TimG

I actually don't think it's a bad idea to track hands played. I'm not sure about conversion to masterpoints, but think it would be interesting to see how many hands, at what tournament level, are being played by the frequent players. I'd be a bit disappointed if ACBL weren't already doing something in this area -- surely it would be of some use in marketing bridge.

East neglected to use the stop card, I waited the mandatory 10 seconds then passed without grimacing. I think your partner got real lucky.

Must have been a slow pass over 4♥.

Do you think team strategy should be different depending upon whether a team is playing a series of 16-board matches as opposed to a single 128 board match? If you think there should be a difference in the way teams approach these two possibilities, then I think a good case can be made for your trials to mimic the championship format.

I pass. See this thread.

I think mandatory (even for 2nd or 3rd offenses) penalties for system forgets is a bad idea. Consider the case of a proper alert and explanation of a mistaken bid. You will be relying upon the opponents to report the mis-bid. The mis-bid will often lead to a poor result for the "offending" side. If the non-offenders (who have just received a good result) now call the director to report the mis-bid and have the mandatory penalty applied, that will be seen as unfriendly (and piling it on). "Professional courtesy" may preclude some players from calling the director to report some other players. Some players may be more likely to report certain forgets (such as when opponents are playing methods they don't approve of in the first place). All this will mean inconsistent application of penalties. Even when a mis-bid is reported, there may be difficulty in determining whether the deviation was intentional: "our agreement is that 1N denies a 4-card major, but I intentionally bypassed this one for tactical reasons". How would it be determined whether the mis-bid was intentional or mistaken? Suppose I'm playing in a 4-session NABC pair event. I'm playing with someone with whom I don't have a longtime partnership. We've discussed our system, played a couple of other events, practiced online, etc., but are far from polished. The first day goes smoothly, we have some good fortune, and just make the cut for the second day. Early in the 3rd session we make some mistakes, get a bit discouraged, start thinking about what's been going wrong and one of us mis-bids. I'm a passed hand, my partner opens 1S, I have clubs and bid 2C even though we had agreed to play Drury -- I don't play Drury with many partners and I just bid what was in front of my face, I always got this right during bidding practice, but lost focus here. The director is summoned and it is recorded that we've had a forget. 4th session comes along, our game probably is worse than the 42% we had in the afternoon and I'm getting tired -- this takes more out of me than playing Saturday and Sunday at a local sectional. Round 8 comes along, the auction is 1C-(P)-1H-(1S) and despite playing support doubles and holding three hearts, I rebid 1N with the spades well under control. My partner correctly explains that I've denied three hearts. Director is called and my mis-bid is reported. Director says "Don't I recognize you from this afternoon? That's a 1/4 board procedural penalty because this is your second offense." I don't think this is the scenario that anyone is looking for. But, I'm not sure how you go about crafting a rule for this without running into such a problem.

I think 4♠, Double and Pass would all get some consideration, so I don't think the correct action is blatantly obvious.

3♠. Is the alternative to rebid 2N and then pull 3N to 4♠? Concealing four-card support can't be right (even if 3N happens to score better on this deal).

Takeout. 2♥, I think there is too much potential wastage in their suits to bid more.

A while back, I did something similar (without 5332 hands) and found that two factors where important when counting tricks at NT: 1) the more suits in which there is four-card length in at least one hand the more tricks; and 2) 3-2 and especially 2-2 holdings reduced the number of tricks. If north is 4=4=3=2, it is better for south to be 3=3=4=3 than 4=3=3=3 because in the former case there are three suits with at least one four-card suit (♠, ♥, ♦) whereas in the latter case there are only two such suits (♠ and ♥). It was also better to have 4=4=3=2 facing 3=3=3=4 than 3=3=4=3 -- a 3-3 and a 4-2 is better than a 4-3 and a 3-2. 2-2s are even worse than 3-2s. So, it does not surprise me that 4333 might have a higher value than 4432 or 5332 when facing a semi-balanced hand -- no possible 2-2 suits. I suspect strongly that if you give south a 4333 13 count and north 1) 4432 13 count or 2) 4333 13 count, on average the 4333+4432 combination will take more tricks at NT than the 4333+4333 combination.

