[aguahombre]

The quoted section is under "Conventions and Convention Cards". The use of the term "methods" seems to indicate an expansion from that...applying to disclosure (misinformation) regarding commonly occurring situations involving either natural or conventional calls.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 08:55, said:

The quoted section is under "Conventions and Convention Cards". The use of the term "methods" seems to indicate an expansion from that...applying to disclosure (misinformation) regarding commonly occurring situations involving either natural or conventional calls.

Lets try this again:

The ACBL regulations apply to both natural and conventional calls.
Wolff's Convention Disruption only applies to conventions that he doesn't like.

This is a salient distinction.

[aguahombre]

Applies to disruptions he doesn't like.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 09:26, said:

Applies to disruptions he doesn't like.

Then why did you write

Quote

the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes

on the previous page

[blackshoe]

 ahydra, on 2013-February-04, 06:05, said:

Surely recorder forms are the solution to this?

- Record any instances of convention forgetting / psyches / etc at any county or higher event, whatever the final result.
- The forms should be stored electronically so the TD at the event can check for any records for this player.
- Rule CPU / fielded psyche / whatever is appropriate if the pair is found to have forgotten the convention / psyched in this situation on a previous occasion.
- Expire the recorded events after say 5 years.

A little bureaucratic (and complex to implement), perhaps - but seems to be a compromise between allowing psyches and complex conventions, and preventing pairs gaining (even unintentionally) from realising what's going on and not explaining it to the opponents or writing it on their CC.

And yes, this would apply to all conventions, from Stayman to ten-round asymmetric relay auctions.

ahydra

The forms are not the solution, they're just part of it. It does no good to fill out forms if the information on them is not going to be available and used at future events (or even, in some cases, at the same event).

[aguahombre]

 hrothgar, on 2013-February-04, 09:38, said:

Then why did you write on the previous page

Because there is a difference between not liking disruption of a convention and not liking the convention itself.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 08:27, said:

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings.

However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing. From the ACBL general conditions of contest (all events):

"2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.
3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid versus misinformation."

Perhaps other organizations have similar conditions which might be used as foundation for AC decisions.

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 08:27, said:

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings.

However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing. From the ACBL general conditions of contest (all events):
...

You don't think Wolff had some hand in creating those conditions of contest?

Obviously, he couldn't get the COC to name specific conventions, so they're stated in general terms. But they provide the framework that allows him to adjudicate misuse of conventions.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 09:42, said:

Because there is a difference between not liking disruption of a convention and not liking the convention itself.

Fair enough, but still inconsistent with reality.

Wolff openly states that he would rule differently against a pair that screws up Stayman than a pair that screws up multi.

One convention is good. Pairs who screw it up get to slide on the CD front.
The other is "gas warfare". Pairs that screw it up are to be punished harshly.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 09:43, said:

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

 barmar, on 2013-February-04, 09:57, said:

You don't think Wolff had some hand in creating those conditions of contest?

O.K. Firstly I don't believe the CofC to which I referred is anything more than a foundation --certainly not an end in and of itself. When the evidence indicates a pair has been negligent in determining those common situations when their convention should apply ---resulting in MI, UI, etc. --- the general CofC provides a lawful basis upon which a PP, adjustment, or restriction of usage for that pair might be applied.

Secondly, of course, Wolff was influential in creating those conditions of contest. I was disagreeing with those who believe the CD concept has no basis in laws/regulations; the issue of who put them there doesn't affect their existence.

[blackshoe]

The laws regarding determination of misbid vs. misinformation set the standard at "preponderance of the evidence". Where in the laws is there justification for setting a higher standard?

[Flem72]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 09:43, said:

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

OTOH, general rules of construction favor general mandates over specific unless expressly stated otherwise. The stronger argument is that the "b/y rbl doubt" standard controls in cases of misbids vs. MI.

[nige1]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 08:27, said:

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings. However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing...

the ACBL general conditions of contest (all events) said:

"2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.
3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid versus misinformation."

Just the ticket, aguahombre! Pity something like this isn't included, once and for all, in the law-book

[Mbodell]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 09:39, said:

The forms are not the solution, they're just part of it. It does no good to fill out forms if the information on them is not going to be available and used at future events (or even, in some cases, at the same event).

I realize that people don't publicize cheating/ethical lapses/frequent forgets or concealed partnership agreements, but have the recorder forms ever worked? Has anyone been sanctioned based on recorder forms? I've seen folks filling them out at nationals, and occasionally even a regional, but I've never heard of them applying to any ruling or effecting any player.

[hrothgar]

delete

[hrothgar]

 Mbodell, on 2013-February-04, 13:39, said:

I realize that people don't publicize cheating/ethical lapses/frequent forgets or concealed partnership agreements, but have the recorder forms ever worked? Has anyone been sanctioned based on recorder forms? I've seen folks filling them out at nationals, and occasionally even a regional, but I've never heard of them applying to any ruling or effecting any player.

I've heard speculation that the forms aren't indexed or stored in any accessible fashion.
They are the bridge equivalent to security theater.

[mycroft]

TDs don't have access to those records (that I know of), but they certainly can ask the relevant Recorder about it. Yes, that isn't perfect, but the alternatives are less feasible. Recorders don't have access to recorder information not stored with them, which I also have an issue with (especially with "that one pair" we all know that plays in 4 units and 3 districts, each with their own recorder).

Yes, I've heard of sanctions due to a pattern shown in recorder forms. They tend to be a fair more stringent than sanctions from "a hand". I'm more likely to suggest that a recorder form is filled out than most (and much more so than some of the TDs I work with); almost nobody does it when I suggest it (they do when they're annoyed at something, but that ends up being overblown (5 recorder forms on 24 hands; maybe 2 were warranted) and doesn't really assist the cause.

[barmar]

It doesn't sound like recorder forms are intended to be consulted in the heat of battle by TDs. I think the expectation is that they would be used by Conduct and Ethics committees after the fact, when considering sanctions against a player or pair for a pattern of behavior.

[billw55]

Wolff seems to be upset that occasionally players make a mistake (forget their system) and still, by luck, get a good result. I fail to understand how this is different from other types of mistakes that, from time to time, lead to a good result.

If the only difference is that the CD-er is suspected of doing it on purpose, then recorder forms, in theory, ought to suffice - forming a record of such instances, against which to judge future cases. As long as there is no CPU, psyches are allowed. And mistakes are certainly allowed, indeed, it will be nigh impossible to eradicate them.

Mr. Wolff is a great player who has given much to bridge, and perhaps deserves special consideration in view of his legacy. Nevertheless, if I was just reading those writings, with no idea who wrote them, I would probably consider the author a borderline crackpot. "Poison gas laboratory meetings"?

[barmar]

The conventions he has a problem with tend to be used by more advanced players. They already have an advantage over most players due to their expertise, and their use of these conventions often intimidates, or at least confuses, novices. And when they screw up, they're probably better than most at recovering.

Compare this to normal players who just screw up. Most of the time, their mistakes will work against them; once in a while they fix you. But when the experts have a CD mistake, they're more likely to land on their feet. The opponents will still be confused, and may in fact help them.

No one argues that better players shouldn't have an advantage in the bidding and play -- that's the definition of "better". But it seems unfair that they should have an advantage even while misinforming opponents.