[MFA]

peachy, on May 31 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

MFA, on May 30 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

It is against the laws of the game to go into such guess work strategies. Knowing what the laws say and doing it anyway, makes it unethical.

Yes, I agree.
Hopefully it's clear that what I'm doing in this thread is critisizing the laws, not explaining how I handle the situations myself or how I would like others to handle them.

[MFA]

blackshoe, on May 31 2010, 01:11 AM, said:

MFA, on May 30 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

But it just doesn't work in practice. The director should rule misinformation rather than misbid (unless there is a particular reason not to).

No. The director should rule MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Players' statements are evidence. So the system card, and system notes if available. When there is evidence that it may have been a misbid, the director must decide on the preponderance of the evidence whether it is.

Quote

So Fluffy can be pretty certain that if he says "hearts", which he can see his partner doesn't have, he will be subject to an automatically adjusted score if the opponent draws some unlucky conclusion from that. A pedestrian TD ruling. Just what happened.

There is no "automatic score adjustment" if the director is at all competent.

Quote

The laws are inconsistent and unfair, since they encourage untruthful explanations.

No, they don't.

Quote

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

This is the deWael School of thought, which has been explicitly deprecated by the WBFLC.

I do think that the laws are pretty weak with dealing with potential misinformation.

I deliberately didn't use the exact words from the laws since the solemn and elegant wording may so easily seduce one to believe that the underlying logic is through and through sensible, which is not the case.

Yes the director is supposed to judge also from the players' statements and try to divine what's gong on. That immediately initiates a game of orally persuasion which favours untruthful players and players like myself, who just all too well know that as the bidder one should be quick to admit the "momentary lapse" that lead to the silly bid while as the explainer one should be persistent about being right about the explanation. The result is just even more success for grey area tactics.

[MFA]

Very nice post, mr. Burn. Although I'm pretty sure that I would vote against Burn's 40th Law.

[mich-b]

This discussion made me (again) think , that there is merit in Bobby Wolff's approach known as "convention disruption". Once a player makes a conventional bid, whose meaning , according to partnership agreement, is completely inconsistent with his hand (and this is essentially the case in Fluffy's examples) the board too often becomes unplayable and random.
To discourage that , and to avoid rulings where the opps were given correct infrmation according to system , but incorrect in reality, perhaps just settle the board as A- for the forgetter's side , A+ (or whatever) to the other side, and dont get into this "what should I explain when I know he doesnt have what he showed"?

If Fluffy's pd bid 2♥ , that shows ♥ with 5♠/4♣ you cant really expect his opps to continue biddining sensibly, can you?

[bluejak]

I take it you do not play in a club? Do you really think cancelling a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs actually helps the game?

We need approaches that are practical as well as what is perceived as fair. And practical, the WBFLC may be surprised to hear, means in th 95% of duplicates played in clubs as well as the 5% played elsewhere.

[mich-b]

bluejak, on Jun 1 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

I take it you do not play in a club?  Do you really think cancelling a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs actually helps the game?

We need approaches that are practical as well as what is perceived as fair.  And practical, the WBFLC may be surprised to hear, means in th 95% of duplicates played in clubs as well as the 5% played elsewhere.

Actually you are right , I very seldom play in a club.
But assuming you are right , and "a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs" involves people forgetting their conventional agreements , I do think that it will help the game to discourage those people from playing (those) conventions.
I think the club players are most likely to be upset, when their opponents use a convention, explain one thing , and later are found to hold nothing resembling the explanation. Then it gets worse (from the club player's view) when the TD comes, and explains that it was a misbid, the explanation was correct per agreement, no offense , result stands.

Since my recent experience in club bridge is very limited , it is highly possible that I am missing the point here. However , I feel even more strongly , that in events intended for expert players , they should definetly be expected to know their system, and be prepared to "pay the price" if they forget a convention , regardless of the outcome of the "storm" their forget caused on the particular deal.

[nige1]

mich-b, on Jun 2 2010, 01:26 AM, said:

But assuming you are right , and "a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs" involves people forgetting their conventional agreements , I do think that it will help the game to discourage those people from playing (those) conventions.
I think the club players are most likely to be upset, when  their opponents use a convention, explain one thing , and later are found to hold nothing resembling the explanation. Then it gets worse (from the club player's view) when the TD comes, and explains that it was a misbid, the explanation was correct per agreement, no offense , result stands.
Since my recent experience in club bridge is very limited , it is highly possible that I am missing the point here. However , I feel even more strongly , that in events intended for expert players , they should definetly be expected to know their system, and be prepared to "pay the price" if they forget a convention , regardless of the outcome of the "storm" their forget caused on the particular deal.

