[fred]

I managed to take this thread (in an IBLF Forum) off-topic:

Link to IBLF thread

Apparently the nature of my off-topic discussion was not appropriate for that Forum (sorry) so I have started a new thread here.

My contention was that players who show up to play in a "serious tournament" (which I intentionally did not try to define) and do not know their system to the point that they have "frequent" (intentionally undefined) misunderstandings in "basic auctions" (intentionally undefined) ruin:

- the integrity of the event (by randomizing the results)
- the bridge experience for some players (me being one of them) who do not enjoy playing under these circumstances

Furthermore I claimed that such players who show up to play unprepared are being irresponsible to the field in the same way that it would be irresponsible to the field to do things like:

- constantly psych
- show up sufficiently drunk so that you basically could not function as a player
- take multiple wild gambling actions largely to amuse yourself when you are no longer in contention that you never would have taken if you still had a chance to win

because the impact would be the same - many unusually good and bad results (mostly bad ones of course) thrown to the field more or less randomly.

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. To me this was somewhat surprising since I believe the laws give TDs and sponsoring organizations considerable leeway in terms of punishing those who constantly psych, those who are seriously impaired due to drugs and/or alcohol, or those who stop taking the bridge seriously when they are out of contention.

As far as I can tell, just about everyone disagrees with me, but I learned yesterday that the rules in The Cavendish (which is certainly a "serious tournament" under any reasonable definition) are in line with how I think the laws in this area should be (at least in principle if not in degree - I actually think the Cavendish rules go a little too far according to my personal sensibilities).

The following is from the Conditions of Contest from the 2009 Cavendish Invitational Pairs:

11. Any irregularity in the Alert procedure may result in score adjustments for Misinformation or Unauthorized Information. Both players are required to know their bidding agreements and to alert and explain their agreements properly and identically. The appropriate laws will be applied if damage to the opponents result therefrom, and even if no damage ensues from an alert infraction, a procedural penalty may be assigned. In general, players should assume that if no alert is made, no alertable call has been made. Therefore, if there is any doubt in a player’s mind as to whether or not a call is alertable, the player should alert.

Some of you may also be interested in knowing that I talked with 2 friends of mine yesterday who are both very experienced and very successful players (Curtis Cheek and Geoff Hampson) and they both agreed with me. All 3 of us were unsure about how best to define laws that handle such states of affairs, but we all did agree that it would be best if some attempt were made to do so. All 3 of us have played in the Cavendish many times and all 3 of us are glad that the Conditions of Contest for this tournament attempt to deal with this.

The contention of just about all the other posters in the IBLF thread that "it is part of the game - just live with it" does not wash for my friends and me. We don't think it should be part of the game, at least when the game is played at its highest levels.

Anyways, for those of you who either find this issue interesting or care about what some highly successful players think about it, you now have your own thread

Please note, however, that I am concerned mostly with how things should be in major tournaments - not club games. Also, I am mostly concerned about pairs who frequently screw up their systems - not those pairs (ie everyone) who have the occasional misunderstanding or brain-lapse (though note that the Cavendish organizers seem to think that even a single system screwup may be too much to accept without punishment).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Did Bobby Wolfe write the CoC for the Cavendish?

The Laws do give TDs wide latitude in many cases. For example, Law 91, regarding disciplinary penalties, allows the TD to disqualify a contestant "for cause", subject to approval of the TO. It also gives him broad power to penalize or suspend a player in pursuit of "order and discipline". That would take care of the constant psycher, the drunk, and the guys "just fooling around". It could certainly also be applied to those who come to an event unprepared to play at the level of the event.

I do not categorically disagree with your position, Fred. I just think that we must be careful in implementing it. In particular, it must be clear that some events (club games, probably sectionals, maybe even regionals) are not "serious" enough to require this kind of thing. Fortunately, the laws are designed to give TDs wide discretion, particularly in applying penalties. So even in a club game the TD might say something like "you've been trying to play this convention for six months. It's come up at least a dozen times. You're still forgetting it. It's time to try something else." But for someone trying a new convention, "you've forgotten this 3 times already, that's enough" is too much — at least in "non-serious" events. And a regulation saying, in effect, that you will be penalized if you forget your agreement is just wrong, at least at this level.

I do object when the discussion seems to go in the direction of "any forget, any time, should be penalized".

Interestingly, a close reading of the Cavendish regulation you quoted tells me that it's entirely redundant. The laws already require full disclosure of agreements, and the alert regulations already say "when in doubt, alert". The laws already provide for score adjustment if MI or use of UI causes damage. I note that neither this regulation, nor any other in the CoC, provides specifically for sanctions against "frequent forgets" - it is apparently left up to TD discretion, as above. To what extent TD discretion, in something like the Cavendish, should be overridden (if that's the right term) by the desires of some or all of the players I can't say. My experience of that level of bridge is, shall we say, somewhat lacking.

