[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 4 2009, 05:33 PM, said:

Would you say then that once a player has established an implicit agreement by his forgets, he is ethically required to abandon his attempt to learn a new convention?

I think you are again missing the distinction between learning a new convention, which is dandy, with repeatedly forgetting what you are playing to begin with. And I don't know how I would word it as far as "ethically required" but I do think if you keep forgetting a convention you should stop playing it.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure that's not a distinction without a difference. Certainly if you have been playing some convention for years, and suddenly you keep forgetting it, that's one thing. But I would think that would be pretty rare - even for us senile old folks.

I had a partner once - she'd played rubber bridge a little in nursing school in the 60s, then had not played for some thirty years, and then started playing with me in duplicate clubs. One auction she never could get: she would open 1NT, I would bid 2♣ (Stayman), she would bid 3♣. She didn't play duplicate for long - the fine treatment she got from some of our local players drove her away from the game - but if she'd kept playing, well, which category would you put her in? Trying to learn, or hopelessly forgetful?

[jdonn]

I wouldn't categorize her as anything, I'd just believe she shouldn't play stayman.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's fine then, because she doesn't play bridge any more.

[campboy]

I don't think we need to be so harsh. If one player often forgets the system, this in itself isn't a problem. The problem is if partner might allow for it. If he doesn't, then I do not see how there can be an agreement.

I also do not normally tell my opponents "partner is not very good", even if it is true and potentially useful information; why should it be any different if there is one particular thinig he is not very good at?

[bluejak]

As the CoP says with psyches [which are effectively dealt with under similar Laws to misbids] it does not matter whether partner allows for it: if he knows it happens it is a disclosable agreement.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Nov 4 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

I don't think you should have special rights to forget what you are playing to the point it becomes an agreement simply because you're in the process of trying to learn it. And frankly I think you aren't giving the learners enough credit anyway. It's one thing to mess up how a convention works, or which hand you use it on, but this is talking about forgetting that you are playing it altogether.

I prefer not to play Drury, but I have a couple of occasional partners who really like it, so I give in for them. I'm pretty sure I've once or twice forgotten that we were playing it.

And even with a regular partner, stuff like this happens. A while back, we agreed to play 2NT-3NT as a puppet to 4♣. Somehow, a long time went by before this sequence came up (since we play Puppet Stayman, responder often has a hand that can either transfer to a major or bid 3♣). When it did, partner had forgotten about this agreement, he meant his 3NT as natural. We decided that the benefit of the convention wasn't worth the trouble of remembering it, and took it off that day.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Nov 5 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

And even with a regular partner, stuff like this happens. A while back, we agreed to play 2NT-3NT as a puppet to 4♣. Somehow, a long time went by before this sequence came up (since we play Puppet Stayman, responder often has a hand that can either transfer to a major or bid 3♣). When it did, partner had forgotten about this agreement, he meant his 3NT as natural. We decided that the benefit of the convention wasn't worth the trouble of remembering it, and took it off that day.

Perfect, that's how things should go. You tried and couldn't remember often enough to justify playing it, so you ditched it.

[blackshoe]

That's a rather extreme example, though.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Nov 4 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

In the "legal agreement" scenario, my problem is a little different. I don't see how, if the "official" agreement is that 2♥ shows spades, but partner's forgets make the opener aware he might have hearts, and opener gives all that information, the TD can rule that there was MI. I do have a cold, so maybe I'm too sick to see it.

The problem is as outlined by Bluejak earlier in the thread. The opponents aren't really able to do anything with the knowledge that partner often forgets. They will need to base their defense on what your agreement is.

Now, that seems fine in a way, because there is a misbid rather than a misexplanation (when partner has hearts). Except that I think it goes a little further than that. I think that there should be some sort of threshold in terms of percentage of forgetting that determines whether you are actually playing this agreement. If partner forgets it 100% of the time, can it be said to still be your agreement? If he forgets it 80% of the time? 50%?

A pair should never be able to profit from an "official" agreement that is in fact a fiction. I think that establishing whether the agreement is really played is an important idea which I have never seen discussed.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Nov 5 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

That's a rather extreme example, though.

Why is that an extreme example? To me that is one of the ways a system is developed (or evolves ).

A convention that you can't remember is like a car without an engine. It doesn't serve a purpose but it still costs, so you are better of discarding it. If I would have troubles remembering Stayman, I would discard the convention immediately.

Rik

[barmar]

Vampyr, on Nov 5 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

The problem is as outlined by Bluejak earlier in the thread. The opponents aren't really able to do anything with the knowledge that partner often forgets. They will need to base their defense on what your agreement is.

Where do the Laws say that the opponents have to be able to do something useful with the information? They require you to disclose explicit agreements as well as implicit understandings from partnership experience. That partner is likely to forget a particular convention is such an understanding. Do with it what you wish.

Law 40B2a mentions a "general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made". I can't find where in the Laws this general requirement is specified, but this implies that there is one. So if one player always remembers what a call means, but the other one frequently forgets, then the meaning varies depending on the member of the partnership, which violates this requirement.

[blackshoe]

That law says, in part

Quote

[The Regulating Authority] may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made.

IOW, this law says there is a general requirement, etc., but that the RA may vary it. The "general requirement" is right there - it need not be enumerated elsewhere.

Rik said:

A convention that you can't remember is like a car without an engine. It doesn't serve a purpose but it still costs, so you are better of discarding it. If I would have troubles remembering Stayman, I would discard the convention immediately.

A car without an engine may not serve the purpose for which cars are designed; that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. OTOH, I agree that Stayman, if one partner can't remember it, is pretty useless. OTGH, trying to play bridge without Stayman isn't exactly smart either.

In your scenario, Rik, anytime one player says to another "let's play X", and the first time it comes up one of them forgets, you'd have them abandon it. That doesn't seem very smart to me. How many conventions would never have got off the ground if that were the universal attitude?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Nov 6 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

In your scenario, Rik, anytime one player says to another "let's play X", and the first time it comes up one of them forgets, you'd have them abandon it. That doesn't seem very smart to me. How many conventions would never have got off the ground if that were the universal attitude?

One episode of forgetfulness should not require dropping the convention. The misbid has to occur enough times that it becomes an implicit understanding that partner may have gotten it wrong again.

[Nickboss]

A partner of mine has problems with the auction 1L (bid) 2?

We play his bids as natural, but after years of playing artificial methods the senile old duffer keeps getting it wrong

Sometimes all you can do is warn the opponents partner's a forgetful chap...