[Trinidad]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 08:39 AM, 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.

Scientists have a lot of explicit agreements. They are nicely documented in their 100+ page system book.

The problem is that the "artists" also have a vast arsenal of agreements. But their agreements are implicit rather than explicit. These agreements are not documented. But somehow the artist gets his message across to the "connoisseur" (his partner). The reason is that the formal, simple system that the artists use is full of holes. But during the years that they have played together, the system holes have been fixed "on the fly". Since people (even artists) tend to repeat their behavior when it was succesful, the artist is developing a pattern of "system hole fix methods". The partner knows this pattern, since he was present during the development.

The problem is that the artist thinks that this pattern is "general bridge knowledge" and that it therefore doesn't need to be disclosed, while in fact it is knowledge, specific for the partnership and has to be disclosed.

To state it clearly, the artists know exactly when a bid can be made on a three card suit, since they recognize the situation. They also know which bids are reliable. Not disclosing these tendencies is err well... , since you already used the "c-word", err... an infraction. Just as much as it is an infraction when scientists do not disclose their methods.

Rik

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Jul 20 2009, 01:15 PM, said:

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

Yes, I see what you mean. Frankly there is enough in the rules and regulations that I don't 100% see eye to eye with now - if this travesty were to overtake the game, I wouldn't be a player anymore.

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like - this change would make the whole thing unacceptable to me.

Nick

[helene_t]

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

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

When playing without screens, "no agreement" may be more damaging than a wrong explanation. Say we have one defense against a natural 2♦ overcall and another against a Hamilton 2♦, but we forgot to agree on a defense against a "no agreement" 2♦ overcall.

With screens the wrong explanation is probably worse. We could agree on a defense against a "no agreement" 2♦ overcall, but it's hard to have solid agreement against bids that are explained differently at the two sides, other than making our defenses as independent as possible of the meaning of opps' bids.

[barmar]

I agree with Josh: the incentive is to not try to be a scientist if you don't have a scientific mind.

I read Ken's book on cue bidding a while ago. It looks like a great system, but I could tell right away that there's no way I can remember all those details.

Some people play RKCB in a way where the choice between 3014 and 1430 responses depends on whether asker is the stronger or weaker hand, which then requires sometimes complex ways of knowing which case applies. If you can't remember that part of the convention, you shouldn't play this form.

I have one question: when we talk about "frequent system-forgets", how frequent do we mean? Some of the responses have suggested that such players probably won't make it to the later rounds of any serious events, which suggests they think this happens multiple times in a session, enough to seriously impact their score. I doubt this is very likely, so I think frequent may mean once every 5-10 sessions. Also note Fred's later clarification; he's not talking about forgetting something that comes up once every 6 months in complex auctions, he's talking about relatively frequent situations, like forgetting whether a 2♦ opening is weak 2, multi, or Flannery, or what you do after interference with your 1NT oening.

[TimG]

barmar, on Jul 20 2009, 11:03 AM, said:

Also note Fred's later clarification; he's not talking about forgetting something that comes up once every 6 months in complex auctions, he's talking about relatively frequent situations, like forgetting whether a 2♦ opening is weak 2, multi, or Flannery, or what you do after interference with your 1NT opening.

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens in a Vanderbilt, Spingold or US Team Trials? These are the sorts of events I think Fred would consider "serious".

Even in a "lesser" NABC event like an Open Pairs, I don't imagine these sorts of basic forgets are very common. I haven't played in one of these events in a while, so maybe I am wrong. If these events are plagued with forgets, then something should probably be done to address the situation. I think penalizing system forgets will simply discourage non-top-level players from entering the events rather than encouraging them to be more prepared when they do enter the events. But, maybe that's a good thing, at least from the perspective of a player like Fred.

[Free]

I wouldn't be against it, but I also wouldn't put any effort in this case either. If the error happens with the first bid anyone makes I think it should be penalized (like when you're playing Ghestem for example), but after a few rounds of bidding you should get away with it.

Imo it might be difficult to differentiate between an error and a psych. For example, what if you play transfer splinters, and you show a void in a suit where you have 432 while you have a void somewhere else. One could argue that you forgot you play transfer splinters...

[Sadie3]

Events are goverened by whoever runs the event. In my local club, I allow all conventions and encourage full disclosure. It is a learning tool and many mistakes are made. I think this is the level where these kinds of things should occur. I also think that the bidding and practice tables are great for this here at BBO. I would never tell a player they must take a convention off their card because they are playing it incorrectly. I would tell them them they must play it correctly, or be penalized if it causes their opps damage and follow through on it. Bridge players are not children and I believe they would be infuriated with me if I tried to tell them they were not allowed to play their conventions just because they hadn't followed it completely (for whatever reason).

[peachy]

Free, on Jul 20 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

Imo it might be difficult to differentiate between an error and a psych.

Little off topic since tis thread is about forgetting agreements, not about psychs.

A psych is a "deliberate and gross deviation from partnership agreement". A system forget is never a psych because if one does not know what the agreement is, one cannot deliberately (with intention) grossly deviate from it.