[babalu1997]

Many a time one is punished byt intentional bad bidding, so i think there should be some kind of penalty.

There is a frequent player at bbo tournaments who plays under multiple names, the profile with the same sentence and classidied as novice.

He passed these monster hands and then doubles or the opps double not believing in him.

I think that is pretty much psyching and doing it throughout the game to create spurious results.

I have warned some tds about him, but the answer is the same, they cannot punish him for bad bidding , the tds are also unaware that finding 3-4 subs to play with the guy in the game is no fun either.

But i think a visit to the game database will demonstrate he is some kind of villain.

[Phil]

Fred, it seems to me your central argument is as follows:

-Forgetting your agreements randomizes results, and ruins the game for your opponents.

and;

- Frequent psyching and playing impaired (drunk) also randomizes results and ruins the game for your opponents.

therefore:

Forgetting your agreements is akin to frequent psyching and playing impaired.

-----------

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.

In a six session pair event, those pairs that forget their agreements with the kind of frequency that matters aren't making it to day 2, and definitely not day 3, so I don't see it as an issue. But lets say they somehow sneak in under the wire.

In the heat of battle, and I have witnessed this in my partnerships as well as my opps, agreements do get forgotten. I think its very Draconian to further penalize these pairs because they are 'randomizing' results. If they toss you a board because they forgot about Andalusian Transfers after their 3N overcalls, I doubt you would want your top turned into an A+ (to minimize the effect on the field), although you would probably scream for the cops if 4♦ passed out is their last making contract.

[fred]

blackshoe, on Jul 19 2009, 04:22 PM, said:

The Laws do give TDs wide latitude in many cases. For example, Law 91, regarding disciplinary penalties, allows the TD to disqualify a contestant "for cause", subject to approval of the TO. It also gives him broad power to penalize or suspend a player in pursuit of "order and discipline". That would take care of the constant psycher, the drunk, and the guys "just fooling around". It could certainly also be applied to those who come to an event unprepared to play at the level of the event.

Good to hear. That is all I am really looking for.

Quote

I do not categorically disagree with your position, Fred. I just think that we must be careful in implementing it. In particular, it must be clear that some events (club games, probably sectionals, maybe even regionals) are not "serious" enough to require this kind of thing. Fortunately, the laws are designed to give TDs wide discretion, particularly in applying penalties. So even in a club game the TD might say something like "you've been trying to play this convention for six months. It's come up at least a dozen times. You're still forgetting it. It's time to try something else." But for someone trying a new convention, "you've forgotten this 3 times already, that's enough" is too much — at least in "non-serious" events. And a regulation saying, in effect, that you will be penalized if you forget your agreement is just wrong, at least at this level.

Agree.

Quote

I do object when the discussion seems to go in the direction of "any forget, any time, should be penalized".

I agree that would be too much, but at least such a principle has the advantages of not needing a line to be drawn in an arbitrary place and for the TD not having to guess what should constitute "for cause".

Quote

Interestingly, a close reading of the Cavendish regulation you quoted tells me that it's entirely redundant. The laws already require full disclosure of agreements, and the alert regulations already say "when in doubt, alert". The laws already provide for score adjustment if MI or use of UI causes damage. I note that neither this regulation, nor any other in the CoC, provides specifically for sanctions against "frequent forgets" - it is apparently left up to TD discretion, as above. To what extent TD discretion, in something like the Cavendish, should be overridden (if that's the right term) by the desires of some or all of the players I can't say. My experience of that level of bridge is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. 

There were two statements in the Cavendish regulations that surprised me:

1) Both players are required to know their bidding agreements

2) Even if no damage ensues from an alert infraction, a procedural penalty may be assigned

The first of these was a pleasant surprise as it seems to imply that I am not the only ones who believe that players have a "responsbility" to know what they are playing

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[peachy]

I think there are very few who would disagree - remembering that this is about "serious" events. In ACBL, the General Conditions of Contest, applicable to all events, address this concern. Knowing one's system is one of the conditions and the TD is empowered to adjust score if there is damage or to issue PP if no damage. The "no damage" IMO is never a case, the enjoyment of the game is disrupted to many folks like yourself in this respect.

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...l-AllEvents.pdf

I am sure that in 0-299 or Flight C or perhaps even Flight B, the regulation is applied in a relaxed manner; the ACBL afterall does NOT want to scare away newcomers or relative beginners. But I have no first hand knowledge of this, how typical a PP is, even at the highest level of ACBL events. It is worth noting that the document does not tie "frequency" of "not knowing one's system" into it at all.

[helene_t]

In the Netherlands, a conflict has been going on for years between the national protest comitee (LPC) and the law office (VEKO). The protest committee wants to penalize pairs for forgetting their system. They try to do so within the existing laws, by almost always rule wrong explanation, rather than wrong bid. The rationale being that if a pair is capable of forgetting an agreement, then the agreement does not de facto exist.

