[fred]

 billw55, on 2013-February-04, 15:19, said:

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.

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

 Flem72, on 2013-February-04, 11:59, said:

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.

I'm not sure I buy that.

[billw55]

 fred, on 2013-February-04, 15:30, said:

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Agreed. And certainly agree that we should have rules to deal with misinformation. Don't we already?

But in cases of mistakes, will a special rule make a difference in the frequency of occurrence? It's not like they wanted to make the mistake. The rule can adjust the score, but (considering "regardless of the result") will that make it more fun?

[fred]

 billw55, on 2013-February-04, 15:36, said:

Agreed. And certainly agree that we should have rules to deal with misinformation. Don't we already?

But in cases of mistakes, will a special rule make a difference in the frequency of occurrence? It's not like they wanted to make the mistake. The rule can adjust the score, but (considering "regardless of the result") will that make it more fun?

Perhaps if the penalty is severe enough, players will be motivated to make fewer mistakes (either by becoming more familiar with their methods or by playing methods that are easier for them to remember).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

 fred, on 2013-February-04, 15:30, said:

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result).

No one is arguing this point.

The question at hand is whether a pair who screws a sequence like

1♣ - 1♠
2♥

should be held to the same standards as one who screws up a conventional understanding.

[fred]

 hrothgar, on 2013-February-04, 15:50, said:

No one is arguing this point.

The question at hand is whether a pair who screws a sequence like

1♣ - 1♠
2♥

should be held to the same standards as one who screws up a conventional understanding.

A couple of thoughts:

1) At some level someone's (the TD's?) judgment has to enter into the equation. For example, if you are told that 2H in the auction above promises 17+ HCP and someone decides to do it with 16 (he can always claim "judgment" or "taking a view" even if the real reason is he forgot) I think it would be kind of silly to punish him for that. That feels very different to me from being told "he has the majors" when he actually has the minors.

I doubt there is any completely satisfactory way to draw the line so the TD has to decide which mistakes should be punished (based on the usual - past cases, his own judgment, consulting other TDs, consulting smart players...). Perhaps whether or not the mistake had any consequence in terms of the opponents' decisions leading to an impact on the final result should also matter.

2) Players who completely screw up the (presumably natural) auction you use as an example are probably beginners. If they are playing in a game for beginners then relaxing whatever mistake-rules might exist in a more serious game makes some sense to me.

But by and large I do think that, if you are going to punish people for forgetting their artificial agreements, you should also punish people for forgetting their natural agreements.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

If everyone involved in bridge rulings and at the table had the bridge acumen of Mr. Wolff (possibly with different biases), an idea like CD, especially the Potter Stewart-ish interpretation Mr. Wolff brings to the casebooks, might make sense.

Unfortunately, I play, and sometimes I direct. And I expect I'm better at both than 80% of duplicate players/directors. And yes, I know what I'm saying. Given that that's the case, I prefer the somewhat more objective Laws we have.

Having said all of that, if someone put through a "Ghestem screwups come with an automatic penalty", with the caveat that it be universal to "misbidding a weak hand with the wrong suit/s", I wouldn't pitch too hard.

[aguahombre]

 hrothgar, on 2013-February-04, 10:10, said:

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.

And you don't think there is a difference? Besides the obvious expectations that a pair using multi will be needing to explain their calls more frequently (MI, UI, etc.), the likelihood of gaining from a Stayman accident is much smaller, and the quality of the players in the two scenarios will be different.

Any way, I believe pairs who wish to play methods (convention or not) which are not the norm, also have the obligation to learn said methods and be able to explain them when others might be affected. Some players just feel entitled. It is not just a game philosophy. It goes beyond.

People who don't agree use the spurious argument that their pet convention is being discriminated against; it is the DISRUPTION that is being attacked.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 17:12, said:

Any way, I believe pairs who wish to play methods (convention or not) which are not the norm, also have the obligation to learn said methods and be able to explain them when others might be affected. Some players just feel entitled. It is not just a game philosophy. It goes beyond.

