[awm]

Perhaps there's a simpler way to deal with this. There are various things that happen in a bridge game which require the intervention of a director. This includes things like revokes, leads out of turn, insufficient bids, unauthorized information, misinformation, and so forth. In many cases there is an offending side which has created some "problem" which cannot be resolved through normal play.

This is undesirable for several reasons. First, it makes work for the director. Second, it often means that a "bridge result" cannot be obtained or must be adjusted to some artificial score. And finally, it creates delays in the movement while the director hears about the situation, instructs the players, and so on.

Now obviously these situations come up from time to time and mostly they are inadvertent. But if a particular pair creates these situations with substantially higher frequency than most pairs, it seems reasonable to assess a penalty for wasting the director's time, ruining the enjoyment of the game for the opponents (who spend more time explaining things to the director than playing cards) and even annoying the other pairs in the movement (who have to wait for this pair time and again, and also have this pairs occasionally bizarre director-adjusted scores in the comparisons, and may not even get to know the result of the event in a timely manner because of the appeals cases this pair generates). The issue in question (Convention Disruption) is one of many where a director call is basically inevitable, and the director gets to determine "mistaken agreement" versus "mistaken bid" and then has to decide whether to adjust and so forth.

Note that this is very different from simple poor plays and poor bids, which do not require the intervention of a director.

[aguahombre]

as Blue said, it is about whether there should be a penalty on this particular auction. I, too do not enjoy a game where people screw up the conventions, but in the given auction I think the action to take is clear. If 5H would be admitted by the opponents to mean something else, then a penalty should occur. If not, and 5H has no meaning to them, then 5H passed should stand.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 30 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Unless you are just talking about something else, I really cannot be blamed on a thread about penalising for getting conventions wrong if I assume that people who say they do not like playing against people who get conventions wrong are supporting this.  Surely people who mean otherwise can say so?

I specifically objected to this comment of yours, in particular that people are looking to penalise poor players:

bluejak, on Sep 30 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

But this thread did not start with an example from a World Championship, and people who argue for CD in general are looking to penalise poor players for doing things that will benefit their opponents most of the time.

You want people to say if they mean otherwise?

blackshoe, on Sep 29 2009, 07:42 PM, said:

At best it should be a matter of conditions of contest for a specific event (or class of events, such as NABC+).

jdonn, on Sep 29 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Now I'm sure you wouldn't suggest the laws about taking advantage of UI not apply to lesser players. They are simply administered differently, so more experienced players are held to a higher standard. There is no reason that any penalties for forgetting agreements couldn't be administered in similar fashion.

fred, on Sep 29 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

I am not talking about occasional forgets. I am talking about people who basically have no idea what they are doing (and, no, I am not talking about novices either).

fred, on Sep 30 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

My comments should be seen in that context and not in the context of lesser tournaments or club games (where my enjoyment of the game is almost entirely a function of social factors, where I generally don't care how well my opponents know their agreements, and where I don't think the standards or rules in this area should be the same as they are in high-level events).

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 02:41 AM, said:

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

Be careful, impossible is a very strong word. There are such things as convention cards you know...

Ok, an example where it should be simple to see what happened. The CC says "Bergen Raises". The auction goes:
1♥-Pass-3♥-3♠
Pass-Pass-Dbl

The 3♥ bidder has a 4423 with 11 HCPs. Convention disruption, a silly isolated mistake or meant to pull the 3♦ card and found out too late that it actually was 3♥?

This is a very simple convention. (It isn't even a convention. ) In this case, we BBF'ers all agree what the 3♥ bid should show. And it starts to get slightly difficult already.

Part B

Now take a look at the examples of conventions below. They are found on many convention cards.

1a.
The convention card says "RKCB 1430" and "PODI/PORI after asking bids". The auction:
1♠ - ... - x♠-... (spades are trump)
4NT-5♥-Pass 1) - Pass
Dbl 2)
I. What does Pass show? (0 keycards or "step 1"= 1 keycard?)
II. What does Dbl mean? (Penalty or asking for the ♠Q?)

1b.
The convention card says: "DOPI below 5trump, DEPO above 5trump"
1♥-1♠-2♠*-4♠ * INV+ heart raise
4NT-5♥-Dbl-5♠
What did the double mean? (Same, but now CC said "DOPI/DEPO")

2.
The convention card says: "Texas transfers" and "Lebensohl". The auction:
I. 1NT-3♠-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?
II. 1NT-3♦-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?
III. 1NT-2♠-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?
IV. 1NT-2♠*-4♦ 2♠= 55+minors or majors What does 4♦ mean?

3.
I. The convention card says: "Weak two's", "Ogust", and "DOPI". The auction:
2♥-Pass-2NT-3♠
3NT
What does 3NT mean? Same, but now the CC says: "Weak two's", "Ogust", and "DOPI after asking bids". And how about (with the same CC's):
2♥-Pass-2NT-3♠
Dbl

Suppose that these auctions come up in, let's say, the Blue Ribbon pairs. I hope that you agree with me that the TD can find players who state that the bid should show A and some who state that it should show B. Suppose that an "A" player is playing with a "B" player. So, what is the evidence? What should the TD rule if the wheels came off but the pair using the convention got a lucky result because of it? Should he rule "convention disruption"?

I hope that you agree with me that you are allowed to go wrong here even in an event like the Blue ribbon pairs. And I assume that, if we ever can define "convention disruption", we both agree that a pair that doesn't know whether they play Stayman or Puppet Stayman in the Blue ribbon pairs is guilty of "convention disruption".

But then the next question is: Where between "(Puppet) Stayman" and "normally easy conventions, made complex by (wild) competitive action" do you draw the line? And after that: "How do you formulate that line in a Law or regulation?" And after that: "Is it worth the effort for a phenomenon that is self regulating because there are not many 'convention disruptors' playing in the Blue Ribbon pairs? (After all, most pairs that mess up Stayman won't manage to qualify.)"

If you seriously start to regulate "convention disruption", in my opinion, the cure will be worse than the disease.

I am with Andy:

Quote

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

Rik

[jdonn]

Trinidad, on Sep 30 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

I am with Andy:

Quote

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

How can "serial forgetters" be taken care of by the current laws and regulations when there is no current law or regulation against forgetting? There is no misinformation or illegal agreement in play, there are simply forgets.

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Oct 1 2009, 06:58 AM, said:

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

It's correct that there is no remedy for this now. However I don't think a specific cure has been proposed yet.

What has been suggested so far is really just that the game would be better if people knew their system and we should do more to bring that about. Which is about the same as Miss Universe contestants saying they want world peace. You have to have a specific plan. I suspect that any specific action in that direction would go some way towards achieving the objective and would also have unpleasant side effects. Also like trying to achieve world peace.

CD could apply to just conventions or to all agreements. or maybe only bidding. Or perhaps things that affect opponents bidding, so not RKCB accidents. Except maybe if that affects the defence. Possibly it also includes opening leads but not signals. or maybe not. Or maybe only if they admit they forgot but not if they say it was a deliberate departure.

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

[hrothgar]

nigel_k, on Sep 30 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

This chambers resolves that

"Mom"
"Baseball"
and "Apple Pie"

are all good.

(So long as the Yankees aren't involved)
(And there is plenty of extra sharp cheddar cheese with said pie)
(And cheesecake is probably even better)

[Trinidad]

hrothgar, on Sep 30 2009, 09:30 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Sep 30 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

This chambers resolves that

"Mom"
"Baseball"
and "Apple Pie"

are all good.

(So long as the Yankees aren't involved)
(And there is plenty of extra sharp cheddar cheese with said pie)
(And cheesecake is probably even better)

... And as long as mom doesn't put baseballs in her apple pie.

Rik

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 30 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

I am with Andy:

Quote

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

How can "serial forgetters" be taken care of by the current laws and regulations when there is no current law or regulation against forgetting? There is no misinformation or illegal agreement in play, there are simply forgets.

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

No, the laws and regulations do not take care of all the forgets (and I don't think they should). Individual forgets are individual mistakes of the same category as individual misplays. And individual misplays can, on occasion, score well too, just like individual system forgets. You never hear anybody argue that law makers should do something about players who forget "8 ever, 9 never" after a deal where "9 ever, 8 never" happened to work.

Convention disruption is the systematic "abuse" of a convention. Typically the players want to play a certain convention and they just don't manage to master it. The original post is a typical example: Giving a transfer, but intended as natural. An other notorious example is the Ghestem error (bidding 3♣ showing the highest unbid, but intended as a natural WJO).

In the transfer in the OP, there is no reason to do anything, unless 5♥ has a meaning in the system. In that case, the pass is based on UI. Let the UI laws deal with it. (I don't think that players who forget a Texas transfer have agreements on rebids by responder.)

The Ghestem example is dealt with in various ways. A common way is to say that this error occurs so often that there is an implicit agreement that 3♣ is natural or a twosuiter. That would be an illegal agreement in many jurisdictions.

When the (natural or twosuiter) agreement is legal, Ghestem abuse is dealt with as misinformation (with the addition that the explanation is UI). This usually deals with the problem adequately.

Rik

[Trinidad]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with

Fine. Write the regulation that easily deals with them.

Rik

[Vampyr]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

How can "serial forgetters" be taken care of by the current laws and regulations when there is no current law or regulation against forgetting? There is no misinformation or illegal agreement in play, there are simply forgets.

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on Sep 30 2009, 02:57 PM, said:

I play a convention that from time to time causes quite a bit of disruption with the opponents. (I don't play it with the intent to disrupt, but it does have that side effect.) We play something similar to DONT vs any NT opening, but with the addition that a Dbl promises a good suit and an entry against a weak 1NT. This means that the advancer can (and will) pass the double fairly often.

We have had a couple of good results in passing the double and when we meet "previous victims" their NT system is completely disrupted as soon as we double. One player sees it as a conventional double and plays "system on", the other sees it as a penalty double and starts the runout system. This has led to even more good results.

It sounds to me as if your disclosure methods are faulty. I hesitate to use the C word, but I cannot imagine what you are telling the opponents to get one person to "see it" as a conventional double and one to "see it" as a penalty double.

You have to examine how frequently the double is passed. If it is more than half the time, you should alert the call, and explain it as "penalty, but based on a source of tricks, so not strong balanced" or something like that.

If it is less than half the time, you should say something like, "artificial, single suited with an entry".

Out of common courtesy you could also mention the method at the beginning of a round. At least it should be on the most prominent part of your convention card, so that your opponents will be likely to see it as soon as you hand it to them.

There is no excuse for allowing your opponents to get this wrong.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

Isn't that what the current EBU regulation does?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 06:57 PM, said:

Out of common courtesy you could also mention the method at the beginning of a round. At least it should be on the most prominent part of your convention card, so that your opponents will be likely to see it as soon as you hand it to them.

Last time I tried to hand my SC to an opponent, she said something like "get that thing out of my face" and refused to look at it. Come to think on it, that's part of the reason it was the last time. They want to look at the damn thing, they can ask for it (they very rarely do).

Where's the smiley for "disgusted"?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2009, 04:43 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Sep 30 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

Isn't that what the current EBU regulation does?

Only if it is fielded, I think. Not if it just screws the opponents up.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on Oct 1 2009, 12:57 AM, said:

It sounds to me as if your disclosure methods are faulty. I hesitate to use the C word, but I cannot imagine what you are telling the opponents to get one person to "see it" as a conventional double and one to "see it" as a penalty double.
[]
There is no excuse for allowing your opponents to get this wrong.

When you explain a bid, you need to tell what it shows, by partnership agreement. End of story. In this case the partnership agreement is: "A one suiter with a good suit and an entry". It is not our job to tell the opponents that they may go down in 1NT when the opening leader holds a good 6 card suit and an outside entry. And it is certainly not our job to get the opponents to agree on their system.

About the frequency of a passed out double:
Where I play (a small club with an average player rating in the top 25 in The Netherlands, no Mrs Guggenheims), there are two pairs that play a weak 1NT. One pair knows what they are doing. They will run from the double before we can pass it out. And as a consequence, if they pass, advancer won't have the hand to pass it out with. When either side has a game, both pairs will usually find a way to bid it. Against them, the frequency is '0'.

But the other pair is a combination of Futile Willie-Unlucky Expert. Against this pair, I guess that we may have doubled their 1NT about 10-15 times over the past few years. Of these 10-15 times, responder passed maybe 4 times, and we passed twice, with a good result. Thus, against them, the frequency is 50%. These opponents have their system crossed ever since the first passed out double. One regards the double as not "15+ Bal" (which is probably their system book definition of "conventional") and keeps playing "system on". The other remembers that they went for 500 on a 20-20 hand previously, and thinks 'RUN!'.

We play the same method against strong 1NT, but the style is different. The suit requirements are less strict but "garbage" is still not allowed. I passed my partner's double once (for a frequency of about 0.5%), with something like a 15 point balanced hand and we got a good result. I really don't remember who our opponents were on that board.

Rik

About 10 years ago, I was one of the TDs at a (or maybe "THE") bridge festival in Sweden, which in those days was held in Skövde. David Stevenson had a role as something like "Guest Codirector In Chief". (I guess the "Guest Co" part was because he didn't speak Swedish and because he wasn't familiar with the Swedish regulations.) He told me a story about a ruling (not necessarily from Sweden). I don't remember the details (maybe David does), but the player who called him had something like: ♠xxx ♥AKQJTx ♦Ax ♣xx. The auction had started with a 1NT opening by RHO:
1NT (15-17) - Dbl (DONT)-RDbl-Pass
Pass - 2♥ - etc.

David was called to the table since the redouble was conventional and should have been alerted. The doubler claimed to be damaged by the MI.

[olegru]

fred, on Sep 30 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

I do not enjoy playing bridge in serious events when my opponents habitually forget their alleged agreements.

If this problem can be addressed only by punishing those who don't know their system then so be it.

I believe the key word here is habitually . By some reason this word is missed in your next sentence. I hope you did not want to say that because you do not want to play against people habitually forget their conventions you are willing to punish everybody who misbid.
Problem is – it is the only way how CD could possible work.
Let’s take a look a hypothetical case.
In the first round of Blue Ribbon in San Diego I will misbid against you. Am I habitually misbidder? How could director tell it? I am not good enough to be recognizable and nobody knows how often I forget conventions. No player memos against my misbids were ever filled out. Are directors supposed to investigate partnership experience? It is one thing to misbid with permanent partner, other with somebody you usually have as a teammate but almost never as a partner and absolutely other with picked up partner.

I believe somebody already said it, but let’s repeat.
Habitually misbidders have concealed agreements. If they misbid often enough to be known by others they defiantly know that partner’s bid could mean something different from written in convention card. In this case the current bridge law already has mechanism of punishing them. There are no needs to create any additional terms like CD and any additional penalties to fight with them.

[MFA]

I'm against the CD penalty idea. Working with conventional systems is a part of the game and we already have (too) strict limitations in that departement. The bad results optained will be penalty enough.

I agree with those saying that the laws already deal with excessive forgets, since that would constitute a partnership understanding that has to be disclosed.

I can understand why players don't like much playing against habitual forgetters, but for me it's just equivalent to any other bad bridge which is not so enjoyable as good bridge. Others can feel differently about this of course.

[Zelandakh]

The solution to this one is simple! Just describe the 4♥ bid as "spades, or a hand that 'wants' to play 5♥"

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on Oct 15 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

The solution to this one is simple! Just describe the 4♥ bid as "spades, or a hand that 'wants' to play 5♥"

Great post I might use it next time at the table, if my opps have a sense of humor.