This may be somewhat off-topic as they do not give PP, only adjustments. However, the intention is pretty much the same as far as I can see. The argue there case by saying that players who often forget their agreements ruin the game for everyone.

As I also said in the other thread, I strongly disagree. I really can't see how being unable to remember one's system is any different from being unable to take a marked finesse, which also randomizes the results. Besides, forgetting agreements is embarrassing and leads to bad results, so I would assume that players do their best not to forget.

I recognize the nuisance caused by intermediate club players who want to try out all kinds of bizarre conventions, either for fun or because the use of those conventions is associated with high social status because some strong players introduced them to the club, and then keep forgetting them (or even if they do remember them, are unable to explain them to opps). I am all for a discussion in the local club about whether it is a problem and if so what could be done about it.

But systematic procedural penalties for system forgets would IMO be very wrong. It is beginners (including the eternal beginners that form the majority of club players) who forget their system most often. Most often the system forgets are about whether stayman is on in competition and those kind of things that could hardly be avoided by encouraging players to play simpler methods. It is hard to see how stricter rules could reduce that problem, other than by scaring the weaker players away from the club.

[xcurt]

Agree with the general sentiment expressed by the OP.

One issue I see frequently in NABC appeals casebooks, at least when playing behind screens is:

some call was explained by south to west as x, and
the call was explained by north to east as y, and
ew have some agreement such that the sense of their next calls over x is the opposite of the sense over y

It seems to me that the rules create an incentive to make such agreements, so I would go a little further than Fred and say that pairs playing "highly complex methods" (also deliberately undefined) accept the risk of the above scenario in auctions that are not "basic auctions" (also in the spirit of the OP).*


* For those with a bent toward information theory, communications, and coding, I'm saying that robustness is an important attribute of a bridge bidding system. This theme occurs fairly often in the forums with the usual suspects arguing that a certain call must be artificial because there is no hand that would bid that way, naturally.

[cherdanno]

helene_t, on Jul 19 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

As I also said in the other thread, I strongly disagree. I really can't see how being unable to remember one's system is any different from being unable to take a marked finesse, which also randomizes the results. Besides, forgetting agreements is embarrassing and leads to bad results, so I would assume that players do their best not to forget.

I don't think your comparison holds. Forgetting agreements always comes together with disclosure problems. Pairs who frequently forget their agreements are often pretty good at guessing what went wrong... Of course, this can be rectified by TD decisions. But then again, I don't remember the last time I had to call a TD because my opponent took a finesse instead of going for the marked drop. And I can't remember the last time I thought dealing with a TD call was fun.

[TimG]

Without re-reading the thread in the Bridge Laws sections, I will offer my opinion that the reaction to your opinion there was at least in part based upon a misunderstanding of how broadly you wanted to apply procedural penalties or rulings which would have attempted to restored equity. The example I remember you posing was of the auction 1N-2C-3N where one player understood 2C to be a natural 2/1 game force while the other meant Stayman. This sort of misunderstanding could only be perpetrated by true beginners, players who you would not be facing in any "serious" events.

I think the Laws do allow penalties against those who are frequent offenders. Law 74B1:

Quote

B. Etiquette
As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game."

Showing up unprepared is "paying insufficient attention to the game" in my opinion, and I expect most would agree. It also seems to me that the "Conduct and Etiquette" section is the right place for this rule.

[awm]

While I agree with Fred in principle, I'm always leery of extremely vague regulations to be enforced at "director's discretion." In my experience, such rules are frequently enforced in a highly biased and uneven manner.

For example, I remember having a teammate's cell phone go off in the mixed BAM last summer. We were penalized a full board for this, because cell phones are banned in national events. But later in the same event a lady on another team had her cell phone go off, and was penalized only a third of a board. The directors refused to explain this or do anything to rectify it.

[Fluffy]

fred, on Jul 19 2009, 03:07 PM, said:

though note that the Cavendish organizers seem to think that even a single system screwup may be too much to accept without punishment.

One is too many, this is the only way to handle it IMO (if you are handling it), otherwise you will have TDs asking themselves how many is too many.

But the problem is: giving penalties to someone who isn't caring about his results won't solve anything.

[Trinidad]

I certainly understand Fred's point of view and I have sympathy for it too. However, Fred was wise enough not to define the key points (serious tournament, frequent and basic auctions).

I am with Fred that I would not enjoy the game if I would play in The Cavendish and meet a pair that twice in a row is not capable of explaining their 1NT range properly. And yes, something should be done about that.

At the same time, it should be clear that in a long, complicated auction the agreements get vague. And if the opponents are also in the auction, the agreements start to depend on the meaning of the opponents' bids. There will be agreements that start to contradict each other. Which agreement is trumping the other? Therefore, you can expect explanations like: "I don't know, in situation A we play like this and in B we play like that, but this is C and I don't remember that we have an agreement." I am sure that Fred knows of these situations too and that he would never want to impose penalties on not knowing your system in these situations.

But the consequence of this is that the key points: "serious tournament", "frequent" and "basic auctions" need to be defined to some extent to separate the cases that we shouldn't accept from the cases that we will have to live with. Where do we draw the line? I think that it will be very hard (read impossible) to come up with a regulation that puts the dividing line consistantly near the place where bridge players more or less want to have it.

On top of that, there is disagreement among the players about where the line should be. Frankly, I just like it when I play against opponents who truely do not know what NT range they are playing. And yes, aside from the good results, I have gotten a few bad results because of that too (see below). So for me, while I recognize that poor agreements will have a randomizing effect, I don't really care. After all, the main effect is that the poor agreement players will not make it to the next round. And the randomization usually doesn't effect the pairs that normally easily make the cut to the next round.

I am sure that Bobby Wolff wouldn't put the dividing line at the same place as I would.

Rik

Anecdote
I was playing in a pairs tournament against a a good friend who frequently was my partner. This time, she was playing with a guy whose play resembled that of the Rueful Rabbit (RR). The auction:
Pass-Pass-1♦-1NT;
Pass-3NT-Pass-Pass;
Pass

The RR made the 1NT overcall. I lead and the dummy (my friend) comes down with 11 HCPs. Not surprisingly, the contract is cold. But during the play, I notice that declarer only has 11 HCPs. And still the game is cold as the cards lie. Obviously, the field is playing a part score battle and we get a cold bottom.

My friend was slightly curious and asked RR why he had overcalled 1NT with only 11 HCPs. As a reply, he pointed at the convention card: "Here it clearly says that a 1NT overcall in fourth seat shows 11-14."

Rik

[hrothgar]

Hi Fred:

I have a fairly basic comment about these sorts of regulations: Think carefully about about how people will start gaming the system.

Consider an event like the Cavendish (where there is an awful lot of money at play). I can image a scenario in which my partner and I would start asking for detailed explanations about any (convoluted) auction. If I can identify a situation in which your partnership doesn't understand their methods, I scream foul and my chances of collecting $$$ go up.

I don't think that this is going to lead any place pleasant.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on Jul 19 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Hi Fred:

I have a fairly basic comment about these sorts of regulations:  Think carefully about about how people will start gaming the system.

Consider an event like the Cavendish (where there is an awful lot of money at play).  I can image a scenario in which my partner and I would start asking for detailed explanations about any (convoluted) auction.  If I can identify a situation in which your partnership doesn't understand their methods, I scream foul and my chances of collecting $$$ go up.

I don't think that this is going to lead any place pleasant.

Bingo. It doesn't even have to be a "convoluted" auction. (XCURT seems to prefer
"highly complex", and I have been taken to task for using "bizarre".)

Further, you don't even have to conspire with pard to create a UI or MI situation. Most players at that level know when there has been no damage and don't even bring the director into the picture. so, we have, as you say, a very unpleasant (and uneven), money event which could be decided or significantly altered by whether the alleged non-offending side includes a Secretary Bird.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Jul 19 2009, 01:57 PM, said:

For example, I remember having a teammate's cell phone go off in the mixed BAM last summer. We were penalized a full board for this, because cell phones are banned in national events. But later in the same event a lady on another team had her cell phone go off, and was penalized only a third of a board. The directors refused to explain this or do anything to rectify it.

This is unconscionable. You should have appealed. The matter should probably have been referred to the Tournament Committee.

[awm]

The issue is that the penalty we received was "by the book." We would not get anywhere by appealing it. It is difficult (maybe not even technically legal) to appeal the fact that a different pair did not receive the "by the book" penalty in the same event.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps not through the normal ruling appeals process, but it is certainly appropriate to bring it to the attention of the Tournament Committee. If directors give different procedural penalties in the same event for what appears to be the same offense, then IMO they better damn well be able to explain why they did so. TDs are responsible and accountable to the TO for that.

[Sadie3]

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?

[helene_t]

Must have been a rule specific to that event.

On-topic: I don't have any opinion about this Cavendish policy. I am never going to play in anything close to that level. If I were, I would understand if the rules were made for players at a different level than mine and it wouldn't bother me too much to get a few PPs for not having a 500-page system book, let alone knowing it by heart.

I do find it a weird idea that system forgets should be treated as not paying sufficient attention to the game. Maybe if a pair plays an overly complicated system just for fun, one could say that it is similar to dumping - I think there is a law saying that players must do their best to maximize their results. But suppose a partnership decides to switch to a new system. They will probably have some misunderstandings the first dozen of events they play the new system. Would they not be allowed to play serious events before they got their new system well-oiled?