My experince (at club, county and national level) confirms Mich-b's conjecture.

We sometimes forget conventions. Normally, we are unsure of our methods. We sometimes misbid. Some partners explain correctly but many, perhaps in an attempt to conform with the law, cheerfully announce "No agreement".

Current law encourages players to experiment with half-understood new conventions, reassured that they may do so with legal impunity; and the inevitable accidents may damage opponents as much as the experimenters.

There seems to be a misconception that players resent tough rules. But Bridge is only a game. Players of other games are accustomed to tough rules. Occasional law-breakers understand their necessity and the victims of infractions appreciate adequate redress.

A potential problem for Bridge directors with deterrent rules is that fewer infractions could mean less director involvement. Also, habitual law-breakers might resent having their profit reduced, so directors could be exposed to extra hassle.

IMO, as far as system-knowledge is concerned, legal compromise is possible. Normally, the Law should treat forgetting as misinformation; but it is unnecessary to scrap the board; and the director should allow lee-way to beginners and new partnerships, who are trying to play the Standard System, unembellished.

[campboy]

nige1, on Jun 2 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

[...] and the inevitable accidents will damage opponents just as much as the experimenters.

I seriously doubt that is the case; of course the cases where opponents are damaged are the only ones reported here, but they must be vastly outnumbered by the cases where the forget causes a bad board for the forgetting side.

(Ok, to be entirely accurate I suspect that in club bridge both of the above situations are outnumbered by the cases where someone uses UI from the alert or lack of it, but with a competent TD they should count among the latter.)

Whether opponents forget their system, or remember it and just bid absurdly, I expect to get a good score though I may get a bad score by fluke. And in either case when I get a bad score I will whinge about it over coffee the following day, but that doesn't mean I think anything should be done about it .

[blackshoe]

My own experience at club level is that players want to enjoy an afternoon or evening of bridge. Some of them are learning and may well forget their methods from time to time. Some are experimenting with new (to them) methods. Some are decent players (we have very few — maybe three at most — experts here). The majority are out for a good time, and aren't too concerned about the occasional "forget".

We have one player here who seems to believe bridge is not a partnership game. Like Humpty Dumpty, his bids mean what he wants them to mean, neither more nor less. "All jumps are weak" he says, but neither he nor his partners (who generally don't have a clue what he's doing) mention that "weak" means pretty much anything from a Yarborough to damn near an opening bid, depending mostly, it seems, on his whim of the moment. Some of the better players want "convention disruption" enforced - but only against this one guy. Most everyone else would be unhappy with such a regulation, if it were enforced against them.

Nigel said:

A potential problem for Bridge directors with deterrent rules is that fewer infractions could mean less director involvement.

You have got to be kidding me! Nobody I know directs because it gives him a feeling of power over his fellow man.

Forgetting is not MI, except by the one doing the explaining, nor should it be. Forgetting is MI, when done by the explainer, and is treated as such.

There is no "standard system", embellished or otherwise, nor should there be. I am not going to tell my players that unless they are playing some arbitrary collection of agreements (SAYC, anyone?), they are not permitted to forget their methods. The Precision, KS, EHAA, 2/1 (in many variations) players would consider the game no longer fun, and either go to another game where this kind of nonsense doesn't happen, or quit playing altogether.

There may be a case for regulating "convention disruption" at expert level, in National Championships and some other tournaments.

[awm]

My concern is not so much about forgets themselves (which do happen). The situation which seems bad to me is where A and B are partners; A has a forget (or perhaps psych) and makes a call which does not describe his hand. B explains A's bid as it's written on their system card, but B proceeds to act in a way which caters for A's actual hand rather than the agreed hand type.

B's actions are excused by claims that some combination of his own hand and the auction revealed that partner had probably misbid or psyched.

The problem is, due to partnership experience B has two pieces of information which have never been disclosed to his opponents, and which give his own side a substantial advantage in these situations.