At least you finally have the honesty to admit that you're just as bigoted...

There are existing regulations in place to deal with MI.
And somehow, they do require discriminating against different types of players
(Even the ones who use Ghestem)

[aguahombre]

Just as bigoted? Is it merely discretion when your arguments aimed at Fred, etc., don't have the same venom? BTW, I don't really mind, because it is clear your real concern is the desire to play certain conventions without bothering to learn or explain them properly.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 17:33, said:

Just as bigoted? Is it merely discretion when your arguments aimed at Fred, etc., don't have the same venom? BTW, I don't really mind, because it is clear your real concern is the desire to play certain conventions without bothering to learn or explain them properly.

I have mouthed off to Fred in the past. Perhaps the reason I haven't in this thread is the following statement that he made:

Quote

But by and large I do think that, if you are going to punish people for forgetting their artificial agreements, you should also punish people for forgetting their natural agreements.

As for part the second: I really don't play much tournament bridge anymore. When I do, I am playing in North America, so I hardly have the opportunity to play anything interesting. So, I hardly think that you theories are very well grounded. Thanks for trying though! (It's the thought that counts)

[aguahombre]

Actually, my real axe to grind is (and I brought it on myself) that I have admired the Wolffs forever and feel really, really horrible about how they come across in blogs.

It is hard to have strong feelings about an issue, but mixed feelings about the person(s) at the forefront of that same issue.

[paulg]

I get frustrated, as I imagine many do, when I can no longer play bridge when the opponents forget their system.

If they have a long relay sequence and get to a truly awful slam, discovering during the auction review that they were totally off the rails, then I have not been damaged by it and it really is rub of the green. Most of the time I will gain from this, sometimes lose, but I am a spectator.

However when they overcall 1NT with 2♦, showing the majors, but turn out to have had a momentary loss of concentration and really just have diamonds, then in some of the cases I am totally out of the game. All my counter-measures are predicated on the overcaller actually having the suits he's shown and you can easily imagine that I'll double to show interest in a penalty, LHO passes with equal majors and it gets passed out in their best suit. The current Laws essentially treat this as the same as a psych. I believe Wolff would like to treat this as MI and adjust accordingly, a view that many would agree with but is clearly not legal at this time.

Then, as Fred implies, there is the huge range of forgets that fall between these.

But I'm not convinced that the problem is as prevalent as it might seem and perhaps this would never be on the agenda except for Wolff. Naturally it is more prevalent in appeals, but given the amount of bridge played it is a rare occurrence and so is changing the laws in this area really important?

[gnasher]

 paulg, on 2013-February-05, 03:45, said:

If they have a long relay sequence and get to a truly awful slam, discovering during the auction review that they were totally off the rails, then I have not been damaged by it and it really is rub of the green. Most of the time I will gain from this, sometimes lose, but I am a spectator.

Personally I would consider that I have been damaged even by this. I play bridge for enjoyment. There's not much enjoyment to be had from watching the opponents suffer a self-made disaster. The more boards of this type that I have, the less I get for the time and money that I spend on playing.

Having said that, I inflict this type of damage on my opponents quite often, so I wouldn't necessarily welcome a change in the rules.

[barmar]

Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand. There were no alerts. CD?

Opener was an absolute beginner, playing in his first regular club game after having just taking 4 weeks of classes that our club offered. Responder was an experienced player, who correctly guessed that her partner didn't know that his bid was supposed to show extra values.

After the hand was over, we used this as a teaching moment. No one considered calling the director. But if the same auction were perpetrated by experienced club or tournament players in a regular partnership, it would be a very different situation.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2013-February-05, 11:35, said:

Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand. There were no alerts. CD?

No convention, no disruption.

It seems as if in this case, there was no discussion or agreement either.

