Misbids are infractions ...

[helene_t]

Some years ago, the national appeal committee created the legal practice that if someone makes a natural 3♣ jump overcall and his p alerts and explains it as "Ghestem" (or vise versa) it is always treated as misinformation rather than misbid, in other words, even if there is evidence that it is in fact a misbid, it is an infraction. This practice has, in the meantime, been extended to other frequently abused conventions such as Landy and DONT, and the position of the AC seems to be that misbids related to conventions are always infractions, at least in the first round. In IMP (Dutch bridge magazine for advanced players), Onno Eskes has several times argued strongly against this practice. In the Aug/Sept issue of the magazine, Roald Ramer defends the position of the AC, while Hans van Staveren (until recently member of the Dutch law committee), Ton Kooijman (chairman of the WBF law committee) as well as the Belgian bridge law expert Herman de Wael attack the AC's position vigorously. Hans van Staveren wants to mobilize Dutch TDs to action against the AC and mentioned (in a talk with Grattan Endicot at the open Europeans in Antalya) the possibility of TD strike (!).

 

In the september issue of the BF magazine "Bridge", Berry Westra defends the AC's position. He argues that the right to misbid is from a time when psyches were common while conventions were not. He thinks that there is a need to protect the game against the growing convention madness ("steeds verder oprukkende conventiegekte").

 

The board of directors of the BF has announced that until further notice, the AC must follow the laws, but Netherlands will try to get the laws modified at the WBF meeting in 2017 (when the laws are to be updated) so that misbids become infractions.

 

Is this an isolated Dutch thing, or are similar debates going on elsewhere? Any opinions?

[han]

Pretty funny. I knew ACBL has their own rules against conventions, didn't know that the Netherlands did this too.

[hotShot]

I can understand and even support that some misbids are treated like an infractions. Ghestem is just the best example for this. If one partner forgets this convention and makes e.g. a natural 3♣ overcall, he holds one suit and psyches opps out of 2 others. Usually bidding will never recover from that.

The offenders regular partner will know that partner is often forgetting the agreement and has a huge advantage over opps here.

Unfortunately the non offending side, will often not be able to reach a good spot and often they will hear from the TD that they lost the right to get a corrected score because their bidding was irrational, wild or gambling or even that they "stopped to play bridge".

This results in lots of AC meetings.

 

But a general rule to treat misbids as infraction is very unwise, especially for beginner.

[blackshoe]

Everyone has rules against conventions. Some are crazier than others. Many, like these of the Dutch AC, are not in accordance with the current laws.

 

Where does an AC get off making laws, anyway? It's neither their job nor their prerogative.

[BebopKid]

My understand of ACBL rules(which may be correct) is that

 

If a partner correctly alerts what is on the pairs' convention card their is no penalty, unless the pair have some way to inform the alerting partner that the bid wasn't the conventional bid, whether by facial expression, speech, or any agreement.

 

If so, the director shall review the pairs convention card, stand behind the alerting partner and ensure that the alerting partner bid according to the card.

 

After the hand is bid and played, the non-offending pair may claim damages. Which the director can determine to give both pairs average, one pair average plus/the other average minus, one pair average plus/the other average, or one pair average/the other average minus. This depends on severity, frequency, etc.

 

If a partner frequently "psyches", as many as once every two sessions, the pair should have that psyche bid on their convention card.

 

I director can rule for example that a "secret" partnership agreement exists if one partner frequently does something that the other partner can expect as an option from the bidding.

 

Examples may include: opening with less than 8 points, opening a balanced 1nt with a singleton.

 

This frequency regulation can end up being ruled as failure to alert, with adjusted scores, and possible suspension on very frequent occurrences.

 

(All of this is from memory, so portions may be incorrect)

[helene_t]

Where does an AC get off making laws, anyway? It's neither their job nor their prerogative.

Exactly. There could be some gray areas between "making laws" and stipulating legal practice, but in this case it seems that they crossed the line. The way I read Westra and Ramer they argue like lawmakers, not like AC members who have been given a mandate to interpret the existing laws.

 

I can follow the argument that it would be much easier for a TD if he just had to decide whether the explanation was in accordance with the bidders holding, instead of having to decide whether it was in agreement with the partnership's de facto agreements. Maybe Westra is right that the law need to be changed. This has to be considered carefully - I think I agree with Hotshot , here

[skjaeran]

I hope you don't imply that the TD at any time during the bidding can do anything but watch the proceedings. It would be absolutely wrong if the TD at any point interrupts the bidding.

After the hand is bid and played, the non-offending pair may claim damages.  Which the director can determine to give both pairs average, one pair average plus/the other average minus, one pair average plus/the other average, or one pair average/the other average minus.  This depends on severity, frequency, etc.

This is not correct. You can't assign an artificial adjusted score after a board has been finished. You have to assing a real score to both sides (which doesn't have to be the same for both sides) according to Law 12C2.

When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing

In most parts of the world outside the ACBL the appeals committee (in EBL the TD can do this) can vary an assigned adjusted score to do equity (that means you can give a weighted score based upon several possible outcomes without the irregularity, upon the TD/ACs judgement).

[BebopKid]

This is not correct. You can't assign an artificial adjusted score after a board has been finished. You have to assing a real score to both sides (which doesn't have to be the same for both sides) according to Law 12C2.

Can the director assign an adjusted score after the bidding but before the play, if he deems the offenders made use of the information?

[blackshoe]

Can the director assign an adjusted score after the bidding but before the play, if he deems the offenders made use of the information?

Absolutely not!

[SoTired]

I am amazed to see in Neth. that misbids are being penalized.

 

How far is the misbid penalty taken? Say, I play constructive major raises, forget, and raise on 6. Opener carries to a making game that few bid. Is the score adjusted?

 

What if we play Flannery 2D 11-15, and I downgrade a 16, open 2D and avoid an unmakable game that most bid. Is the score adjusted?

 

This is a slippery slope. Once you start penalizing misbids, you take bridge judgement out of the players hands and put in the TD, committee and administrators hands.

[helene_t]

Say, I play constructive major raises, forget, and raise on 6. Opener carries to a making game that few bid. Is the score adjusted?

No. Constructive raises is not a "convention" (although some would say that the flip side of it, namely the forcing 1NT, is a convention). Besides, the damage to the opps is not a direct consequence of the "misinformation" (unless they can convince the TD that they would have made a more succesful lead if they had known that responder could have only six points).

What if we play Flannery 2D 11-15, and I downgrade a 16, open 2D and avoid an unmakable game that most bid. Is the score adjusted?

Again, no, since opps' bidding was probably not influenced by the "misinformation".

This is a slippery slope. Once you start penalizing misbids, you take bridge judgement out of the players hands and put in the TD, committee and administrators hands.

Yes, but whether players should be allowed to excercise judgement, e.g. by opening Muiderberg on a lousy 6-card, is a different discussion. Here we are talking about players who "forget" conventions. The position of the AC is that agreements that are prone to being forgotten are not de facto agreements, and hence it is misinfomation to claim to have the agreement.

[TimG]

I'm a bit confused by this thread.

 

The "infraction" only amounts to anything if the opponents have been affected, correct?

 

There is a 2D opening bid, intended as weak with diamonds, explained as multi. The opponents believe they have been damaged.

 

Two cases possible:

 

1) Offending side claims the agreement was multi and there was a misbid.

 

2) Agreement was weak with diamonds, and there has been a mis-explanation.

 

In case one, the non-offending side would not be entitle to any redress since the partnership agreement was properly disclosed. It's just unlucky that the 2D bidder forgot their agreement. In case two, the non-offending side is entitled to redress since the partnership agreement was not properly disclosed.

 

In some jurisdiction, in any case where either a misbid or mis-explanation involving a convention has taken place, it is always determined to be a mis-explanation.

 

It seems obvious that the Laws allow misbids and something of rub of the green. I guess no one is arguing that always applying case two is Lawful.

 

Have I got it right?

[Free]

What the PK is doing is simply making it possible to bitch slap all beginners. Every time a beginner forgets Stayman or transfers you can finish them off nicely by going in appeal...

 

If the PK doesn't treat them the same way as your every day advanced/expert player, then the PK is not objective, which can hardly be their intention. Is this what they want to achieve?

Note that going to the PK for an infraction of a beginner is not unethical, since it's just applying "the rules".

[SoTired]

What the PK is doing is simply making it possible to bitch slap all beginners.  Every time a beginner forgets Stayman or transfers you can finish them off nicely by going in appeal...

 

If the PK doesn't treat them the same way as your every day advanced/expert player, then the PK is not objective, which can hardly be their intention.  Is this what they want to achieve?

Note that going to the PK for an infraction of a beginner is not unethical, since it's just applying "the rules".

I agree, but not just beginners. Anyone can forget a convention occasssionally giving the opps a 2-fer.

 

Bridge rulings are already too "lawyerly" in many cases. This decision just makes things worse.

 

I am saddened. I hope this was just an isolated AC incident and not representative of a real rule change by the Dutch bridge association.

 

BTW... what is "PK"?

[Free]

PK is the AC in Dutch... :lol:

[helene_t]

In some jurisdiction, in any case where either a misbid or mis-explanation involving a convention has taken place, it is always determined to be a mis-explanation.

That is exactly the AC's position as I understand it. Or maybe it only applies to conventions which the AC doesn't like, such as Ghestem, Landy, Multi, Muiderberg etc. Not sure if they would apply the principle when a beginner forgets that they play Stayman. That is somewhat hypothetical since the national AC is only involved in top-tier events, of course.

[Trinidad]

The most horrible ruling by the Dutch national AC was in a high level match with screens. One player makes a two suited bid. As the tray is passed under the screen, he realizes that he has misbid. He writes on the paper that his bid shows suits A and B, but that it is not the hand that he has since he misbid. (IIRC he had another two suiter.) At the same time, at the other side of the screen the bid is alerted and explained as showing suits A and B.

 

As a consequence of this mishap the opponents are talked out of their best contract. TD comes, etc and the TD rules this a misbid. The opponents know how the AC thinks about these cases and appeal.

 

The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement. If they don't have an agreement then the explanation was wrong. If the explanation was wrong, it was an infraction.

 

The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement: "If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence. To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense. It basically says that if my date stood me up that there has never been an agreement to meet in the first place.

 

I myself think that the lawbook has this exactly right. A TD is supposed to look for evidence to find out whether there was an agreement, what the agreement was and whether the explanation was correct. If there is no evidence (system book, convention card, support from independent witnesses (e.g. earlier opponents), depending on the level of the event) the TD will assume misinformation rather than a misbid. In other words, the burden of proof lies with the alleged offending side. They claim to have a certain agreement. Make me believe it.

 

In the above case, as in many other cases that the AC has ruled on, the AC has ignored any evidence of an agreement. By doing so, they have ignored the lawbook.

 

As far as I can see, some members of the AC have their own agenda. Prominent members of the AC have also spoken out against the use of BSCs (these are allowed at the highest level in The Netherlands).

 

In my opinion, this AC is doing the bridge community in The Netherlands a great disservice. It should be relieved of its duty and a new AC should be installed.

 

Rik

[SoTired]

The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.

Strange.... And on a subsequent hand, the player remembers the agreement. No alert is required because - "Ta-dah" - No agreement exists. My partner has cleverly guessed that I am two suited.

[P_Marlowe]

The Dutch AC ruled that there was misinformation. Their reasoning is that if a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.

Strange.... And on a subsequent hand, the player remembers the agreement. No alert is required because - "Ta-dah" - No agreement exists. My partner has cleverly guessed that I am two suited.

That is garbage.

 

There was a wake up call, you heard it, your partner

heard it, and, what a surprise, the TD heard it, and

your opponents heard the call as well.

 

One may or one may not agree with AC if it

comes to this, but the discussion should stay

logical.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ralph23]

The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement: "If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence. To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense.

They apparently don't know what an "agreement" is, or how the word is used in everyday language. Think of the wonderful consequences of their view for the legal system!

 

A borrows money from B, and doesn't repay. A signed a paper, that noted the borrower's (i.e. his) obligation to repay, but A gets drunk and forgets about it. Wiped from his consciousness. He really did forget. He doesn't remember signing anything.

 

Poof ! There is no agreement -- no contractual claim of B -- because A forgot about it !

 

People can have an agreement, even if one party forgets about it. They can have an agreement, although one of them is mistaken about what the agreement is. There is still an agreement, even though they may disagree about what their agreement is (i.e. what the terms are) .... one of them may just be mis-remembering.

 

In fact, it's possible that both of them mis-remember exactly what the agreement is. This actually happens all the time in lawsuits.

 

This really isn't a hard concept, but apparently for some, it is.

[jtfanclub]

I'm all in favor of this.

 

I am sick and tired of people giving deliberately wrong information in hopes of screwing us up, and feeling it's OK to do this since we aren't playing SAYC. Sometimes, the directors are fair...1NT X Alerted as the majors, passed out, and the Xer had a 20 count 2-2-5-4 while responder had a 6 count and a 5 card major. I'd say about half the time any 2 bid over a weak or mini NT hand shows "any distributional hand", but you should see some of the explanations we get. Then we get all sorts of crap about how we didn't play bridge after it, etc. etc. I have literally asked opponents if they knew what they were playing over the 1NT bid, asked that they make sure that they make sure that they knew what they were playing over the 1NT bid before we started, and yet, sure enough, another amazing fielded psyche and another ruling against us.

 

And it gets worse. Over a 1NT bid, let's say that a 3 club bid shows diamonds, but partner's been known to forget. Well, much of the time when he does forget, his partner will have diamond length. So of course his hand is allowed to 'wake him up'. Too bad for us.

 

At high level events, if you can't remember what you're playing for the first freakin' round of bidding, you shouldn't be allowed to play it. Period.

[Free]

I'm all in favor of this.

 

I am sick and tired of people giving deliberately wrong information in hopes of screwing us up, and feeling it's OK to do this since we aren't playing SAYC.

 

~snip~

 

At high level events, if you can't remember what you're playing for the first freakin' round of bidding, you shouldn't be allowed to play it. Period.

I agree that you should know your system at high level events. However, everybody sometimes forgets something! So not allowing people to play such methods is pretty radical.

 

Deliberately giving wrong information is an infraction! Making mistakes is not. This is why there are rules and penalties for misinformation, not for making a wrong bid (as it should be). If there's no information on the CC about the bid, you consider it a wrong explanation and act accordingly. If the information given is the same as the info on the CC, it's a misbid. The opponents can read, so they should know what's going on...

 

I think a better way of punishing people would be to make sure they can't have more than 40% (or lose an immediate 3 imps - or more - in case they have a good board) if they make a misbid. This way, misbids get punished but the opponents don't get rewarded all the time.

[hrothgar]

I threw an email out to the Bridge Laws mailing list asking whether any of the principles might want to comment on this thread. The email discussion is titled "Misbids, infractions, and Wolff's Oh my..."

 

The complete thread can be accessed at

 

http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/034242.html

 

Herman and Hans already threw up responses.

[jtfanclub]

I agree that you should know your system at high level events. However, everybody sometimes forgets something! So not allowing people to play such methods is pretty radical.

 

Deliberately giving wrong information is an infraction! Making mistakes is not. This is why there are rules and penalties for misinformation, not for making a wrong bid (as it should be).

You're right. For one thing, there has to be damage, and it has to be damage BEYOND what damaged would have occurred from a psych.

 

For example, I open 1NT, next player bids 2 Hearts, alerted as 'the majors'. But in fact, the overcaller's partner knows that the overcaller is used to playing the bid as Hearts + a minor. The overcaller's partner therefore never corrects 2 hearts to spades, even with a weak hand, unless he can also handle both minors. If he has, say, a 5-1-5-2 hand, he just passes. Overcaller knows that his partner knows this, and he won't correct without both minors. Therefore the overcaller bids 2 hearts with any two-suited hand with hearts, and is completely safe.

 

I have had extremely blatant cases of this happen. Just obvious to all concerned after the play has finished. Misbid, not mistaken explanation. Play on!

 

So, for me, there are a lot of requirements for a correction to occur, if the new rules were implemented.

 

1. The bid has to be enough of a gross distortion that it would be a psyche if done deliberately.

 

2. The partner of the misbidder must have more information than the opponents: either that the misbidder is likely to misbid, or what the misbidder is likely to have if he did misbid.

 

3. Damage must have occurred.

 

It would be nice if there was a #4- that the partner of the misbidder used the information to his advantage, not taking a LA that he would make if he was certain of his partner's bid. But in cases similar to the one I mentioned, I would argue that it's simply too difficult to determine if the information was used or not.

 

All this really boils down to is that an expected misbid is a form of 'predicted psych', same as if he deliberately made a psych out of a Ghestem or Landry or whatever.

[barmar]

The weak link in the reasoning of the Dutch AC is the statement:  "If a pair forgets a convention then they cannot claim that they have an agreement.". They automatically assume that this statement is correct, without backing it up with any evidence. To me, it is obvious that this reasoning is nonsense.

They apparently don't know what an "agreement" is, or how the word is used in everyday language. Think of the wonderful consequences of their view for the legal system!

 

A borrows money from B, and doesn't repay. A signed a paper, that noted the borrower's (i.e. his) obligation to repay, but A gets drunk and forgets about it. Wiped from his consciousness. He really did forget. He doesn't remember signing anything.

 

Poof ! There is no agreement -- no contractual claim of B -- because A forgot about it !

 

People can have an agreement, even if one party forgets about it. They can have an agreement, although one of them is mistaken about what the agreement is. There is still an agreement, even though they may disagree about what their agreement is (i.e. what the terms are) .... one of them may just be mis-remembering.

 

In fact, it's possible that both of them mis-remember exactly what the agreement is. This actually happens all the time in lawsuits.

 

This really isn't a hard concept, but apparently for some, it is.

The difference is that a contract is merely a relationship between A and B. But in bridge we have a third party, the opponents.

 

What the PK seems to be saying is that even though A and B have officially made an agreement, they're not acting as if the agreement is in effect. The purpose of disclosing agreements is so that the opponents have a chance to understand your auction. If you don't actually bid according to your agreements, the purpose of the full disclosure laws is not met.