(1) B has some idea of the frequency of partner's forgets (or psychs) in particular situations. Often the auction and B's own cards will indicate that something is suspicious but not necessarily impossible -- or that there are two possible players who might not have their call. In Fluffy's original auction, it is certainly odd that there appear to be fifteen hearts in the deck. However, this could be a consequence of LHO psyching rather than partner forgetting the method. Due to partnership experience, Fluffy knows that partner rarely plays the 2♥ call as natural in other partnerships and that it's a recent change for him, enabling Fluffy to correctly deduce that partner forgot rather than that LHO psyched. This information is not available to the opponents, nor would it be obvious to a random expert player who knows none of the people at the table. It appears to give an unfair advantage if not disclosed.

(2) B has some idea of what partner might actually hold in the event of a forget or psych. In Fluffy's auction, he knows that since partner evidently doesn't have hearts, he probably has 5♠ and 4♣. It's easy to imagine that in another partnership the 2♥ call might show 4♠ and 5♣, or a very strong one-suiter, or a stronger takeout of hearts, or even spades and diamonds. Even given that partner "does not have hearts" it is not necessarily obvious what distribution he might hold for the 2♥ call. But Fluffy doesn't disclose any of this, he just says it "shows hearts" which he knows is not what partner has. It's conceivable (although perhaps unlikely in this specific case since opponents were evidently slamming) that knowledge of what hand type partner actually has (due to the "previous agreement" or partner's "common agreement in other partnerships") is a substantial advantage to the forgetter's partner.

My view on this is that if there is a method which A frequently forgets, it should be disclosed that "our agreement is X, but he sometimes forgets and makes this call with Y." In any case, if this is never mentioned to opponents but A actually holds hand type Y and his partner B makes calls which cater to him holding hand type Y rather than the agreed X, the situation should be treated as a CPU and the board adjusted (if the other side is damaged) regardless of B's actual hand.

[awm]

Another few things that may be worth mentioning...

If I was playing with Elianna (or certain others of my regular partners) and Fluffy's auction came up at the table of 1♦-P-1♥-2♥, and I held Fluffy's hand... I would be absolutely 100% certain that my LHO had psyched. This is because I know that Elianna always plays 2♥ there as natural, prefers to play 2♥ there as natural, and would never forget such a simple agreement. Obviously Fluffy had different inferences available. But opponents don't know either of our partners! Aren't they entitled to the same information which we have from partnership experience?

In the namyats auction, suppose that north opens 4♣ (alerted as namyats but holding a long club suit). South passes it holding four small hearts, saying later "I thought partner forgot." Obviously there is a serious problem here right? So the question becomes, exactly how good do south's hearts have to be before it becomes acceptable to pass? Doesn't this depend on exactly how well north knows namyats? For example, reverse the situation and suppose that north always plays namyats in all his partnerships and insisted (over south's reservations) that it be added to the card. Now south might assume north has his namyats bid even holding ♥AKQJx (perhaps north holds the other eight hearts and a AKQxx side suit). Of course, if north doesn't usually play namyats or has a history of forgetting it, south might think 4♣ is natural even with modest heart holdings like ♥AKxx (wouldn't north have a top honor for namyats? probably...) or perhaps even five small hearts (could north have the other eight hearts? but it's so unlikely...) Again, this is a huge difference and is not available to the opposition if the disclosure is just the agreement on the system card.

[nige1]

dburn, on May 31 2010, 10:55 PM, said:

You should tell the opponents what methods you play, and you should tell them nothing else.

Law-makers and some posters here seem to live in a world of certainties. For almost everybody else, as far as partnership methods are concerned, there is a continuum of confidence. How certain must you be before you disclose? Unfortunately, the rules don't explicitly address this issue. In practice, I suppose, the answer is of little importance because players tend to plead ignorance rather than run any risk of a misexplanation. The law appears to encourage the former and penalize the latter.

[Vampyr]

awm, on Jun 2 2010, 05:17 PM, said:

Again, this is a huge difference and is not available to the opposition if the disclosure is just the agreement on the system card.

But protection is available; after the hand, at least, but sometimes immediately. For instance, in the EBU, if an opponent tells me that partner's 4♣ opening bid is either hearts or clubs, he is playing an illegal agreement and I will just take my A+.

In the Orange Book: under Defenses to Natural NT opening bids, there is a large list of agreements that are allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4. Then at the bottom:

Allowed at Levels 3 and 4
11 P 7 General
Any defence is permitted.

This is the sort of thing that makes it a very difficult book to read.

[bluejak]

Of course.

Obviously, it would be better if it was written .... No, wait a minute, that does not work.

Ok, try this. You lump them all together and then ...


Ah, I have it. Put everything for one Level together.

Oh, it was that way, people complained, and said the new method is much better? Hmm. Well, ok, .......

Got it. Everything must be repeated at each level it applies to, and then it will be perfectly clear, and only about 80% longer.


Yes, I know we asked for a shorter Orange book, but ......

Look, it is quite obvious how to improve it, so obvious that I cannot be bothered to tell you how.

[campboy]

Am I missing something? Why are we suddenly talking about defences to 1NT?

[mich-b]

nige1, on Jun 2 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

  In practice, I suppose, the answer is of little importance because players tend to plead ignorance rather than run any risk of a misexplanation. The law appears to encourage the former and penalize the latter.

I know a player (expert) in my country , who is known for explaining "no agreement" about anything except the very basic sequences. An opponent can't really get anything else out of him even by asking further questions. He does this when playing with a regular partner.
This of course puts his opps at a great disadvantage. After all , they (or the TD) have no way to prove that there is an agreement. So they are kept in complete darkness , have no idea which suits are natural , and which are cuebids, if the opps auction is forcing or not etc... And they have no hope of any legal redress , because current laws consider "no agreement" a legitimate answer, even if used with suspicious frequency.

[pran]

mich-b, on Jun 3 2010, 06:36 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 2 2010, 02:11 PM, said:

  In practice, I suppose, the answer is of little importance because players tend to plead ignorance rather than run any risk of a misexplanation. The law appears to encourage the former and penalize the latter.

I know a player (expert) in my country , who is known for explaining "no agreement" about anything except the very basic sequences. An opponent can't really get anything else out of him even by asking further questions. He does this when playing with a regular partner.
This of course puts his opps at a great disadvantage. After all , they (or the TD) have no way to prove that there is an agreement. So they are kept in complete darkness , have no idea which suits are natural , and which are cuebids, if the opps auction is forcing or not etc... And they have no hope of any legal redress , because current laws consider "no agreement" a legitimate answer, even if used with suspicious frequency.

I haven't bothered to utter any opinion on the "no agreement" explanation, but this is the very reason why I as a Director never accept "no agreement" (or words to that effect) without very convincing evidence that the partnership really has no agreement or understanding for the situation. If there is the slightest indication that the partnership has understood their own mutual calls I just rule misinformation.

[bluejak]

mich-b, on Jun 3 2010, 06:36 AM, said:

And they have no hope of any legal redress , because current laws consider "no agreement" a legitimate answer, even if used with suspicious frequency.

The laws consider "no agreement" a correct answer if and only if they have no agreement, explicit or implicit. If this answer is given on normal sequences with a regular partner then the player is pretty certainly lying, which means he is cheating. I do not see that the Laws give no redress.

[mycroft]

I use "no agreement", when I have no agreement.

I very rarely give "no agreement" *alone*, however, and it usually means "partner, in my possibly misinformed opinion, has violated system". The last one was, in fact, the last time I played, and came down to:

- after 1D-1S; 2D-3C; 3NT-4NT, there's been no suit agreement, so it has to be straight Blackwood, so I'll bid 5H, vs:
- after 1D-1S; 2D-3C; 3NT-4NT, there's been no suit agreement, so it's clearly quantitative. WTF is 5H?

Usually (and this happened last week), I say "no agreement. However, <this auction> would mean <this> and <this auction> would mean <this>." At least then they have the same amount of logic to make their decision that I do.

People who abuse this - and that definitely includes the "no agreement" = "we have no agreement, but we both know what it means", or the "no agreement" = "we have no agreement, but everybody in our city plays it this way", or "it's just standard" people - get good talking tos. I have had the pleasure of being called to one person's table, being told that they have no agreement about this auction, and being able to ask them, "so, when you had this auction against me, two weeks ago, the TD told you you needed to make an agreement about this. Opponents, this is what it meant that time; <player>, that's a quarter-board PP for failing to follow TD instructions."