally stop disclosing agreements out of fear that they might get penalized if they have forgotten their agreements, then I suppose this would be a nice way for such scientists to have their cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately it would also be cheating.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

If one player of a partnership forgot about an agreement, it's almost unavoidable that this pair continues to bid without misinforming their opponents.
There will be either a failure to alert or they gave a wrong explanation about their alerted bid. Without screens there will be an additional UI problem.

So the TD almost always has a law available that allow for a score correction.

But we have to remember that the TD has no BIS (Bridge Investigation Service) or TSI (Tourney Scene Investigators) that can prove what really happened.

In a serious event, the TD could rely on screens and system descriptions submitted in advance. So there would be notes and system descriptions available.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

If you suggesting that scientists intentionally stop disclosing agreements out of fear that they might get penalized if they have forgotten their agreements, then I suppose this would be a nice way for such scientists to have their cake and eat it too.

Unfortunately it would also be cheating.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I'm claiming something rather different:

Scientists should intentionally stop formalizing their agreements out of fear that the rules set will discriminate against them if they aren't "artistic" enough in their approach to the game...

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

I'm claiming something rather different:

Scientists should intentionally stop formalizing their agreements out of fear that the rules set will discriminate against them if they aren't "artistic" enough in their approach to the game...

I think an accurate way to state that premise would be "People would stop creating agreements they worry they won't be able to remember out of fear of punishment should they forget an agreement." Well, that's the whole point. It's not a desire to wait for people to forget agreements and then punish them, it's a desire to create an incentive for people to not use an agreement they can't remember. In other words, this situation would probably be viewed as a positive by supporters of this type of rule.

Alternatively, instead of eliminating agreements, scientists might simply practice their agreements more. Everyone wins then.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 04:17 AM, said:

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.

Well, in which case, forgetting your carding agreements, misinterpreting partner's signal and such like is equivalent to forgetting your bidding system.

Nick