Penalties for fogetting system

[Sadie3]

Depends on what your local club is like. Mine is at least half players over 70, and several of them forget stayman on occasion. This club is not a "serious" event, and enforcement of penalties for forgetting serve no purpose but to make those that are already having difficulties remembering things feel worse about themselves. Stratifying the games help this situation, and several of the life masters, silver life masters...etc. are being downgraded to flight C as their skill level decreases. These players still love the challenge of the game and know better than to attend regionals, nationals, and world events because they are out of their element. Everything needs to be put in perspective.

[helene_t]

I don't think anyone is arguing that an automatic procedural penalty should be mandated by the laws so that all events have to enforce it. It would be in the CoC for events at a certain level.

 

As such, those of us who only play and/or direct in club games and minor tournament have little interest in this discussion. But I would be worried that it could drift downwards.

 

Hopefully at least those of us who don't live in ACBL-land have little to fear.

[kenrexford]

I don't think anyone is arguing that an automatic procedural penalty should be mandated by the laws so that all events have to enforce it. It would be in the CoC for events at a certain level.

 

As such, those of us who only play and/or direct in club games and minor tournament have little interest in this discussion. But I would be worried that it could drift downwards.

 

Hopefully at least those of us who don't live in ACBL-land have little to fear.

I think a Conditions of Contest for a high-level event should very seriously consider this type of rule. However, to be fair, I think that this should be tempered with a requirement to have fully-developed agreements and not seat of the pants as an agreement.

[TimG]

I think mandatory (even for 2nd or 3rd offenses) penalties for system forgets is a bad idea. Consider the case of a proper alert and explanation of a mistaken bid.

• You will be relying upon the opponents to report the mis-bid.
  
• The mis-bid will often lead to a poor result for the "offending" side. If the non-offenders (who have just received a good result) now call the director to report the mis-bid and have the mandatory penalty applied, that will be seen as unfriendly (and piling it on).
  
• "Professional courtesy" may preclude some players from calling the director to report some other players.
  
• Some players may be more likely to report certain forgets (such as when opponents are playing methods they don't approve of in the first place).
  
• All this will mean inconsistent application of penalties.
  
• Even when a mis-bid is reported, there may be difficulty in determining whether the deviation was intentional: "our agreement is that 1N denies a 4-card major, but I intentionally bypassed this one for tactical reasons". How would it be determined whether the mis-bid was intentional or mistaken?
  

Suppose I'm playing in a 4-session NABC pair event. I'm playing with someone with whom I don't have a longtime partnership. We've discussed our system, played a couple of other events, practiced online, etc., but are far from polished. The first day goes smoothly, we have some good fortune, and just make the cut for the second day. Early in the 3rd session we make some mistakes, get a bit discouraged, start thinking about what's been going wrong and one of us mis-bids. I'm a passed hand, my partner opens 1S, I have clubs and bid 2C even though we had agreed to play Drury -- I don't play Drury with many partners and I just bid what was in front of my face, I always got this right during bidding practice, but lost focus here. The director is summoned and it is recorded that we've had a forget. 4th session comes along, our game probably is worse than the 42% we had in the afternoon and I'm getting tired -- this takes more out of me than playing Saturday and Sunday at a local sectional. Round 8 comes along, the auction is 1C-(P)-1H-(1S) and despite playing support doubles and holding three hearts, I rebid 1N with the spades well under control. My partner correctly explains that I've denied three hearts. Director is called and my mis-bid is reported. Director says "Don't I recognize you from this afternoon? That's a 1/4 board procedural penalty because this is your second offense."

 

I don't think this is the scenario that anyone is looking for. But, I'm not sure how you go about crafting a rule for this without running into such a problem.

[Trinidad]

I think mandatory (even for 2nd or 3rd offenses) penalties for system forgets is a bad idea.

 

[]

 

I don't think this is the scenario that anyone is looking for.  But, I'm not sure how you go about crafting a rule for this without running into such a problem.

Exactly. This is a case where the cure will be much worse than the disease.

 

Rik

[nige1]

[snip] 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". [snip]

I want system regulations scrapped but, of course, I agree with Fred. For exampe, the rules can define a standard system (I'd prefer a global standard but a local standard would be OK. Then the rules could stipulate ...

• If you play the standard system without addition or amendment (deletion allowed) then the director will tolerate most misexplanations (For example, if you are beginners or in a pick-up partnership).
  
• Otherwise, if you are playing some other system and you don't know, then you may guess. The director treats a wrong guess as a misexplanation.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then an opponent may ask your partner to explain his own call (usually you must first leave the table to minimise unauthorised information).
  

:) Simple :)

[JLOGIC]

I miss fred posts/threads :)

[Dirk Kuijt]

I've read all 11 pages of this discussion. Fascinating, yet it is clear that there is nothing close to agreement.

 

(I've said before, and want to go on record again here, that my answer to these questions is: no requirement to disclose and no limitation on systems, and that I'm fully aware that this answer is incompatible with the current laws.)

 

However, I would like to repeat a question to Fred that was asked before, but not, as far as I can tell, answered:

 

1. What is a 'serious' event?

2. How significant a problem is this, anyway?

 

I realize that definitions of "basic sequence" and "frequent misinformation" are inherently vague. Basic in some relay system might go several rounds, simply because the bidding goes more 'slowly'. On the other hand, a second round sequence, especially in competition, may be 'rare'.

 

And frequency is very hard to measure, since we are talking about rare events. If your opponents screw up twice in the eighth round of a Swiss team event, you are likely to conclude that they don't know their system. Of course, you haven't played against them on the previous seven rounds; if they were correct over that period, are they on the wrong side of the law or not?

 

Defining a 'serious' event, however, is a different story. You know, or at least, should be able to know, when you enter an event, what the rules are for that event, before you start. So, I'm going to ask Fred to define, precisely what is a 'serious' event.

 

The other question is even more basic. Is this really a problem, anyway? Of course, in bridge, rare things can be interesting (when was the last time you played a guard squeeze?). But interesting doesn't mean that we need to change rules to handle a super rare case. People that habitually make system mistakes aren't likely, in my humble opinion, to qualify for the semifinals of the Spingold. Are there people at that level making a bunch of system errors? Or is this whole thing just a tempest in a teapot?

[nige1]

IMO

• Bridge events should be fun not serious -- another good reason for scrapping system restrictions.
  
• But Fred is right: "forgetting" and inadequate disclosure is a serious problem of frequent occurrence at all levels. Sometimes, when leaving a table where you suspect opponents of prevarication, you overhear a post-mortem that confirms your suspicions. On two occasions, when I've called a director to report this, the facts weren't disputed, but no action was taken against putative "offenders".
  

[JLOGIC]

[*] Bridge events should be fun not serious -- another good reason for scrapping system restrictions.

lol?

[Free]

• 
   
  
• Bridge events should be fun not serious -- another good reason for scrapping system restrictions.
   
  

This is quite a contradiction. People who are very comfortable with current methods won't like "anything goes".

 

Btw, bridge events should sometimes be very serious.

[TimG]

Btw, bridge events should sometimes be very serious.

Aren't serious events fun?

[nige1]

Btw, bridge events should sometimes be very serious.

Aren't serious events fun?

Yes. Serious and Enjoyable is fine. Sorry. Good point TimG! ;)

[Pict]

If I entered a competition against world class players and repeatedly failed to remember my basic bidding system, I'd enquire about withdrawing.

 

If I couldn't conveniently leave, I would cheerfully accept any prescribed penalties.

[NickRW]

If I entered a competition against world class players and repeatedly failed to remember my basic bidding system, I'd enquire about withdrawing.

 

If I couldn't conveniently leave, I would cheerfully accept any prescribed penalties.

Would you have been invited? Perhaps, if your cheque book is quite thick.

[PrecisionL]

I play a transfer Strong Club System with about 60 pages of notes just for the opening bid of 1♣ and follow-ons. I believe I have 2 system forgets in 5 years playing at ACBL NABCs or Regionals with no harm to the opponents. We practice active ethics and alert and offer to explain the bidding before the opening lead. Many opponents pass on the offer to explain before the opening lead.

 

However, I have been harmed by the opponents system forgets and there has never been a penalty or equity restored. It appears to be the rub of the green.

 

Now, along comes Bobby Wolf: http://bobbywolff.bridgeblogging.com/    7/31/2009

 

Regarding Appeal #4 which happened during the 2d qualifying session of the Von Zedtwitz Life Master Pairs during the Washington DC, Summer Nationals:

 

"It is past time for us, in the interest of fairness and equity, to make what happened, Convention Disruption (CD), an official offense, to be penalized accordingly, which hopefully, in the fullness of time, will force conventioneers to either learn their conventions or exercise their other option of not playing them and, if necessary, scratch them off the convention card."

 

[Details of infraction and Appeal is discussed on Bobby's Blog.]

 

And I have to admit that I partially agree with his statement and would welcome an attempt to address CD.

 

P.S. Also a Reno Appeal and the USBF Teams Round Robin had another CD with no penalty that decided the KO.

[hrothgar]

"It is past time for us, in the interest of fairness and equity, to make what happened, Convention Disruption (CD), an official offense, to be penalized accordingly, which hopefully, in the fullness of time, will force conventioneers to either learn their conventions or exercise their other option of not playing them and, if necessary, scratch them off the convention card."

 

And I have to admit that I partially agree with his statement and would welcome an attempt to address CD.

What's so special about "Conventions"? (especially now, when the very concept has been stripped from the Laws)

 

If you want to start punishing players for screwing up a bidding sequence, fine... Just make sure that you apply the same standard uniformly. When Mrs. Guggenheim screws up her nice natural bidding sequence, make sure to haul her off to the woodshed as well.

 

On a more serious note: Wolff has argued repeatedly that the game would be improved if "the right sort of people" could issue whatever rulings they wanted, laws and regulations be damned. Sure, we'd all have to sacrifice little niceties like the rule of law, but at least the trains would run on time.

 

I find his entire line of argument abhorrent. Moreover, given his past behavior he's the last person I'd want to see enshrined as a strong man...

[awm]

The current laws seem to depend a lot on discerning what the actual agreement is. This creates a number of issues, for example:

 

(1) It seems to give an advantage to pairs who have written down system notes which they brought with them to the tournament, since otherwise it is difficult to "prove" an agreement. In extreme cases, a tournament result may depend on whether a pair has easy access to a printer...

 

(2) There are certainly pairs who have copious system notes, but where one or both partners have not actually read (or certainly memorized) the notes. It's questionable whether an agreement can really exist if only one partner knows about it. I'm even aware of pairs who adopt the notes of other pairs wholesale, such that neither of them may be aware of what their actual "agreement" is. It seems to me that in order for an agreement to be an agreement, it must be known by both partners -- and a "forget" implies that at least at the table, it wasn't.

 

(3) In some extreme cases (like Fred's opponents with 300 pages of notes) it seems possible that the same sequence might be defined more than once with different meanings at different places in the notes. Especially if the notes simply accumulate over time without serious re-reading and editing, this can certainly occur. Such a situation might actually give an advantage to a pair which can now "prove" whatever agreement was explained at the table...

 

(4) Even if a pair can prove that the explanation they gave really is their agreement, it seems likely that partnership experience gives some information about possible "forgets" as well as what might be the hand held on the occasion of a "forget" (i.e. based on a prior agreement that was changed, or an agreement partner is known to have in his other partnerships). Since this type of experience is never disclosed, it's arguable that even though the disclosure was the official "agreement" there is still an inequality of information.

 

It does seem like it would be easier if the ruling didn't depend on the official agreement. Why not just treat all such cases as if they were an incorrect explanation (unless the bidder indicates it was a deliberate psych)? This solves the problem of people needing to bring their hundreds of pages of system notes to the tournament (and the director needing to sort through them).

[zasanya]

Gödel’s Theorem http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ G%C3%B6del% 27s_incompletene ss_theorems .

Gödel proved that “A complete system cannot be consistent, and a consistent system cannot be complete”. The drive by lawmakers to achieve completeness on the one hand, and consistency on the other has frequently brought the lawmakers to a losing head to head tussle with Gödel. Most lawmakers, oblivious of the limitation, and in their attempt to achieve completeness invariably introduce inconsistencies.

Consistency, or completeness: Ultimately, we can have one or the other – not both. What will YOU choose?

This seems to be the crux of the matter in all discussions pertaining to Bridge Laws.

[helene_t]

Nah, Godel's theorem doesn't apply here since the words "consistent" and "complete" have much stronger meanings in mathematics than when it comes to bridge regulations.

[campboy]

Nah, Godel's theorem doesn't apply here since the words "consistent" and "complete" have much stronger meanings in mathematics than when it comes to bridge regulations.

True, and also because his results require certain assumptions about the complexity of the structure being modelled which do not apply here.

[gwnn]

Nah, Godel's theorem doesn't apply here since the words "consistent" and "complete" have much stronger meanings in mathematics than when it comes to bridge regulations.

Still one of the better attempts of applying it to unrelated areas I think.

[the hog]

Wolff spouts a great deal of nonsense and has lost any sort of credibility with the comments he has made both in his book and on his and other blogs. The term and concept "convention disruption" is an idiocy. I totally agree with Richard's point of view on this topic.

 

Partner and I had about 200 pages of notes detailing a relay canape system, constantly checked. There were very few system forgets in a partnership that extended over years.

[billw55]

It is all an interesting debate. I am wondering one thing: is this really a common problem in actual live events? i.e. is it a common occurrence for pairs in a "serious tournament" to have "frequent" misunderstandings in "basic" auctions?

[NickRW]

If you read Wolff's example:

 

1) North made a relatively sensible "unusual" or "sandwich" 1NT overcall, but as an unpassed hand in 4th seat.

2) South misdescribed it as "strong" (or North psyched - one or the other).

3) South then made a call (3S) that would have or might well have been minor suit stayman, had the overcall been strong - but held nothing like that sort of hand - indeed South held spades - when something like a 2H transfer would have been more in keeping with that sides general agreements.

4) North described this as "no agreement" - which might strictly have been correct, but, never the less, North, in receipt of UI that his overcall had been misinterpretted, passed the 3S bid holding spades himself.

 

There are several possible interpretations of what was going on there, but the least of which was E/W had been given serious misinformation - and therefore adequately covered under existing law - IMO. Can't see how the example is a good case for supporting a change in the laws.