[hrothgar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-05, 12:35, said:

>> Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand.
>>There were no alerts. CD?

No convention, no disruption.
It seems as if in this case, there was no discussion or agreement either.

I think that the following two considerations are far more important:

1. "No convention disruption, no convention disruption"

Convention disruption does not exist as a legal principle.
It is a crank theory that has no bearing on the game.

2. "No damage, no adjustment"

How did the decision to reverse with a balanced 13 count damage the non offending side?

[mycroft]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 17:12, said:

Any way, I believe pairs who wish to play methods (convention or not) which are not the norm, also have the obligation to learn said methods and be able to explain them when others might be affected. Some players just feel entitled. It is not just a game philosophy. It goes beyond.

Yep. In another thread I mentioned that the Flannery players tell me they've never got a bad board when they open 2♦. Now I remember when they do (sometimes): when they have 6 diamonds and fewer points than they promise. Does that count as "not the norm"? Is there a requirement to remember that? What about 2♦-2NT; 3♣ and they forget whether they show their fragment or their shortness?

How about Forget Transfers (which is another 2♦ call, oddly enough)? Do those count as "not the norm"?

How about preemptive jump raises by a passed hand (because they play Drury) - which isn't even a convention?

Where do we draw the line between CD and misbids, where we treat one leniently and the other as "gas warfare"?

[Trinidad]

 fred, on 2013-February-04, 15:30, said:

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

I think all players agree that mistakes make the game less fun. And that goes for any game. I guess you also prefer a basketball game with awesone "nothing but net" three point shots over one where air balls are exchanged.

But just as much as an air ball in basketball is not a foul (not even if the ball ends in the basket off a defender's back), a bidding mistake is not an infraction in bridge (not even if it leads to a winning contract).

Both basketball and bridge are played by people. And people make mistakes. That means that mistakes should be allowed in the game, otherwise we have to stop playing until we are all perfect.

Having said all that, I am perfectly willing to lose a board to someone who got lucky making a mistake. BUT... I need to be reasonably convinced that it truely was a mistake. The Laws require a TD to assume misinformation, rather than a mistake, unless they have evidence for a mistake. IMO this evidence should be pretty strong.

In these cases, a TD can go wrong in two ways:
- He can rule misinformation for something that in reality was an honest bidding mistake
- He can rule a bidding mistake for something that in reality was misinformation

In each of these two cases injustice is done. However, I find it much easier to accept that a TD ruled MI when I know that I only made an honest bidding mistake than to accept a ruling by a TD that my opponent made a mistake where I know that there was misinformation. Therefore, IMO we should make the requirements as to what is evidence for a mistake much stronger than they are right now.

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

I'm not sure, Rik, that the assumption should be that the TD will go wrong, which significantly strengthening the evidence needed would seem to imply. I think it's much more likely that the deicsions will be right, and fall into neither of your categories if the TD is allowed to use judgement, rather than have strict criteria for evidence. There is already an instruction on which way to go if unsure. Whilst this might get a few of the worse types of mistake, it would imo get many less mistakes than your suggestion.

At the top level your idea might work, as there is usually enough evidence to go on, but in the UK probably only half the room at any average club night will have convention cards, and most of those won't go into much detail on sequences. Do all of these poeple therefore autoamtically get ruled against? From what i've read I gather that the convention card situation is worse in the ABCL. I've heard of the dutch (i think) regulation to automatically rule against ghestemesque misbids as misinformation, and I don't like that either. By removing TD judgement you again seem to get a lot of objectivly incorrect decesions.

I'm not a fan of the idea of penalising "convention disruption". At the top level, again, it might work (although I am in full agreement with Hrothgar that you cannot apply it only to certain sitatuations deemed to be unusual conventions, but across the board), but at the club level, where mistakes are common in all areas of the game, including forgetting systems, this would frustrate and put off many poeple (imo), and at the beginner and novice level it would be even worse.