[dburn]

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

South may argue as follows: "my opponents were playing an opening bid of 2♦ as two-way: weak if the opener forgot, strong balanced if he remembered. Had I known in advance that this was their method, my partner and I would have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to it, and might have come up with (inter alia) "double means I think RHO forgot" (certainly that is the defence I would suggest without overmuch cerebration).

Because South may quite correctly argue that way, the notion that South is not entitled to redress when 2♥ comes round and he does the wrong thing, given that he would have done the right thing over 2♦ had he known what his opponents actually played, is based only on the very stupid "principle" that "most of the time the opponents forget we get a good board, so we shouldn't complain when they forget and we get a bad one". For some reason Brian Senior also thinks this, the only one of his opinions on the game that is other than non-ridiculous. Must be the Northern air, or lack of it.

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on 2012-February-03, 18:00, said:

However, South's pass of 2♥ interests me. I should ask what else E/W had played, presumably getting the answer that they used to play 2♦ as weak. I know someone decided that the pass of 2♥ was not a serious error, but is it not a classical gambling double shot attempt? If West has passed as dealer and East seems to have a weak 2♦ the only reason for passing is to get the game at the end if it makes by a ruling, and a small plus without a ruling if game does not make.

Good reasons for South to pass:

• Opponents are very likely to be in a horrible contract now. To do better NS would have to get to game at least.
  
• However, it is not obvious, from South's point of view, that game is possible.
  
• Even if game is possible, the question is how to get there, as this is an undefined bidding situation with a high risk of misunderstandings.

What would you have done as South?

[Vampyr]

dburn, on 2012-February-03, 22:27, said:

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

Most partnerships in this situation will not make West's statement. So there are lots of people who are playing this sort of undisclosed 2-way bid, but their opponents will never know. I do not see that anything can be done about this, though.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2012-February-03, 22:27, said:

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

South may argue as follows: "my opponents were playing an opening bid of 2♦ as two-way: weak if the opener forgot, strong balanced if he remembered. Had I known in advance that this was their method, my partner and I would have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to it, and might have come up with (inter alia) "double means I think RHO forgot" (certainly that is the defence I would suggest without overmuch cerebration).

Because South may quite correctly argue that way, the notion that South is not entitled to redress when 2♥ comes round and he does the wrong thing, given that he would have done the right thing over 2♦ had he known what his opponents actually played, is based only on the very stupid "principle" that "most of the time the opponents forget we get a good board, so we shouldn't complain when they forget and we get a bad one". For some reason Brian Senior also thinks this, the only one of his opinions on the game that is other than non-ridiculous. Must be the Northern air, or lack of it.

I think you are confusing two entirely different things.

First, there is the question of whether we should adjust in a case where the opponents are misinformed. Of course I am not suggesting that we should not nor that they should not complain.

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 09:46, said:

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

Do you really think they are not a bad thing? I strongly disagree. Come back, Convention Disruption, all is forgiven!

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2012-February-06, 09:46, said:

I think you are confusing two entirely different things.

First, there is the question of whether we should adjust in a case where the opponents are misinformed. Of course I am not suggesting that we should not nor that they should not complain.

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

I don't see how I can be confusing two different things when I was not talking about two different things. I said nothing about "the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets"; there is no such principle, nor would it have entered my head to talk about it even if it existed.

When an incident such as this occurs, one of two decisions may be taken: either the actual partnership "methods" have been correctly explained, or they have not. The convention card often is a good starting point, at least as regards opening bids, but in the case of rarely-used artificial opening bids it is no more than a starting point. Since the Laws enshrine the concept that partnership experience is part of the "methods" that must be disclosed, it is not enough for the putative offenders to say "we gave the right explanation according to our published methods". If there has been previous history of "forgets", clearly it is not enough to say "we really do play what's on the card", because they really don't. I would go so far as to say (because I have done it in the past) that players trying a new method for the first time should include that information on the card and in their explanations. Just tell the opponents what's happening - is that too much to ask?

[Vampyr]

dburn, on 2012-February-06, 16:07, said:

If there has been previous history of "forgets", clearly it is not enough to say "we really do play what's on the card", because they really don't. I would go so far as to say (because I have done it in the past) that players trying a new method for the first time should include that information on the card and in their explanations. Just tell the opponents what's happening - is that too much to ask?

Well. It may be possible to obtain evidence of a first-time agreement, but how could one discover a pair's history of "forgets"?

Disclosure of this sort of thing is a good idea in theory, but it is impossible to enforce.