When do I disclose?

[barmar]

Bridge players make mistakes, I'm sure Fred understands that. I've even read tournament reports where a world class pair had a misunderstanding in a major event because they'd recently made a change to their system and one of them forgot it (or maybe didn't realize it applied to the situation). ***** happens, you live with it.

 

What I hope he's talking about is players who regularly forget their agreements. Bridge is a game of full disclosure, and you can't obey that requirement if a player habitually misbids. It's really difficult to determine when the misbids occur frequently enough that you need to alert the opponents.

 

It's your responsibility to tailor the complexity of your agreements to your ability to remember them. In my regular partnership, we've occasionally added some conventions that didn't come up until 6 months after we discussed it; by that time one of us had forgotten about it, and we got a bad result. When this happens, we usually remove the agreement -- such infrequent uses are not worth the confusion they cause.

 

If you play a particular agreement with 99% of your partners, and you don't have the flexibility to remember the difference with the other 1%, don't let them talk you into playing a different agreement. Or if you're the partner, don't try to teach an old dog new tricks.

[blackshoe]

What is the basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing? What are its limits? For that matter, what is "the field"?

[fred]

What is the basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing? What are its limits? For that matter, what is "the field"?

The field is the other players in the event.

 

The basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing is IMO common sense. Maybe there is a legal basis as well - you would know better than me :)

 

Imagine the hypothetical and admittedly unrealistic scenario in which a given pair screwed up their system every time it was their turn to make a bid. The result would that random tops and bottoms thrown to the pairs who were lucky/unlucky enough to play against this pair thereby ruining the integrity of the contest (to say nothing of ruining the bridge experience for people like me).

 

I think common sense dictates that it would not be "responsible" for a pair to show up to play in a serious tournament this unprepared thereby having this much random impact on the results. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Doesn't your common sense also dictate that such a high degree of irresponsibility should not be acceptable and/or should be punishable according to the laws?

 

If your lawbook saws "no" then please use your brain instead (that was not intended as an insult - I know you are not one of those TDs who thinks the lawbook was given to Moses on Mount Sinai). If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the laws (commendably in my view) try to stop that from happening with respect to constant psychs and IMO they should do the same thing with respect to constant systems screwups (for all I know they do already).

 

Since forgetting your system is obviously legal and since it is obviously always going to happen on occasion to everyone, the question becomes where to draw the line in terms of how often it should be allowed without punishment and, when the line is crossed to various degrees, how severe the punishment should be.

 

The answers to such questions have to be largely arbitrary of course. As I have said, I agree with those who believe that the seriousness of the event matters. To me, in a serious tournament, forgetting your system "only" a few times per session is not acceptable. To me, if you are playing in a serious event and you are tempted to explain a bid in a common sequence like "it shows X according to our agreement but he might have Y", that is a sign that your partnership has already crossed the line.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I think common sense dictates that it would not be "responsible" for a pair to show up to play in a serious tournament this unprepared thereby having this much random impact on the results. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Doesn't your common sense also dictate that such a high degree of irresponsibility should not be acceptable and/or should be punishable according to the laws?

I would say no.

 

Lesser players randomize the results in all kind of ways. Like bizarre opening leads that occasionally work, and system screwups that sometimes damage opps more than the pair themselves. That is unfortunate, but hardly illegal. One could try to achieve a higher (and non-random) standard by charging high entry fees and awarding correspondingly high prices. A procedural penalty does not address the "problem" adequately - first, a incitement in the form of IMPs is hardly effective since system screwups already cost IMPs, second the damage to the field is most often that some random opps get an "undeserved" gift, which won't be addressed by a penalty.

 

How does the occasional partnership with non-solid agreements differ from the novice pair that makes anti-percentage plays? The only difference I can conceive of is that one can't blame novices for making random bad plays and bids, while one can blame a pair for forgetting their agreements - they could play with fewer different partners, or they could play simpler or more standardized systems. However that is not always feasible. Some players try to keep it as simple as possible, but have problems remembering their agreements nonetheless. And personally I would say that it is in the interest of the bridge club that players play with many different partners (it improves social cohesion and also reduces the problems with implicit agreements that are hard to disclose), and also in the interest of the game that there are players who experiment with innovative methods.

[NickRW]

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 really don't track with this at all.

 

Scenario 1: You're sitting NS. I'm at another table EW in a Mitchell movement pairs. Every EW bar me is in a totally obvious 4♥ contract. My partner or I screw up the bidding and end up playing a partial. We get a bottom - the lucky NS at our table get a top. All the other EW pairs get slightly above average and all the NS pairs, including you, get slightly below average. In this scenario I agree our lousy bidding has contributed to you getting a poorer score than you deserved.