[cherdanno]

Btw, I now agree that this discussion is off-topic for a laws forum. Laws are meant to be the rules that are identical for events starting from the non-life masters Wednesday afternoon game to the final of the Bermuda Bowl. As long as noone wants to enforce Fred's rule in the Wednesday afternoon game, and as long as the laws allow for it, the place for this regulation is in the Condition of Contests. Where, apparently, at least in NA things are not so far removed from the way Fred and his friends like to see them. (I believe the USBF has a similar rule in the CoC.)

[kenrexford]

Fred,

I understand your point of view. Please consider mine a little more completely.

People who define a lot of sequences typically are able to provide much more detail about specific bids than other "artists." However, those of us in that camp often face constant director calls for ever-so-slight system exceptions. The rare deviation that would be ignored if we played "SAYC" becomes a moral outrage and sometimes even subject to extreme hostility.

Meanwhile, try asking an "artist" for more explanation of the bid and/or nuances therefrom, and you get snide remarks and scoffing, with belittling.

When the scientist considers the downside to his approach, it is in the over-disclosure to the opponents. However, an upside is actually ethics. Ethics, in two senses -- first, disclosure to the opponents, second, reduction of any risk of huddle-feels. When scientists compete against "artists," the sense that we have is that "artists" under-disclose and (subconsiously) use tempo as a means to relaying information (or, more precisely, read tempo changes subconsciously to retrieve information).

You are right that forgetting system is infuriating when the green rubs wrong or when the TD's adjust wrong. However, your suggestion meets some of us sourly because there is no real ability to right the wrongs of the errant artist, and even a lot of denial that the wrong even exists, by artists themselves.

[kenrexford]

Here's a way to illustrate what I mean.

Consider an auction:

1♠-P-2♣-P-
2♥-P-2♠-P-
4♦

Ask me, a scientist, what this shows, and I'll explain "precisely a stiff in diamonds, and not higher than the stiff Queen, two of the top three spades, three of the top four hearts, and not the Ace or King of clubs." Suppose, however, that I forgot to mention that the stiff could be as high as stiff Queen but not stiff King, or even worse if I violated somehow, even if intentionally. Partner might correct me after the auction, or my hand might end up dummy somehow and not meet the defintion, and then all Hell breaks loose.

Ask an "artist," or at least some of them, and you get something like "shortness in diamonds." Ask range, or specifics, and you get scorn, but no answer. Ask for how a 3♦ bid instead would be different, and you get that this would be information derived from information I am not entitled to because I am only entitled to the meaning of the 4♣ call, or something like that. Ask anything more, and you get nothing more. On top of that, the speed with which Opener bids 4♣ usually has a buried, subconscious meaning that Responder usually subconsciously "feels" and unwittingly acts upon, from at least perceived experience.

Note, by the way, the relative impossibility of taking any inference from the "scientific" 4♣ call, because the definition is so strict, and because only that call was allowed if the hand is otherwise suitable.

[jdonn]

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

Well, hyperbole, of course.

However, changing the rules to punish people who are trying to do the best that they can but forget their system, which usually results in a great score for us, simply because it stirs up the game, and is somehow worse than the other gifts and fixes tossed about constantly, seems similarly hyperbolic.

IMO, the problem is Matchpoints. The longer the session, and the more face-to-face the event, the less you care about the occasional fix.

[skjaeran]

aguahombre, on Jul 19 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

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?

Generally:
First time offence: Warning
Second offence: 10% of top on a board (0.5 VP)
Later: 20% of top on a board (1 VP)

Spesific:
Different types of offences are listed, for some you don't get a warning, but are awarded a PP as for second offence above.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

Well, hyperbole, of course.

However, changing the rules to punish people who are trying to do the best that they can but forget their system, which usually results in a great score for us, simply because it stirs up the game, and is somehow worse than the other gifts and fixes tossed about constantly, seems similarly hyperbolic.

IMO, the problem is Matchpoints. The longer the session, and the more face-to-face the event, the less you care about the occasional fix.

I want to argue but I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 20 2009, 02:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 20 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

Well, hyperbole, of course.

However, changing the rules to punish people who are trying to do the best that they can but forget their system, which usually results in a great score for us, simply because it stirs up the game, and is somehow worse than the other gifts and fixes tossed about constantly, seems similarly hyperbolic.

IMO, the problem is Matchpoints. The longer the session, and the more face-to-face the event, the less you care about the occasional fix.

I want to argue but I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic.

Kind of curve.

[jdonn]

Um, thanks for clearing that up.

[aguahombre]

when not clowning, he was making an adjective out of "hyperbole"

[rbforster]

Under these rules, when my opps incompetently blunder their way into some 4-3 fit in 4M instead of the obvious 3N, I'll be sure to ask a bunch of pointed questions about exactly what each bid meant. Then when they don't know, or don't answer consistently, I'll have recourse by getting them punished when 4M makes on the 4-3 (but is wildly against the odds) and 3N doesn't. Nothing like getting some free insurance.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on Jul 20 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

when not clowning, he was making an adjective out of "hyperbole"

http://dictionary.re...owse/hyperbolic

It's a real word!