bessi2

I don't think anyone can fault west for a very reasonable answer, in his mind his pd surely promised fit, as it probably would to anyone playing the convention i would imagine. Not sure how west could ever foresee this if it was a first time occurrance. In my opinion it was e-w's convention structure, or the seemingly lack thereof, that did the real damage. Either that or simply east's peculiar decision to bid 3♥, depending on what your opinion of the case is. There is another point I would like to mention. I have already stated that, in my opinion, e-w's convention structure is undiscussed. Subsequently, I suggested that in that case e-w had no real agreement = misinformation. It was the BID itself that makes it somewhat obvious in my opinion. Now let's give east a hand like AJ109x KQ Axxx xx. If he had bid 3♥ on a hand like this (with the same following ruckus) I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever, then the bid suggests nothing else than good bridge judgment and, unusual convention or not, I would definately not be in favour of ruling against them in any way. It should be noted that such hands are extremely rare so 3+♥ is an overwhelming likelihood. But if east can bid 3♥ on his actual hand or, given east's own comments, any good hands not including both minor stoppers, then the it most be deduced that it is rather frequant for east to hold a doubleton ♥

I apologize if I was unclear but I did use the word "mostly". A convention played by perhaps 4-8% (by no means sure, but according to my experience, I feel that I am being generous) of pairs in the world, in my opinion, falls under the definition of a highly unusual convention. I also apologize for being unclear as to what conventions I was referring. Was just getting tired of writing "highly unusual (often disruptive) conventions, as I had done so before. After reading previous posts, it was my intention to discuss the point of unusual conventions in general as well as the case itself. Actually, I believe I mentioned in my first post that this case was a mild case of what I was discussing. But it certainly falls under the scope of it. It might be interesting to discuss what people consider unusual or highly unusual conventions especially when it comes to constructive conventions. I guess there would be somewhat individual based answers, partly based on the region where they live. What is considered standard in, for example, Italy would probably not be considered standard in Iceland, or the US, so on and so forth. Who or what decides what is considered mainstream nowadays ?

Very true, prejudice is way too strong a word. They rather bring their own feelings and judgment. Perhaps this shouldn't be so but committee members aren't robots and even though they might try to resist, it can sneak its way in there. Besides, many committe rulings are based on the committee's judgment rather than set rules. For example, had I been on the committe in this case I am not even sure how I would have voted. As I mentioned before, my first impression was the e-w hadn't really done anything wrong. Had the other committee members been like minded, the ruling might have been that the table result should stand. Upon further reflection and analysis of the case I came to the conclusion that e-w caused damage and I would like to believe that I would have voted for +50. My opionion that I mentioned in an earlier post: score stands but a penalty for e-w was a personal view that I would certainly not have been adamant about in a committee. As a matter of fact, often when I give my opionion of how to rule cases, I am fully aware that it is a personal opinion, not something I would rule either as a director or a committe member. I was referring to highly unusual conventions (often disruptive) that opponents are almost certainly not familiar with. But I guess it was an unnecessary statement as the misexplanation will be ruled against anyways. In this case in point, unless I am mistaken, it can possibly be determined that due to lack of partnership understanding there was no real agreement, hence misexplanation. At least I have seen more than one committe fall upon that logic. People can of course play whatever they want, no special rules required. Again I am not referring to all conventions, not even close. But it is kind of a zoo out there, and as I have stated before, my views are mostly aimed at disruptive/destructive conventions which are certainly not better for any sort of constructive bidding but are designed to raise havoc for the opponents I couldn't agree more. AC's applying their own ideas to the Laws is unthinkable. But when it comes down to adjudicating cases with judgment (which is MUCH more common, if it were always a matter of law there would be much fewer appeals), there is, in some cases, a somewhat wide margin of possible rulings. The committe members' feelings and judgment certainly come into play in those cases.

What about playing conventions/systems without enough having enough grasp to play them/it. Here the defenders have no realistic chance of figuring out the situation given the explanation and their unfamiliarity with their opponent's system. Given east's statements, it seems clear that the convention was very much undiscussed within the partnership, (another thing the defenders could not foresee). Isn't it an infraction in itself when an unusual convention causes the opponents damage becuase it was undiscussed? I'll leave it to the law experts to answer that one. It is my contention that when the conventioneers, who themselves are trying to put their opponents out of their comfort zone by creating new situations at the table, provide an explanation not fitting with pd's hand causing damage to their opponents, any and all doubt should go against them. (although I feel more strongly about this when it comes to conventions designed to be disruptive/destructive) Then again I usually feel that way in most such cases, whether or not an unusual convention is involved or not, but I do so more strongly in these cases. And given all the cases I have read, it seems to me that this has indeed been practised by appeals committees, whether or not they admit this is the reason, and even though it is not a written law.. Many appeal cases don't rely solely on the laws but rather the judgment and/or sense of justice of the committee. Please note that I am not trying to pick on, or discriminate against conventioneers. These are my views on the matter despite being an ardent conventioneer myself, playing a somewhat complex system filled with gadgets and transfers etc. I just feel that full disclosure is necessary for our game especially when it comes to us conventioneers. I feel that anything short of that can create an unfair advantage. Given that appeal committee members bring their own views and prejudices to the appeals procedure, and the fact that one committee might easily reach an entirely different conclusion than another, it is difficult to fully accept this assertion. And although this is not a rule, it is a valid view that is not without precedent or supporters.

The laws should not discriminate against bidding system.. But should it be allowed to play unusual conventions (often designed to be disruptive) and then deviate from them this easily, maybe even psyching, leaving their opponents with no chance of ever catching on ? Maybe it should. I am not saying people play like this, but just that fact that it is OK could hypothetically create such a big problem that the laws would be swiftly changed anyways. I am 100% in agreement with Bobby Wolff on the issue. In my view, the laws should be designed to uphold justice. This case in point is VERY mild in the context of what I have been discussing. My first impression was that east had gone insane during the bidding (that 3♥bid is just out of this world imo), and had therefore not done much wrong. But should he have corrected his pd's explanation ? In my opinion he should have. Do opponents of this or some other unusual conventions really have to inquire about every possible bid and continuation and then consider the structure of the convention, whether or not it works, and then try to figure out all the nuances of the convention ? After all this south might consider whether east could have Hx in ♥ BINGO, but the tournement ended a week earlier... IMO n-s are clearly at a great disadvantage and suffered cruel consequences. But I am still a little hesitant how to rule. In Iceland, system documentation is extremely lacking. Hardly anyone carries conventions cards, much less any further convention developments. As a result, our directore/committees assess the situation and what has been stated and conclude from that whether players are likely being truthful etc. In this case I 150% believe e-w. East was fully aware that his pd would translate his bid as showing 3+♥. But it is also clear to me that e-w can't have discussed this convention much if at all, other than deciding to play it. My feeling is to rule that the table result of -420 stands but e-w should recieve about a 1/3 or 1/2 board penalty. However, I would not be reluctant to rule 4♥-50 for both pairs.. But I do think this was a very unfortunate incident because imo nobody at the table did anything terribly wrong..