 

Scenario 2: On the next board, NS pairs are all playing 3NT. The opening lead is a totally obvious text book thing. You and nearly every other NS make your 3NT on the nose. I however, when defending this, forgot the size of the spot card my partner led and, as a result, miscount the hand and gift declarer an overtrick. Again, through no fault of your own, you get a worse than average score, just the same as in scenario 1.

 

How, then, is responsibility to the field in the bidding one iota different to card play?

 

Nick

 

P.S. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this (and I'm pretty sure you're not going to agree with me), sorry to hear that you feel a bit jaded about the game at the moment.

[mjj29]

The basis of this "responsibility to the field" thing is IMO common sense. Maybe there is a legal basis as well - you would know better than me ;)

 

If there is no legal basis, then TDs should not be awarding any sort of penalty. A TD awarding 'random' penalties and adjustments with no legal basis is more of a dereliction of duty than anything that's been mentioned here.

 

If your lawbook saws "no" then please use your brain instead (that was not intended as an insult - I know you are not one of those TDs who thinks the lawbook was given to Moses on Mount Sinai). If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure the laws (commendably in my view) try to stop that from happening with respect to constant psychs and IMO they should do the same thing with respect to constant systems screwups (for all I know they do already).

 

Regardless of your opinion of what _should_ be in the laws, a TD can only rule what _is_ in the laws. Now, it may be separately useful to discuss what people think should be in the laws, but that's not the primary intent, AIUI, of this forum, which is to discuss how TDs should rule under the current laws.

 

The laws say very clearly L40A3 "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement, provided that such a call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding", L40C1 "A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", L40C2 "Other than the above no player has any obligation to disclose to opponents that he has deviated from his announnced methods", L75C "the partnership agreement is as explained ... the mistake was in South's call. Here there is no infraction of Law ... they have no claim to an accurate discription of the North-South hands".

 

So, forgetting your system per-se is not illegal and must not be punished by a TD.

 

Since forgetting your system is obviously legal and since it is obviously always going to happen on occasion to everyone, the question becomes where to draw the line in terms of how often it should be allowed without punishment and, when the line is crossed to various degrees, how severe the punishment should be.

 

There are some specific situations where you may be able to adjust, but they are not just "they forget a lot". Firstly if it is not clear what the correct agreement is L75C "the Director is to presume Mistake Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary", which allows you to adjust under L21B3 if the other side would have got a better score if they had been properly informed (but note, not a PP). Secondly, if the specific cirmunstance comes up a lot then you may judge there to be a Concealed Partnership Understanding (L40C: "Repeated deveations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed ... If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaed the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty"). The same adjustment can be made because that implicit agreement isn't legal to use in that event (L40B).

 

Matt

[blackshoe]

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum. ;)

 

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.

There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

 

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

[fred]

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum. ;)

 

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.

There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

 

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

As I stated from the beginning, I have no expertise in this area - I basically have no idea about what the laws have to say about how a TD should handle most situations. Thanks to mjj29 for enlightening me about what the laws relevant to this discussion actually do say.

 

Of course I agree that the TD has to follow the laws even if he happens to disagree with what some of the laws should be.

 

Not knowing what the actual laws are (until now at least) I have been arguing for what I think the laws should be. Sorry that I have apparently misused this Forum by placing such thoughts here. I will stop now.

 

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mjj29]

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

If you actually want to get it considered as a law change then you probably want to contact the appropriate people at the WBF, which is one of the reasons there isn't such a forum here, people miight expect that posting a desired change here constitutes an official request to the WBF laws and ethics committee

[blackshoe]

Actually, I think you'd have to go through your NBO. And in the case of the ACBL, at least, there's probably not much chance you'll get anywhere.

[cherdanno]

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

If you actually want to get it considered as a law change then you probably want to contact the appropriate people at the WBF, which is one of the reasons there isn't such a forum here, people miight expect that posting a desired change here constitutes an official request to the WBF laws and ethics committee

I understand this is probably correct as things are, but I don't think this is a terribly productive state of affairs.

I do think it is very important what bridge players, especially top bridge players, think about the laws, what they think is fair, and what they think is ethical or unethical. Enforcing the spirit of bridge laws is a pretty much impossible task for even the best TD - unless the players actively participate ("active ethics"). This can only possibly work when the law and the consensus opinion of what is ethical are in tune.

Wouldn't this be helped tremendously if there was a better way of communication between opinions of experts at bridge and opinions of experts at bridge law? I know there is an overlap between these two, but more communication and public discussion can only help.

A public discussion forum on the merits or problems of laws that gets noticed by the members of the relevant WBF committees could be a good start for that. (Then again, maybe it wouldn't be, given some of the discussions in the other thread.)

[Cascade]

If you ask your brain, it will tell you that the impact on the event of a pair constantly forgetting system would be exactly the same as that which would result from a pair who constantly makes frivolous psychs.

Why should this be any different than someone who screws up with random card play? Thus giving gifts to some players but occasionally winning when the cards lie favourably for their misplay.

[Cascade]

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.

Exactly.

 

A penalty for forgetting your system is essentially a penalty for being a bad bridge player.

 

I prefer to let the scoring system deal with what is good or bad. Occasionally in the bidding or play something will be rewarded that should not be but then there is the next board.

 

My partner has a good philosophy for these things - "we will get two back".

[bluejak]

Matt has pegged it, I think, particularly regarding the purpose of this forum. :ph34r:

 

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest say, among other things, that

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

Note that this does not say that a pair will be entitled to redress - whether they are or not depends on whether a law has been breached. Matt's given a pretty good summary of when that might be the case.

There is no legal basis, AFAICS, for Fred's "responsibility to the field" concept.

 

What makes a tournament "serious"? Is it the general expertise of the players? The rewards for winning? The historical "cachet" of the event? Do Open events qualify, or only Invitational ones, or those with a pre-qualification requirement? As Fred notes, the answers to these questions are somewhat arbitrary. In particular, no authority has defined them, and different people are likely to have different opinions as to the correct answers. The TD has to rule cases on the basis of the laws, not on the basis of his (or someone else's) opinion.

As I stated from the beginning, I have no expertise in this area - I basically have no idea about what the laws have to say about how a TD should handle most situations. Thanks to mjj29 for enlightening me about what the laws relevant to this discussion actually do say.

 

Of course I agree that the TD has to follow the laws even if he happens to disagree with what some of the laws should be.

 

Not knowing what the actual laws are (until now at least) I have been arguing for what I think the laws should be. Sorry that I have apparently misused this Forum by placing such thoughts here. I will stop now.

Well now. We have seen the WBF's view: we have seen the ACBL's view. Both of these are effectively Regulations which give them the force of Law. There have been other events, notably international ones, which have had Regulations covering this subject, and of course they have the force of Law.

 

As to whether the Laws protect the field in any way they do not tend to, and rules for protecting the field are not accepted. As others have said, it makes little difference whether someone forgets the system for a top or does something else stupid for a top. It annoys the current opponents, and makes a tiny effect on the field.

 

Repeated and continuous forgetting system, like frivolous and repeated psyching, probably is a breach of Law, maybe Laws 74A2 and 74B1. I do not mind controlling utter and repeated stupidity, so long as the players are not too inexperienced. I think control of agreements by Regulation is legal. The WBF do not like it: Bobby Wolff's ideas have gained no long-term agreement: but that does not mean such rules are illegal.

 

Whatever the purpose of this forum, we have seen a fair amount of opinon here as to what is legal and perhaps what the Regulations should say. It does not seem wrong for this forum.

 

Maybe the IBLF should consider adding a Forum where people can state opinions as to where and how the laws have room for improvement.

In our previous home there were forums which seemed to suit this - and they have gone now, so perhaps this is now right. But my first instinct is that we do not really need one. Certainly our first three forums, Laws & Rulings, Simple Rulings, and Appeals & Appeals Committees, are designed to answer questions on the Laws as they are, plus some help on other aspects of tournament direction and appeals.

 

But The New Laws is different. It seems to me that it will tend to get fewer and fewer threads as the "new" Law book gets older, and then perhaps the "new" Law book, will be the next one, due in 2017. It feels like a much more suitable forum to discuss what the Laws should be, and several of the threads on our old site did discuss this type of thing. Perhaps we need to rebrand it, change the name slightly to make it clear that sensible discussions on what Laws should be are suitable there.

 

Why do I say "sensible"? Well, there have always been a few people who have mixed our forums up with BLML, where they love pedantry, where every word is analysed, and if a Law can be misinterpreted they do it deliberately for fun. That is not suitable here nor will be accepted. But I do think that The New Laws forum, whether renamed or not, should be the place for sensible suggestions as to changing the Laws.

 

Ed, what do you think?

[blackshoe]

I think that I stopped reading blml because I got tired of arguments about, in effect, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and of being told I was full of it when I suggested that the director should do such-and-such because that's what the laws actually said.

 

Still, I agree that sensible discussion of perceived problems in the laws and possible solutions to those problems is not unreasonable. I do think we will need to keep a tight rein on it. :ph34r: