When do I disclose?

[Mbodell]

My feeling is that this should not be alerted, but that you would want to describe partner's tendencies when they ask about your bid which includes things like "would make this bid as a lead direct on a shorter suit" or "often quite unsound in this positoin" or "occasionally forgets and does it with both majors" assuming the occasional is occasional and not often. But you should describe these tendencies all the time, when asked, not just when you suspect they are true.

[helene_t]

I think it is similar to the two-way Ghestem convention ("either clubs or both majors"). That is a BSC if you forget Ghestem so often that partner will expect you to have forgotten whenever his hand and/or opps auction (or your 4♣ bid next round) suggests so.

 

I think that is a BSC even if partner claims not to cater for it. It is like playing multi in a GCC event and defending it by saying "we only cater for hearts, not for spades".

 

Similarly, a 2♦ overcall showing either diamonds or majors is not GCC. I think in California all NT defenses are allowed, right? Call it "psycho suction", then your explanation will be correct whether he forgot or not.

 

Another issue: explaining 2♦ as "in principle diamonds but he often messes it up with Hamilton" is unhelpful to opps, as it is possible than one opp makes a cuebid of 3♦ (the suit your p is supposed to have) while the other takes the 3♦ bid as natural (a suit your p hasn't effectively promised). So I would certainly not mention the possibility of both majors during the auction.

[Echognome]

<snip>Perhaps it would be fair to note that I have very little sympathy for those who forget their systems. IMO people who don't know their systems ruin the game for everyone.<snip>

Fred,

 

Although I understand this is an opinion, do you feel this way only at the highest levels of bridge or at all levels of bridge? As an extreme, imagine a beginner who forgets that 2♣ is Stayman. Does that ruin the experience for everyone?

 

Having read quite a bit of Bobby Wolff's views on convention disruption, it struck me that the views seemed a lot more reasonable for the highest levels of the game rather than for the rank and file.

 

Of course I don't enjoy it personally when my partner forgets part of our system (or when I do), but then I work to either simplify the system or work harder to remember it.

 

We all have bidding misunderstandings. I recall a passage from Meckstroth's book that he and Rodwell have misunderstandings occasionally. Does it ruin it for everyone when that happens?

 

So if the top level players are prone to make mistakes (albeit very seldom), what is the rank and file to do? Should everyone be forced to play the most basic system, just because someone might forget if you add any complications?

 

As per the original post, many people have multiple bridge partners and the "forget" can come from either partner thinking of their agreement with another partner.

 

I guess I'm asking if you can clarify your point. Do you intend it to apply to all levels of bridge? or just the highest levels? What do you think would be the appropriate way to solve this "problem" of people forgetting their system?

[awm]

The obvious thing to do seems to be assessing procedural penalties for forgetting your agreements in basic auctions. Such a penalty can be waived in "beginner" events, but in a serious event partnerships are expected to know basic things like their notrump range, whether they play transfers, whether 2♦ is flannery, what their defense to 1NT is, etc.

 

This does not require anyone to play a "simple system" but it may deter partnerships from making agreements that they will forget with a very high rate of frequency.

[Echognome]

Define "basic auction".

 

Suppose you play a relay system and in competition you continue to play your relay as long as you are 4-up or below. Is that a "basic auction"? Maybe the auction has gone 1♣ - (1♠) - 2♣* - (2♠). That seems basic to anyone playing standard, but certainly isn't basic playing other systems.

 

I remember once playing where we were 4-down (the opponents had doubled twice) and partner had relayed his full shape out at the 2-level. I knew the first two steps were the weak and strong relay and that 3NT was to play, but it wasn't until later that we agreed the definition of extra intervening bids. The auction is so rare.

[fred]

I guess I'm asking if you can clarify your point.  Do you intend it to apply to all levels of bridge?  or just the highest levels?  What do you think would be the appropriate way to solve this "problem" of people forgetting their system?

I will try to clarify...

 

When someone forgets their system it is unfair to the opponents because they are frequently placed in a position where it is impossible for them to achieve a normal result. While it is true that there are other events in bridge that can place a pair in the same position (a particularly good bid/play, a particularly bad bid/play that happened to work, or a psysh) this is different because it is something that would never happen if players lived up to their responsibilities of knowing their systems.

 

My contention is that, when the opponents irresponsibility in this area makes it impossible for you to achieve a normal result on a given board, that board has been ruined for you. When boards are ruined, the game is ruined.

 

Let's use your example of the beginner forgetting Stayman. Suppose the auction goes:

 

1NT-2C-2H-3NT-P

 

Where the beginner meant 2C as "2/1 Game Force" and his partner correctly responded to Stayman (and luckily didn't hold 4 spades). Suppose the opening leader has a hand in which he would have led a spade if the bidding had gone "normally" (1NT-3NT-P). Expecting a 4-card spade suit in the dummy, he decides to lead something else.

 

Whether or not what he actually led works out, the hand has been destroyed for him as a result of the opponent's irresponsibility.

 

The solution in this particular case is easy - if a spade lead would have worked better than the lead that was actually made, the TD can adjust the score (and bend over backwards to make sure that the non-offending side takes as many tricks as they could ever reasonably take).

 

Regardless of the result, another part of the solution might be to assign a procedural penalty to the pair that forgot their system (though I think this would be somewhat heavy-handed in, say, a club game where you rate to find lots of beginners and lots of pickup partnerships).

 

IMO If supposedly serious players frequently forget then there should be further punishments. Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

 

Finally, I believe that the partner of the player who forgot his system must have very strong evidence from his own hand and the opponents' bidding (and NOT from previous experience) in order to play his partner to have forgotten. Playing partner to have forgotten without sufficient evidence should be treated in the same way as "fielding a psych".

 

Bottom line for me is, since forgetting system destroys the game, the rules should be set up so that it is very expensive for people to forget.

 

Yes, it is the case that players at even the highest levels sometimes forget their systems. The level of the player doesn't matter that much in my view except that, the more serious the event, the more serious the punishment should be for forgetting.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jmcw]

Maybe, just maybe, the opponents have forgotten their agreements. The DBL of 2♦ could possibly be for takeout!.

[NickRW]

Bottom line for me is, since forgetting system destroys the game, the rules should be set up so that it is very expensive for people to forget.

 

Yes, it is the case that players at even the highest levels sometimes forget their systems. The level of the player doesn't matter that much in my view except that, the more serious the event, the more serious the punishment should be for forgetting.

 

This would make beginners even more nervous about learning any conventions. I can't see how that is a forward move.

 

The solution in this particular case is easy - if a spade lead would have worked better than the lead that was actually made, the TD can adjust the score (and bend over backwards to make sure that the non-offending side takes as many tricks as they could ever reasonably take).

 

For the typical playing director at a club this is utterly unworkable. As things are, the need for complex judgments are relatively rare in that environment. But we would be faced with calls on every other board from every other table from people who claimed that opps had abused their system and could the score be adjusted please - 50% of which would be on boards the director hadn't played yet. There would be a queue of players at the end of the evening badgering the director to scribble something on the travellers while the scorer who couldn't do their job yet was digging his/her finger nails in the wall in frustration.

 

Nick

[TimG]

System misunderstandings (or forgets) seem to me to be just another form of bad bridge (which I have been guilty of as often as the next) which usually works well for the other side, but sometimes results in a bad score for the innocent bystanders. Remembering agreements is just another bridge skill.

 

Penalizing players (or compensating the other side) for a bidding misunderstanding seems little different than penalizing a declarer for misplaying a suit combination (or awarding the other side the result that would have occurred had declared played the suit correctly).

[helene_t]

Suppose bridge was just like any other sport, in that some 80% of the time invested was spent on practicing/training and the remaining 20% on competition. Then one could expect partnerships to have sorted out their agreements when it came to competition. They would have applied this new fancy notrump defense 20 times in the partnership bidding or at training matches before it came up at competition.

 

But for most club players, there is only one mode of playing bridge, namely competition. Masterpoints are awarded on all club evenings, and we play (at least in theory) by the same rules as at serious competition.

 

Whenever a pair introduces a new convention, it will be something they come up with two minutes before the club evening starts. So the details are not worked out. They expect to develop a common understanding on how the convention works after some time. Or more likely they will decide to trash it next week. Maybe one partner assumes it was just a one-evening experiment while the other assumes they switched to the new agreement permanently, yadayadayada.

 

Add to this that for many players, experimenting with new (preferably homegrown) conventions is part of what makes bridge fun.

 

I agree that fielding a system-forget should be treated like fielding a psyche, but beyond that I see no reason to punish system forgets. Agree 100% with Tim, as well as with Nick.

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure that "people forgetting system destroys the game" is a valid premise. I am pretty sure that severe penalties will sooner or later destroy the game, particularly at club at lower tournament level, where players are likely to decide they didn't take up the game to be penalized for having a poor memory or being inexperienced.

[bluejak]

People make mistakes at bridge, as at everything else, and it does not ruin the game for the opposition at all. When your opponent forgets a safety play do you moan and say he is ruining the game as he gives you an unearned top or 13 imps? Certainly not. The most common result of a pair forgetting their system is that the opponents get a good board.

 

Penalising players for not knowing their system is an appalling idea. What next: are you going to penalise them for not leading fourth highest?

 

In the game of bridge there are many facets. One of those is trying to unravel what is going on when an opponent has done something wrong, whether it is to forget his system, not make a safety play, make a silly lead, fail to count trumps, and so on. Every so often such a player gets a good board for his idiocy and opponents moan and moan. I think they should grow up: they do not moan when their opponent's idiocy gives them a good result, do they?

 

This game is more interesting, and will certainly attract more young players, if there are interesting features, and playing fancy conventions is one of those features. But when people learn them, they get them wrong. No, they are not ruining the game for people: that is part of the game and players should live with it.

 

The WBF said:

In particular the WBF wishes to stress that a player who forgets his convention, misbids or misuses it, is not subject to automatic penalty. It is envisaged that a procedural penalty will only be applied in aggravated circumstances, as for example misuse several times repeated.

Since that was the WBF I expect that is their view at top level bridge: PPs at lower levels are especially unsuitable.

 

Bobby Wolff tried to popularise the idea of 'Convention Disruption'. the idea has not been accepted, and rightly so.

[mr1303]

I'm particularly unconvinced by the advice to play with a different partner either.

 

I play this game solely for enjoyment these days, and I would very much rather play with someone who is a friend who might be a less able player, or prone to forgetting the system etc, than to play with a better player who wasn't a friend.

 

In particular, if a friend of mine dropped me as a partner because of my mistakes I wouldn't want to be friends with him/her any longer

[jdonn]

In Fred's defense, the comparisons between what he is saying and play situations are comparing apples and oranges. Your bidding system is agreed ahead of time, so if you make a mistake then you have made an agreement that you either don't know how to use or can't remember. If you make a play error that is just part of the game, you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game like you can with bidding. The play comparisons are equivalent to poor bidding judgment, not bidding system forgets.

 

Two more arguments against his point that I didn't agree with were that it would be bad to discourage beginners from playing lots of conventions, and that none of us mind when our opponents' terrible screw ups give us good boards (personally I don't enjoy that at all, and I know many would agree.) But there were also good arguments against him, such as that most people play on a very casual or social level, and that penalties against forgetting your system or some combination of impossible to judge and impractical to assign.

[Codo]

But there is no reason and no law why a mistake in your preparation should be handled different then a mistake in the play itself.

[Mbodell]

Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

I know Fred was talking about serious players in serious events and the OP probably wasn't, but I do find it funny that the "convention" that the bidder forgot in the OP was that tricky complex natural bidding. Let's ban those natural bid agreements!

 

The last convention that my partner forgot this week was trickier than that, but still not that complex: Texas transfers. The fact that my 4♥-2 got 0 MP when 4♠+1 was super common was, I feel, the sufficient penalty for forgetting the convention.

 

The other issue that comes up is sometimes, but certainly not always, a more complex system isn't actually more complex but is instead just more well discussed and agreed and better disclosed. So you can penalize a pair that has good understandings about their 3rd and 4th bids versus a pair that just relies on a poorly disclosed bridge logic.

[TimG]

In Fred's defense, the comparisons between what he is saying and play situations are comparing apples and oranges. Your bidding system is agreed ahead of time, so if you make a mistake then you have made an agreement that you either don't know how to use or can't remember. If you make a play error that is just part of the game, you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game like you can with bidding. The play comparisons are equivalent to poor bidding judgment, not bidding system forgets.

I agree that it's not quite apples to apples, but don't think it is quite apples to oranges, either.

 

Take this thread, for instance. Maybe the misunderstanding (and the disagreement amongst those who responded) is a result of lots of us not understanding negative doubles. Or, maybe it is the case that many of us have made an error in bridge reasoning. I would contend that "you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game" for every bidding eventuality.

 

There may be a difference between forgetting that you are playing Texas transfers and not fully understanding follow-ups in negative double auctions. But, to me, it is a minor distinction.

 

Over 20 years ago, my partner and I started an uncontested auction 1♦-1♠, 1N-2♣. One of us thought this was forcing and one of us thought it was non-forcing. Should we have been forced to play a less complex system as a result of our misunderstanding?

 

Should Hanoi5 and his partner have been asked to remove negative doubles from their card as a result of their misunderstanding (in the above linked thread)?

 

I believe there is a provision in the Laws that makes "paying insufficient attention to the game" (or something like that) a violation. I think habitual system forgets due to complexity would qualify as paying insufficient attention (perhaps what qualifies as "habitual" should change as the seriousness of the event changes). I also think that the occasional forget or misunderstanding is as inevitable as mis-playing a hand from time-to-time, and in general neither should be subject to a procedural penalty.

[fred]

But there is no reason and no law why a mistake in your preparation should be handled different then a mistake in the play itself.

Here is a reason:

 

Players have a responsibility to know the system they are playing. They do not have a responsibility to play the cards perfectly.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

I know Fred was talking about serious players in serious events and the OP probably wasn't, but I do find it funny that the "convention" that the bidder forgot in the OP was that tricky complex natural bidding. Let's ban those natural bid agreements!

It happened because he plays a convention on other partnerships. If, hypothetically, he were banned from doing so, then he would not forget that this 2♦ were natural when it came up.

 

In Fred's defense, the comparisons between what he is saying and play situations are comparing apples and oranges. Your bidding system is agreed ahead of time, so if you make a mistake then you have made an agreement that you either don't know how to use or can't remember. If you make a play error that is just part of the game, you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game like you can with bidding. The play comparisons are equivalent to poor bidding judgment, not bidding system forgets.

I agree that it's not quite apples to apples, but don't think it is quite apples to oranges, either.

 

Take this thread, for instance. Maybe the misunderstanding (and the disagreement amongst those who responded) is a result of lots of us not understanding negative doubles. Or, maybe it is the case that many of us have made an error in bridge reasoning. I would contend that "you can't reasonably make a determination prior to the game" for every bidding eventuality.

I think your example is apples to oranges as well. My understanding of the discussion is that it's about forgetting a convention, not misunderstanding an auction the player may never have even had before. There are few things you agree first before playing than your convention over the opponents' 1NT opening bid.

[fred]

Penalising players for not knowing their system is an appalling idea.  What next: are you going to penalise them for not leading fourth highest?

If their convention card says that they lead 4th highest and they have a habit of leading something other than 4th highest on a regular basis, then yes they should be punished (for not filling out their convention card properly).

 

No, they are not ruining the game for people:

 

Well I suppose it depends on the people. They are ruining the game for me.

 

Do you really enjoy playing a hand when your partner opens 1NT, your RHO overcalls 2D, and it is more or less random whether or not your RHO has diamonds (his partnership's agreement) or the majors? Do you like having to spend your time and energy trying to figure out if your LHO behaved properly in these circumstances (to say nothing of the time and energy you have to spend trying to solve an absurd bridge problem you are likely to face)? Is calling the TD and explaining the situation to him and likely getting into a big argument with the opponents something that enriches the bridge experience for you? Do you relish the concept of, when all is said and done, having 2 minutes left on the clock to play the remaining board of the round?

 

If that is your idea of fun then I suppose it doesn't ruin the game for you, but it does ruin the game for me.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Fred's reasoning certainly seems to indicate that he should rarely, if ever, play with or against those of lesser caliber (which is most of the bridge playing community) but it would certainly seem to make opportunities to play at all rather few and far between. :)

[fred]

Fred's reasoning certainly seems to indicate that he should rarely, if ever, play with or against those of lesser caliber (which is most of the bridge playing community) but it would certainly seem to make opportunities to play at all rather few and far between. :D

In fact, I play bridge in only a handful of tournaments a year these days and that is just fine with me. When I do play it is almost always in a "very serious tournament" where there is almost always some significant financial upside for me. Perhaps sadly, playing bridge is little more than a job for me now.

 

However, the amount that I play is not at all a function of the fact that I find it annoying to play against people who don't know their systems. In my experience playing club-level bridge and minor tournaments (something I once did a lot) most of the players are pretty good at remembering what they have agreed to play. In any case, I don't really care about that (or much else for that matter) when I play in a club game or a not-so-serious tournament.

 

The main reason I don't play very much these days is that I am just not that interested in playing anymore. Not sure why - maybe because I am busy with other things, maybe because I don't get that much of a thrill out of winning while the much more frequent cases of losing are really painful, maybe because years of frequent travel made me rather sick of it, maybe because being a professional bridge player seems to eventually suck the bridge-life out of many of those who once really loved playing...

 

Anyways, it is no big deal - I am happy with the way my life is going :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

Happy is good. :D

 

I don't really have a problem with a regulation like the ACBL's that requires that players know what they're doing - at high levels. I do have a problem when that regulation is imposed, or suggested to be imposed, at lower levels. I don't think it's good for the game at those levels.

[Echognome]

I think the issue here is that a regulation based on penalties of "forgetting" one's system is overly harsh. Do we believe that people forget their system on purpose? I know it's quite common to forget a card that has been played or to remember exactly what spot the cards were. So why have such a harsh view on forgetting one's agreement?

 

I understand there were a lot of problems with, say, Ghestem, where people were forgetting often. But why does it ruin your enjoyment if you sometimes are on the wrong end of "rub of the green"? I mean isn't this a similar attitude to people that don't like psyches? It's somehow unfair that it has happened to them.

[fred]

I think the issue here is that a regulation based on penalties of "forgetting" one's system is overly harsh.  Do we believe that people forget their system on purpose?  I know it's quite common to forget a card that has been played or to remember exactly what spot the cards were.  So why have such a harsh view on forgetting one's agreement?

 

As I have said (more than once now I think) it is a question of responsibility. If you can accept my contention that players are responsible to the field for knowing their partnership agreements, then not knowing your agreements is a violation of this responsibility to the field.

 

Players do not have a responsibility to anyone (except perhaps their partners) to remember which spot cards have been played.

 

I understand there were a lot of problems with, say, Ghestem, where people were forgetting often.  But why does it ruin your enjoyment if you sometimes are on the wrong end of "rub of the green"?  I mean isn't this a similar attitude to people that don't like psyches?  It's somehow unfair that it has happened to them.

 

I don't see this is a "rub of the green situation" (by the way, I like that term much better than the much more common and much uglier way of saying the same thing - "we got fixed").

 

For me an anology more appropriate than psyching would be playing against a pair who were using an illegal convention - they would also not be living up to their responsibility to the field (in this case the responsibility being to make sure your system is legal in the event you are playing in).

 

It wouldn't change anything if the convention in question resulted in a top board for me or I got a terrible result that the TD adjusted to average plus or whatever. For me the net result would be that one board in my session of bridge had been destroyed by my opponents lack of responsibility to the field.

 

I try to take my responsibilities to the field seriously. When I am playing in a tournament I care about, what I want is to play all of the boards against players who are willing to do the same.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com