Penalties for fogetting system

[kenrexford]

This is all because the opponents have given you information that allegedly they had agreed upon, which turned out to be wrong....

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Choice of wording is important, IMO...

100 pages of system notes proves nothing.

 

During a recent ACBL National Pairs Event I played against 2 well known players who were using one of those systems where a 1C opening could be based on a bunch of different types of hands (including strong hands, weak hands, balanced hands, unbalanced hands, hands with long clubs, and hands with short clubs) and a 1D opening was defined by another collection of seemingly-unrelated possible hand types (including, if I recall correctly, minimum hands with zero diamonds and six+ clubs and minimum hands with zero clubs and six+ diamonds - hmmm).

 

This pair was not a regular partnership.

 

My RHO opened 1D (alert!), I overcalled 1H, and my LHO bid of 2NT (alert!).

 

Just in case the subtleties of this highly-obscure auction have not sunk in yet, I will display it using the traditional notation:

 

1D-(1H)-2NT

 

My partner asked what 2NT meant and was given a detailed answer. Unfortunately the type of hand the 2NT bidder held was completely different in terms of both expected distribution and expected strength than what my partner was told to expect.

 

When the hand was over we called the Director.

 

Not only were the opponents able to produce 100 pages of system notes to prove that the 2NT bidder had "just made a mistake". They proudly showed the TD at least 300 pages of system notes thereby proving just how extensive their partnerships agreements were!

 

Somewhere around page 187, the TD saw that the correct explanation of the 2NT call had in fact been given to us. The whole thing was just a mistake (oops).

 

Naturally the TD bought this, shrugged his shoulders, and walked away.

 

What a joke!

 

Perhaps needless to say, if my opponents during this (true) story were capable of screwing up such a basic auction as this one, I suspect that giving them a quiz of their alleged agreements as documented by their system notes would have revealed that, in many cases, their answers would have disagreed with what their system notes had to say.

 

Partners make agreements with each other. They do not make agreements with their system notes or convention cards. If a player frequently forgets what has been documented, there is disagreement (as opposed to agreement) between the partners.

 

For those who have argued against my basic point but still have not bothered to thoroughly read the initial post, please note that once again in this post I have made references to:

 

- a basic auction

- frequent system forgets

- forgetting alleged agreements

- serious tournaments

 

If you want to discuss examples of forgets in highly complex constructive auctions, very occasional forgets, auctions in which there was no agreement and hence nothing to forget, or forgets in club games, be my guest - I am sure that some of these subjects are interesting too.

 

But you will not be arguing against (or for) the point I was trying to make.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I understand the frustration with your actual example. However, a few observations:

 

1. This is only one hand. Who knows if these two get everything else right?

2. Opener had the agreements down right, as it was explained right.

3. Responder made some idiotic mistake, apparently. However, the fact that this happened this early in the auction suggests that maybe the "mistake" was actually psychic and yet Responder refused to admit this. I would be skeptical of the explanation of a "mistake" under these circumstances and would ask for an explanation as to why this "mistake" happened. Was there a recent change to the system? Does some other bid cover this hand? Stuff like that.

 

Thus, from this example, I'm not sure that the problem is necessarily one of forgetting system. If it is, I'd want to know why. If there is a reasonable explanation for the mistake, then so be it. I'd shrug my shoulders too.

 

Granted, if there are frequent mistakes, this does seem to be a problem. I once played with a man who literally made a systems mistake years ago in Philadelphia at an NABC on more that 50% of the hands dealt. This was embarassing and infuriating, as a result of which I stopped playing with him. It was his complex system that I had learned.

 

Fashioning a solution, though, is a mine-field, IMO, for reasons others have stated. My solution was economics based -- I changed partners because of the cost of playing with that man (embarassment, losing, head exploding, etc.).

[Echognome]

1) I want to note that I did suggest earlier in this thread that someone try to codify a rule and it might be more productive to debate that.

 

2) I think a big problem is intent. This is already a problem, if you think about it, between misbid and psych. That's why I like that the EBU treats them similarly (having green, amber, and red as classifications for both psychs and misbids).

 

Fred tells the story about his opponents that bid (1D) - 1H - (2NT) - ? and was given an incorrect description of what the hand actually held, yet the opponents were able to show that the explanation was correct. I'm unclear on what they did wrong. The way Fred tells it, the opponents have done he and Brad an injustice. But, the TD shrugs and walks away. So what should have happened? What exactly is the problem here? Is the problem that the opponents were playing something complicated so it was more likely they would have a forget? Or was it that the explanation didn't match the hand? I mean I'm sure Fred doesn't have a problem with the latter. People are allowed to psych and allowed to misbid. So, exactly what is the behavior we are trying to prevent? How do we figure out the intent? If we answer those, then it's easy enough to come up with an appropriate level of punishment.

[glen]

... Penalties and adjustments can be assigned to each level of "partnership forgetfulness."  Further, there can be additional penalties for repeat offenders.

According to Fred's parameters (a basic auction, frequent, forgetting alleged agreements, serious tournaments) there are only penalties for repeat offenders. Thus, in Fred's example, the TD might say "well, this is the first time you forgot something somewhere around page 187, so you now get the preliminary warning".

[awm]

Some issues with misbids like the one in Fred's example:

 

(1) Given the opponents methods, partner will almost always be asked for an explanation. This means the "misbidder" will normally have the UI as to what his partner thinks he has, and may try to take advantage. Note that while screens might help with this issue, there are many "serious" events at least in ACBL where screens are not in use, and screens create another problem in that at least one opponent is likely to have been misinformed as to the agreement.

 

(2) Since it is hard to tell between a deliberate psych and a misbid, it may be unclear whether "misbidder" is taking advantage of the UI or has simply psyched, always remembered their agreement, and is trying to reach the best contract possible under the circumstances.

 

(3) Since the methods are highly complicated, there may effectively be "psychic controls" (or should I say, "forget controls") where certain subsequent calls are anti-systemic and indicate that an accident has occurred. Such agreements should not be permitted.

 

(4) Because of extensive partnership experience, misbidder's partner is likely to know not only their current agreement (if he remembers) but also what their agreement "used to be." This gives him a lot more ability to sort out misbidder's actual hand than the opponents are likely to have, and this information is not typically disclosed.

[Phil]

Against a very well known pair (I'll withhold names) in the Denver BAM a few years ago, I heard the following auction:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦*

 

which was "semi-alerted". I asked and was told that 1♦ "denied a four card major".

 

Imagine my surprise when I had to find three discards against 3N, and chose to pitch away from ♠Jxxx when dummy held ♠Axx, and declarer did, in fact, hold ♠KQxx.

 

Fred, would you think this should be actionable?

[jdonn]

Fred tells the story about his opponents that bid (1D) - 1H - (2NT) - ? and was given an incorrect description of what the hand actually held, yet the opponents were able to show that the explanation was correct. I'm unclear on what they did wrong. The way Fred tells it, the opponents have done he and Brad an injustice. But, the TD shrugs and walks away. So what should have happened? What exactly is the problem here? Is the problem that the opponents were playing something complicated so it was more likely they would have a forget? Or was it that the explanation didn't match the hand? I mean I'm sure Fred doesn't have a problem with the latter. People are allowed to psych and allowed to misbid. So, exactly what is the behavior we are trying to prevent? How do we figure out the intent? If we answer those, then it's easy enough to come up with an appropriate level of punishment.

The answer to "what exactly is the problem" and "what behavior we are trying to prevent" is, at least very likely based on the story, the opponents are playing a system they simply can not handle. I mean I look at Ken mention the possibility that the opponents get every other auction in their system right and I just laugh. The auction was 1♦ (1♥) 2NT! It's not exactly breaking new ground.

[barmar]

If responder deliberately psyched the 1♦ response, there's no penalty. If the explanation was incorrect, you get a ruling based on misinformation.

 

If he legitimately forgot that his 1♦ bid denied a 4-card major, then Fred's proposal comes into play. And in this case, it matters whether this was an isolated incident or he has a history of forgetting this part of their system.

[helene_t]

Fred tells the story about his opponents that bid (1D) - 1H - (2NT) - ? and was given an incorrect description of what the hand actually held, yet the opponents were able to show that the explanation was correct. I'm unclear on what they did wrong.

Maybe they didn't have a common understanding of what it meant so the correct explanation would be "no agreement". Then one might wonder whether it is allowed not to have an agreement about such a basic auction.

 

I wonder if the TD is allowed to assess that they in fact did not have the agreement in spite of the system notes "proving" it. I have never heard about such a case, but if a non-regular partnership is able to produce 300 pages of notes and subsequently mess up such a basic auction, it smells like one of them copying his notes from another partnership and the other planned to have a look at it after Christmas.

[cherdanno]

Fred tells the story about his opponents that bid (1D) - 1H - (2NT) - ? and was given an incorrect description of what the hand actually held, yet the opponents were able to show that the explanation was correct. I'm unclear on what they did wrong.

Given that they were not a regular partnership and had many hundreds of pages of system notes, I it is questionable that they had a proper agreement about what 2NT meant.

Say I give you 100 pages of system notes the day before we play, and you tell me "yeah it looks fine" after half an hour, and I know that on page 59 there is the bazumba convention that I know you have never played, and this bid comes up during the play. Can I really assume that your bid is intended as the bazumba convention, and have I fullfilled my obligations when I alert and explain your bid means bazumba?

Of course, "no agreement" is not a good explanation either. Maybe you have read page 59, after all.

[Echognome]

Perhaps it should be a question of making better use of a recorder system?

[NickRW]

My RHO opened 1D (alert!), I overcalled 1H, and my LHO bid of 2NT (alert!).

 

Just in case the subtleties of this highly-obscure auction have not sunk in yet, I will display it using the traditional notation:

 

1D-(1H)-2NT

 

My partner asked what 2NT meant and was given a detailed answer. Unfortunately the type of hand the 2NT bidder held was completely different in terms of both expected distribution and expected strength than what my partner was told to expect.

 

When the hand was over we called the Director.

 

Not only were the opponents able to produce 100 pages of system notes to prove that the 2NT bidder had "just made a mistake". They proudly showed the TD at least 300 pages of system notes thereby proving just how extensive their partnerships agreements were!

 

Somewhere around page 187, the TD saw that the correct explanation of the 2NT call had in fact been given to us. The whole thing was just a mistake (oops).

 

Naturally the TD bought this, shrugged his shoulders, and walked away.

 

What a joke!

So the law got applied, and now you're crying about it. Tough luck.

 

Nick

[fred]

Against a very well known pair (I'll withhold names) in the Denver BAM a few years ago, I heard the following auction:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♦*

 

which was "semi-alerted". I asked and was told that 1♦ "denied a four card major".

 

Imagine my surprise when I had to find three discards against 3N, and chose to pitch away from ♠Jxxx when dummy held ♠Axx, and declarer did, in fact, hold ♠KQxx.

 

Fred, would you think this should be actionable?

Barmar did a good job of summing up my thoughts on this when he said:

 

If responder deliberately psyched the 1♦ response, there's no penalty. If the explanation was incorrect, you get a ruling based on misinformation.

 

If he legitimately forgot that his 1♦ bid denied a 4-card major, then Fred's proposal comes into play. And in this case, it matters whether this was an isolated incident or he has a history of forgetting this part of their system.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

By the way, there are a lot of "maybe's" floating around in response. Most of the explanations given are currently legal. I'd like to focus on Arend's example, because I think it was quite plausible in the given circumstance, although I'm not directing my questions at Arend per se.

 

How should the following be treated differently (if at all)? In all cases, assume these are the facts after one partner has made a misbid.

 

1a. The pair has explicitly had a discussion regarding the sequence and the sequence is "basic".

1b. The pair has explicitly had a discussion regarding the sequence and the sequence is "complex".

 

2a. The pair has co-edited a set of system notes, but has not explicitly discussed all of the sequences. The partnership is newly formed and has not played that much together yet.

2b. The pair has co-edited a set of system notes, but has not explicitly discussed all of the sequences. The partnership has played together for several years.

 

3a. One partner has sent the other partner a set of system notes and that partner has agreed to play them. The partnership is new.

3b. One partner has sent the other partner a set of system notes and that partner has agreed to play them. The partnership is experienced.

 

4a. The partnership is new and agrees to play a "standard" system, which is not clearly defined.

4b. The partnership is experienced and agrees to play a "standard" system, which is not clearly defined.

 

If you want to make a distinction between the a's and the b's, then you also have the problem of deciding what is a new partnership and what is an experienced partnership.

[TimG]

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

[fred]

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?

No - I do not think it is a good idea to treat 1) and 2) the same (at least not in some/most cases).

 

I do think that there should be *some* penalty for habitual offenders in major tournaments. Perhaps procedural penalties and/or individual system restrictions are the best alternatives, but I have not given the specifics a great deal of thought (nor am I really qualified to voice an opinion in this area due to my general ignorance of the laws).

 

It is entirely possible, IMO, that even the best solution would result in problems more serious than the one I would like to see addressed. I suppose the way this should work is, if the powers-that-be decide to strengthen the laws in this area, they can put their heads together and hopefully come up with viable, practical, and fair new laws.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I think handing the opponents or TD hundreds of pages of system notes, when you have no real expectation that both of you are on the same wavelength regarding all of them, is misinformation in and of itself. Maybe partner read about Bazumba and remembered it, but unless you've discussed it you really don't know. I would be very suspicious of such a tome from any infrequent or new partnership, unless they can convince me that the one who didn't actually author the notes has a photographic memory.

 

Partnerships like Meckwell have system notes like these, but they've evolved over years of playing together, discussing situations that have come up and adding things as needed. I doubt even they could handle someone thrusting a hundred pages of notes into their hands and play that system a few days later.

[kenrexford]

I can just imagine the TD calls. 7 minutes per board, two boards a round, 20 minutes at the table reading the system notes, cross-referencing the TD call history this week and this month, e-consulting records bureaus, inquiries into causation, assessing damage if any, explaining and recording the warnings, and then moving on to board #2.

 

This would be particularly fun with the LOLs and LOM's. I'd like to be the first to initiate an interrogation of Edith and Bernie as to how often they forget transfers after 1NT is doubled, and then watching as the TD asks why they forgot, reading through the crumbled set of convention cards shoved in her purse, assessing whether transfers are too complicated for them, and issuing them a warning that they will lose points if they make a mistake again. This would be too rich. I'd really love the committee they would demand, where the inquiry is whether Edith and Bernie are too stupid to play transfers. Then, I would probably pass out laughing when they try to get Bernie to sign that he received a formal warning from the conduct committee for playing with Edith even though Edith is known to forget transfers, as if Bernie cheated for even deciding to play with Edith.

[jdonn]

I think handing the opponents or TD hundreds of pages of system notes, when you have no real expectation that both of you are on the same wavelength regarding all of them, is misinformation in and of itself. Maybe partner read about Bazumba and remembered it, but unless you've discussed it you really don't know. I would be very suspicious of such a tome from any infrequent or new partnership, unless they can convince me that the one who didn't actually author the notes has a photographic memory.

 

Partnerships like Meckwell have system notes like these, but they've evolved over years of playing together, discussing situations that have come up and adding things as needed. I doubt even they could handle someone thrusting a hundred pages of notes into their hands and play that system a few days later.

I think this is a very good point.

 

Seperate remark: This thread must have set a BBF record for hyperbole. And for strawmen.

[TimG]

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

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.

[fred]

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.

Good - I agree 100%!

 

Unfortunately I perceived an early trend in this thread in which seemily all of the "liberal systems regulations" types appeared to be horrified by my suggestion that systems-forgets should be punished under some circumstances.

 

I am glad to see that, in your case at least, it appears my perception was wrong.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

I'm not opposed per se. I just think it's going to be a very difficult task to make such a regulation workable.

 

I think an appropriate place for such a regulation will be in serious competitions. We wouldn't want to start discouraging the rank and file from trying out something new.

 

So how do we propose to sort it out? What are the "basic auctions"? Is "no agreement" a satisfactory answer? How are you going to sort out the additional UI problems? ("Partner's call means clubs." <sneer from partner> "Oh. I mean no agreement." This is obviated with screens of course.) Are you going to create a disincentive for full disclosure?

[the hog]

You don't need a complicated system to stuff things up. I have played in a national event and had the following happen behind screens:

(1NT) X (2C)

What is 2C? One said "Stayman", the other "Runout into Clubs". Now this was also against a top pair who had been playing together for years and were playing Acol, so nothing complicated. I hope those advocating penalties for forgetting your system would treat this pair equally to a pair playing complex methods. I HOPE so, but I suspect not. This thread really seems like another system bashing thread to me.

[mike777]

You don't need a complicated system to stuff things up. I have played in a national event and had the following happen behind screens:

(1NT) X (2C)

What is 2C? One said "Stayman", the other "Runout into Clubs". Now this was also against a top pair who had been playing together for years and were playing Acol, so nothing complicated. I hope those advocating penalties for forgetting your system would treat this pair equally to a pair playing complex methods. I HOPE so, but I suspect not. This thread really seems like another system bashing thread to me.

Excellent example.

 

I thought this thread was all about this exact pair who keep forgetting their system playing behind screens?

 

NOt this pair at my local club.

 

I guess somehow we know this pair keep forgetting their system ...now what?

[mike777]

side note.....assume we have a pair who play together at your local club and we know they forgot their system often........now what?

[glen]

I guess somehow we know this pair keep forgetting their system ...now what?

You point them to this thread and they say "foget 'bout it" (see thread title)