You're saying that the quoted section of the Conditions of Contest provide for the assessment of Procedural Penalties in the case of a pair "not knowing its agreement in a common situation"?

I don't think this should apply more to people who play unwelcome methods than it should to people who play welcome methods. It doesn't strike me as more pleasant to encounter someone who forgets popular Convention A than someone who forgets unpopular Convention B. I could easily fit into the pro "liberal system regulation" camp. I've played my fair share of unusual methods and can accept that along with the use of unusual or unfamiliar methods comes an extra disclosure responsibility. While a few words may suffice when describing a common method, more care and detail is generally needed with uncommon methods. But, I don't think I have any more duty to know my agreements if I am playing the latest gadgets than if I am playing 1940s Goren (though I'm not sure which of those approaches would be more welcome). In short, I don't think a responsibility to make sure that we know what we are doing in a serious event should be predicated on what methods we are using.

Case 14 from the Houston NABC involves a pair "not knowing its agreement in a common situation" during the Jacoby Open Swiss Teams (NABC event). For this, they were assessed a procedural penalty by the director (upheld by the committee). In the commentary, there are three seemingly conflicting comments about the PP: Goldsmith: "The procedural penalty is illegal and inappropriate." Polisner: "Lastly, the issuance of a PP is ridiculous as such penalties should only be issued in egregious cases and a habit or pattern of such problems and not for what must be assumed is an isolated instance. We can’t expect our players to be full time bridge players and have discussed every aspect of their system as well as tangential auctions in order to be able to avoid penalties." Smith: "I do like that the director assessed a penalty for N/S not knowing their methods in a common situation (as required by our conditions of contest)." One says the PP is illegal, one says the PP should only be assessed in the case of repeat offenders, and a third says the PP is required by the conditions of contest. I haven't found the CoC. I will continue to look. But, thought someone here might know which of these commentators is correct and be able to provide the answer even if my search comes up empty. I have found this in the Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest: which addresses redress, but not a procedural penalty.

My intention was to start a discussion of this matter in relation to Fred's "penalties for forgetting system" thread. Do you think that in Fred's world this ruling should have been different? The incident recorded/tracked?

Take Fred's example auction of 1♦-(1H)-2N* and consider 1) Opener alerts 2N and gives the wrong explanation, there has been MI and the opponents may be due an adjustment; or 2) Opener alerts 2N and gives the right information, but responder has misbid (forgotten the agreement), here again there has been MI of a sort, but now the opponents are not due an adjustment. It does seem a bit strange to me that these forgets are treated differently even though both result in the opponents being misinformed. (Of course, one problem is that if responder has forgotten, he can always claim that he intentionally misbid, and an intentional misbid is permitted.) Is it a fair summary that Fred would like both 1) and 2) treated the same, possibly with procedural penalties and individual system restrictions in the case of repeat offenders? I think it would be fine in theory to treat both of these forgets the same. But, it may prove rather impractical to consistently apply 2). Likely you'd have to have some sort of misbid tracking system. ETA: Tracking will be problematic because people will only report opponents' forgets that adversely affect their score. Tim

From one of Fred's early posts in the thread that started this (in the Bridge Laws section): This seems to me like the non-offending side "gaining" because that side is no longer subject to the rub of the green result. And, this sounds a bit like eating his cake, too. Though, of course, this procedural penalty would not affect the score of the non-offenders. It's sort of like determining that the penalty for a revoke has not restored equity, adjusting the result to restore equity, and then tacking on a procedural penalty to discourage future revokes. I see how revokes and basic system forgets can be viewed differently, primarily because players choose the complexity of their own system and should choose a level of complexity which they can handle (not forget). There's no self-selected complexity level associated with following suit. (Actually, I recently heard about a revoke made by someone who does not sort the cards in his hand. I wonder if revoke rules should be different for players who do not sort their hands because of the self-inflicted added complexity. Or, maybe this player should be forced to sort his cards for a certain amount of time. :-) ) Imposed reduction in complexity will come with its own problems. There are "complex" methods that some consider essential and would not know what to do without them. Suppose a pair flubs up a new minor forcing auction and is thus forced to take it off their card. Are they now going to be able to give good explanations to the opponents after auctions like 1m-1M-2M or 1D-1H-1N-2C? Doubtful they'll have solid understandings. What happens when one thinks 1m-1M-2M shows 4-card support and the other thinks it could be 3-card support? Is the next step to tell this pair they can no longer raise their partner's suit?

The ACBL has recently added the appeals cases from the Houston NABC to their website. This one might be of interest to those discussing penalties for forgotten conventions in another thread. Brief summary: After 1♣-1♥, 2N-3♣*, 3♥-3N, opening leader asked about the alerted 3♣ call and was told "checkback", then asked if 3N was "choice of games" and was told "I don't know". Soon-to-be-dummy said nothing at the time and later said it was "undiscussed". This took place in the North American Pairs Flight A. If a partnership is playing "checkback", do they have a responsibility to be on solid ground when it comes to what the follow-ups mean? It might be considered general bridge knowledge (especially at this level, though apparently not for opening leader, opener or responder) that responder has shown 44 in the majors on this auction. Does that absolve the partnership from the responsibility of knowing their agreement?

Everyone knows what the ACBL means? Surely you knew that this was in reference to the weak two discussion. Mid-chart. #12. I believe it is reasonable to conclude from its inclusion on the mid-chart that it is not permitted in GCC events. This one ACBL admits is insufficiently covered. There are plans to address the problem in Washington, DC later this month.

Does the "Acol" reference mean this was a natural two-bid rather than an artificial game force? If you've already shown clubs with 2♣, the RDBL might make more sense. I think p p 2♣ p 2♦ X XX 2♥ 2♠ p 2NT P 3♠ p 3N/4♠ (I don't really think the RDBL accomplishes anything, but it you do decide to RDBL and then rebid NT, you ought to just rebid 2NT to allow for better investigation.) or p p 2♣ p 2♦ X 3♣ P 3♠ p 3NT P P/4♠ would have been better. 3N could easily score up when 4♠ goes down, especially considering partner's failure to open 2♠ (if a weak two-bid was available) even when he holds 6 of them.

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens in a Vanderbilt, Spingold or US Team Trials? These are the sorts of events I think Fred would consider "serious". Even in a "lesser" NABC event like an Open Pairs, I don't imagine these sorts of basic forgets are very common. I haven't played in one of these events in a while, so maybe I am wrong. If these events are plagued with forgets, then something should probably be done to address the situation. I think penalizing system forgets will simply discourage non-top-level players from entering the events rather than encouraging them to be more prepared when they do enter the events. But, maybe that's a good thing, at least from the perspective of a player like Fred.

In recent bidding practice using a Polish Club, I've noticed that responding light tends to work OK when responder holds 3 diamonds, but that responder shouldn't try this with a similar collection of high cards and something like 5=3=1=4 shape. Too often, opener will be making a jump rebid which is much more comfortably handled when responder has some length in diamonds.

Greenville, SC had 2517 tables last month (Monday to Sunday).

I don't think so. I've got enough Blue Ribbon Qs to last me until I'm a senior. (That is: they aren't that hard to come by.) And, I've had plenty of forgets and misunderstandings over the years.

I believe the answer is "yes". Similarly, if you play 10-13 NTs in 1st and 2nd seat NV, 15-18 otherwise, you are not subject to the restrictions of DISALLOWED #7 (which would apply if your NT range were 10-13 or 15-18).

The opening itself is not regulated, just the conventional responses and rebids. If the opening bid does not meet (1), then conventional responses and rebids are not permitted. It is the conventional responses and rebids that are being regulated, not the opening bid. There is no need to designate the opening bid a special partnership method in order to regulate conventional responses and rebids. If the opening bid meets (2) then conventional responses and rebids, and conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses are not permitted. If the opening bid meets (2), it does not meet (1), so this is partially redundant -- there was no need to disallow conventional responses and rebids based upon (2) because they were already not permitted by (1). (2) further disallows conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses. So, I guess if you want to play a 0-10 HCP weak two-bid promising 5+ in the suit named, you cannot play conventional responses and rebids. But, you can play conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses.