[A2003]

What is the convention disruption?
Is there a penalty for bidding that way?

Uncontested auction.
1NT - 4♥ [Transfer to 4♠]
4♠ - 5♥
Pass all.

Is there a penalty for this?

[aguahombre]

i think that they continually rule on this particular boo boo, that 5H has no other meaning so the penalty is having to play it one level higher from the wrong side.

Anyway, that is the ruling I have seen at least twice.

[bluejak]

Convention Disruption is an invention of Bobby Wolff's. He feels that if players get conventions wrong it spoils the game for others. He wants people to be penalised for getting conventions wrong. The WBFLC have said it is not appropriate to penalise people solely for getting conventions wrong. Sensible people like their opponents to get conventions wrong, because their opponents gain far more often than they lose.

Take the example you quote. The main penalty for bidding this way is when you cannot make eleven tricks your opponents get a bonus: when you can they have lost nothing! In fact there are other problems with the sequence. In some jurisdictions some of the bids may be alerted leading to UI. Also, why would opener pass 5♥? Probably because he has seen this happen before - and that suggests a CPU. But there is no penalty for bidding that way, it just may break the Laws of UI and system disclosure leading to adjustments.

Quote

i think that they continually rule on this particular boo boo, that 5H has no other meaning so the penalty is having to play it one level higher from the wrong side.

No other meaning? If my partner did it I would take it as a cue-bid with spades agreed. Solid spades, perhaps, and a lack of minor suit aces.

[jdonn]

There is no penalty for convention disruption, that is absolutely true.

That being said, my personal feeling is there should be a penalty for forgetting agreements, at least the ones that are noted on their convention card. For me it is not particularly satisfying to achieve a good score through my opponents forgetting a convention, and it's extremely frustrating if they get lucky and I get a bad score that way.

Just the other day at a local tournament, on the first hand my partner was declaring a contract and got the diamond ten lead, KJx in dummy Axx in his hand. He asked about their ten leads and was told 0 or 2 higher, so T is led from T9x(xx) but 9 from QT9(xx). He eventually got a full count that diamonds were indeed 5-2, played for the drop, and found the lead had been from QT9xx, giving us an absolute bottom on a nearly flat board. The opening leader simply forgot their agreement, which was noted on their card. Yes I know, luck is part of the game and blah blah blah. But I don't feel that type of luck should be, nor if my partner forgot our agreement and my side got the good score.

I think the main upside is people would more strongly consider whether or not they would be able to remember an agreement before making it, and would be more thorough reviewing what they play before the game begins. Anyway I'm not on any sort of passionate crusade like Bobby Wolff, I just happen to agree with him on this particular issue.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Sep 29 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

Convention Disruption is an invention of Bobby Wolff's.  He feels that if players get conventions wrong it spoils the game for others.  He wants people to be penalised for getting conventions wrong. The WBFLC have said it is not appropriate to penalise people solely for getting conventions wrong. Sensible people like their opponents to get conventions wrong, because their opponents gain far more often than they lose.

Take the example you quote.  The main penalty for bidding this way is when you cannot make eleven tricks your opponents get a bonus: when you can they have lost nothing!    In fact there are other problems with the sequence.  In some jurisdictions some of the bids may be alerted leading to UI.  Also, why would opener pass 5♥?  Probably because he has seen this happen before - and that suggests a CPU.  But there is no penalty for bidding that way, it just may break the Laws of UI and system disclosure leading to adjustments.

Quote

i think that they continually rule on this particular boo boo, that 5H has no other meaning so the penalty is having to play it one level higher from the wrong side.

No other meaning? If my partner did it I would take it as a cue-bid with spades agreed. Solid spades, perhaps, and a lack of minor suit aces.

therefore, you and the others who attach a meaning to 5H had better not forget transfers. the rest can. I was reporting what the rulings were on two separate ocassions on exactly the same auction.

[bluejak]

jdonn, in an average session a typical player probably makes 100 or 200 mistakes. Why should you penalise him for [say] two of those mistakes, and not like winning because of them, and accept the others?

[blackshoe]

For me, 5♥ would be exclusion KCB, so I'd want to be investigating whether the pair involved has an agreement on the bid, rather than assuming it must be natural. If they have an agreement that it's some meaning in support of spades (cuebid, exclusion, something else), then I'd be asking opener why he passed it.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Sep 29 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

jdonn, in an average session a typical player probably makes 100 or 200 mistakes.  Why should you penalise him for [say] two of those mistakes, and not like winning because of them, and accept the others?

I won't get into the debate further, I stated my opinion with which I understand a great many disagree. I'm sure you don't need me to explain to you how forgetting a bidding convention is different than playing a hand badly, and why a player's responsibilities regarding those two situations should not automatically be the same.

[fred]

bluejak, on Sep 30 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

jdonn, in an average session a typical player probably makes 100 or 200 mistakes.  Why should you penalise him for [say] two of those mistakes, and not like winning because of them, and accept the others?

I agree with jdonn so I will take the liberty of answering your question:

For some players (including me) players who don't know their system ruin the experience of playing bridge. I would rather not play bridge than play bridge against people who don't know the system they are supposedly playing.

I realize this is a subjective opinion and that many people would disagree.

I think the whole purpose of the rules of any game is to make sure that the game is as fair and enjoyable as possible. If some players ruin the enjoyment of the game for significant numbers of other players, then IMO it is perfectly reasonable that rules be put in place that aim to prevent this from happening.

Yes, I know, we have had this conversation before. Might be best to agree to disagree

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

If I were playing at the level of Fred, Josh and yeah, Bobby Wolfe, I might well agree with them about "convention disruption". Playing at the level I do, I cannot agree. It would ruin the enjoyment of the game for many lesser players to be held to a standard they cannot meet, or can meet only with great difficulty. For that reason, I don't think "convention disruption" should be made a matter of law. Nor should it be made a matter of regulation covering a broad spectrum (e.g., ACBL General Convention Chart or some such). At best it should be a matter of conditions of contest for a specific event (or class of events, such as NABC+). Whether such a regulation would be legal at all under the current laws, or whether the laws should be amended to allow such, are I think questions for another forum.

[campboy]

I suspect that players who occasionally forget their system far outnumber the "significant number of players" whose enjoyment is being ruined by this.

One likely effect of such a rule would be to discourage people from playing with a variety of partners and from playing a variety of systems. This would be bad for the game.

[blackshoe]

I daresay it would discourage some from playing at all.

[jdonn]

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

If I were playing at the level of Fred, Josh and yeah, Bobby Wolfe, I might well agree with them about "convention disruption". Playing at the level I do, I cannot agree. It would ruin the enjoyment of the game for many lesser players to be held to a standard they cannot meet, or can meet only with great difficulty. For that reason, I don't think "convention disruption" should be made a matter of law. Nor should it be made a matter of regulation covering a broad spectrum (e.g., ACBL General Convention Chart or some such). At best it should be a matter of conditions of contest for a specific event (or class of events, such as NABC+). Whether such a regulation would be legal at all under the current laws, or whether the laws should be amended to allow such, are I think questions for another forum.

Actually I agree with you in a sense, but with a few caveats.

One is this situation is not unique in the regard you mention. Thousands of 'lesser players' are held to a standard they can not meet regarding their obligations when UI is available. They aren't bad people and they aren't incapable of understanding the concept, but they are incapable of applying it to their own actions. They still pull their partner's slow doubles, thinking it's what they would always do, completely oblivious that if partner had doubled quickly and thunderously they would have never even considered pulling.

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.

My other comment is that I don't think you are giving lesser players enough credit. All but complete novices should be able to know what is on their convention card. What is even the point of having a document if it's not binding? Now, some players would have trouble because they play many things that are beyond their ability to understand or remember. I have no problem discouraging that type of behavior.

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

I daresay it would discourage some from playing at all.

As do penalties for revokes that don't gain the offending side any tricks, as do penalties for players who are accused of taking advantage of UI when they don't even understand the concept, as do entry fees.... And as might what happened to my partner when he was "lied" to about his opponents' leads.

[fred]

campboy, on Sep 30 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

...from playing a variety of systems. This would be bad for the game.

I don't agree with your opinion (even though you state it as if it was a fact).

Another likely effect of such a rule is that partnerships would either make a stronger effort to actually know their complicated systems or play simpler systems.

In my opinion either of these things would be good for the game.

Quote

I suspect that players who occasionally forget their system...

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 Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[campboy]

I still think that even people who frequently forget their system far outnumber people who can't enjoy playing against them. I have met plenty of the former, but none of the latter.

One of the attractive things about bridge for many people (again, far more I suspect than those who object to playing against forgetful players) is its variety. If we all had to play the same system it would be just another card game.

[axman]

fred, on Sep 29 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

I agree with jdonn so I will take the liberty of answering your question:

For some players (including me) players who don't know their system ruin the experience of playing bridge. I would rather not play bridge than play bridge against people who don't know the system they are supposedly playing.

I realize this is a subjective opinion and that many people would disagree.


Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I am interested in the reason[s] you feel this way. If you would put your finger on it and elaborate on the specifics I would appreciate it greatly.

THank you

[nigel_k]

I'm not clear on exactly what rule Fred and Justin are advocating here. Three questions:

1. Would this cover deliberate departures from system as well as accidental ones? If not, is the director supposed to ask the player which it was and believe them, or just form his own opinion?

2. If it extends to play as well as bidding as in Justin's example could our good result be taken away because I gave suit preference in a situation my partner thought was count? Or even if I knew it was count and just decided to throw out random small cards so as not to help declarer? Remember that directors are not always blessed with the finest bridge judgment and there's a good chance they will just apply the letter of the law.

3. Is it a procedural penalty or an adjusted score? Are people supposed to call the director every time opponents make a system error?

[awm]

It may also be worth mentioning that there are certain conventions where a forget fairly frequently leads to a good result for the forgetting side, especially if they can subsequently make another call which "cancels" the original meaning and clues partner in to the forget. In face-to-face events without screens, the UI laws sometimes prevent this (because the person in question has heard partner's alert and explanation) but the rulings on this issue are sometimes tricky too.

One example is a 2♦ overcall of opponents notrump, alerted as "majors" but actually sometimes bid "accidently" on a natural hand with diamonds. If overcaller is then free to rebid 3♦ (cancelling the meaning of majors and showing diamonds), then he can often gain an advantage. For example, his LHO might blast 3NT without looking for a 4-4 major fit (because of the "inevitable" bad break, and not wanting overcaller's partner to give him help on the lead) and instead play 3NT with no diamond stopper. Even in the "bad event" where partner bids a major, the 2♦ bidder doesn't have to play in a ridiculous spot -- he just cancels it by bidding 3♦ ("oops I forgot"). You can occasionally get him on a UI issue when his partner alerts and explains and he has a few cards in the major partner picked (but sometimes 2M is a decent result for his side in this case anyway). In the long run this seems to work out for the offending side more often than it backfires, and it can certainly be extremely frustrating for their opponents.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on Sep 30 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

therefore, you and the others who attach a meaning to 5H had better not forget transfers.  the rest can.  I was reporting what the rulings were on two separate ocassions on exactly the same auction.

I would appeal a ruling like that. Passing 5♥ definitely indicates either a CPU or a red misbid. Directors and ACs who allow bids to mean "I forgot our agreement" are allowing psyche controls.

[jdonn]

nigel_k, on Sep 29 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

1. Would this cover deliberate departures from system as well as accidental ones? If not, is the director supposed to ask the player which it was and believe them, or just form his own opinion?

You base it on the available evidence, just like now when they have to decide misexplanation or misbid.

Quote

2. If it extends to play as well as bidding as in Justin's example could our good result be taken away because I gave suit preference in a situation my partner thought was count? Or even if I knew it was count and just decided to throw out random small cards so as not to help declarer? Remember that directors are not always blessed with the finest bridge judgment and there's a good chance they will just apply the letter of the law.

Seriously, do you think anyone is arguing for a situation like this? If directors make bad rulings then that is a problem with directors, not rules.

Quote

3. Is it a procedural penalty or an adjusted score? Are people supposed to call the director every time opponents make a system error?

Procedural penalty, to prevent frivolous calls and to make clear that the penalty is punitive in nature. And the director calls are in the sense you might ask "are people supposed to call the director every time an opponent bids out of tempo and his partner takes an action that could possibly be influenced?" If you say yes, then I could call the director 15 times every session if I wanted to. At low levels people will either not know, not understand, not notice, or not bother, just like with UI cases based on bids out of tempo. At higher levels people will use a modicum of common sense, also like with UI cases based on bids out of tempo.