Penalties for fogetting system

[fred]

Doesn't this whole concept open up a can of worms?

 

I mean, what is the functional difference between non-disclosure of a written-down agreement and non-disclosure because the partnership lacks any agreement as to a specific auction? 

 

The functional difference that in one case the opponents tell you "no agreement" and in the other case they tell you "our agreement is blah blah blah" and "blah blah blah" turns out to be wrong.

 

The term "misunderstanding" has been used by several people. The way I see it, a misunderstanding is what happens when you don't have an agreement about a sequence and the two members of the partnership interpret the sequence in two different ways. This happens to top players a lot more often than pure system-forgets.

 

If a series of calls leads to a certain bid that neither partner has any agreement on, then disclosure is off, and results can be affected.

Agree. I am not suggesting that the laws should try to do anything about these kinds of misunderstandings (provided of course that the call in question is explained as "no agreement" - unfortunately it is the case that some people, who are no doubt trying to be helpful, sometimes say instead something like "I am taking it as blah blah blah" which creates yet another slippery slope on which yet another arbitrary line must be drawn).

 

Should we then penalize people who have insufficient complexity also?  If two peeple end up indicating "no agreement" too often, is that also actionable?

 

This is an interesting question. In a "serious tournament" I would answer "yes" on the Cavendish-like basis of "players are required to know they system" which to me presupposes that the players must have some kind of system to remember. It would not be acceptable in a tournament like that to have, say, one player open 2D and his partner to explain 2D as "no agreement".

 

For sure it is hard to know where to draw the line, but in my experience this is very much a non-problem.

What if the agreement is insufficiently stated? 

Also not acceptable and also subject to penalty, but I don't see what this has to do with the current discussion.

 

I mean, as a person who, for instance, has developed cuebidding style into a complicated but precise structure, should I be able to call the TD because my opponents have a more free-style general values cue style, where neither of them really knows what the other means by his cues or by inference of not taking another call?  Whereas I can fullyu discclose the "meaning" both definitionally and inferentially, which is full disclosure, others cannot.  Should that be punished by an adjustment?

 

I think this is very different from the pair who does not know what their own 2D opening means. IMO your example falls on the other side of that hard-to-define line which is intended to define the minimum set of agreements it is reasonable to expect a pair to have.

 

IMO it is not reasonable, in a serious event, for people to say "I don't know what a 2D opening means", "I don't know what our 1NT range is", "I don't know what it means if you open 1NT and I overcall 2D", etc. However, it is equally unreasonable to force every pair to have agreements about every possible call in every possible auction.

 

My point is that there seems to be a bias against systemic errors or forgetting when the system is deemed different from standard, but the standard approach is a mess of jumbled nonsense itself and seems to more often lead to wags and hunches than a structured approach.  And, the "nuances" from "style" are never deemed systemic, subject to disclosure, and sometimes "forgotten."  The "that's common sense" type of response, if there even is one, stands in stark contrast to the incredibly tight definitional glitches that raise ire when a "different" approach is used.

 

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

 

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gordontd]

I learned in the IBLF Forum that apparently the law can't do much in terms of "punishing" players who don't know their systems.

There's bound to be a problem with attempting to "punish" players for doing accidentally something that they would be permitted to do deliberately.

[helene_t]

There's bound to be a problem with attempting to "punish" players for doing accidentally something that they would be permitted to do deliberately.

I think that is moot. We are talking about frequent system forgets.

 

If partner psychs a particular bid frequently, then it's not a psych anymore but has become an implicit agreement.

[hrothgar]

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

 

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

 

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

[gnasher]

I mean, as a person who, for instance, has developed cuebidding style into a complicated but precise structure

Should we infer anything from your calling it "precise" rather than "accurate"?

[fred]

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

 

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

 

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

If you suggesting that scientists intentionally stop disclosing agreements out of fear that they might get penalized if they have forgotten their agreements, then I suppose this would be a nice way for such scientists to have their cake and eat it too.

 

Unfortunately it would also be cheating.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hotShot]

If one player of a partnership forgot about an agreement, it's almost unavoidable that this pair continues to bid without misinforming their opponents.

There will be either a failure to alert or they gave a wrong explanation about their alerted bid. Without screens there will be an additional UI problem.

 

So the TD almost always has a law available that allow for a score correction.

 

But we have to remember that the TD has no BIS (Bridge Investigation Service) or TSI (Tourney Scene Investigators) that can prove what really happened.

 

In a serious event, the TD could rely on screens and system descriptions submitted in advance. So there would be notes and system descriptions available.

[hrothgar]

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

 

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

I guess that all the scientists will need to start playing a much deeper game and make sure that we're being as "artful" as possible...

 

The most obvious dodge is to make damn sure that as little as possible ever transitions from abstract "hypothetical" to actual agreement.

If you suggesting that scientists intentionally stop disclosing agreements out of fear that they might get penalized if they have forgotten their agreements, then I suppose this would be a nice way for such scientists to have their cake and eat it too.

 

Unfortunately it would also be cheating.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I'm claiming something rather different:

 

Scientists should intentionally stop formalizing their agreements out of fear that the rules set will discriminate against them if they aren't "artistic" enough in their approach to the game...

[jdonn]

I'm claiming something rather different:

 

Scientists should intentionally stop formalizing their agreements out of fear that the rules set will discriminate against them if they aren't "artistic" enough in their approach to the game...

I think an accurate way to state that premise would be "People would stop creating agreements they worry they won't be able to remember out of fear of punishment should they forget an agreement." Well, that's the whole point. It's not a desire to wait for people to forget agreements and then punish them, it's a desire to create an incentive for people to not use an agreement they can't remember. In other words, this situation would probably be viewed as a positive by supporters of this type of rule.

 

Alternatively, instead of eliminating agreements, scientists might simply practice their agreements more. Everyone wins then.

[NickRW]

I don't know how many times I can say it, but the comparison does not hold. Bad defense or declarer play is equivalent to bad bidding judgment, not to forgetting your system.

Well, in which case, forgetting your carding agreements, misinterpreting partner's signal and such like is equivalent to forgetting your bidding system.

 

Nick

[Trinidad]

If you agree with "players have a responsibility to know their systems" then, yes, there is a bias against those who play complex systems - the more agreements a pair has, the more responsibility they have as well.

 

IMO this is perfectly fair. The way I see it, those who object want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

As for your "jumbled nonsense" nonsense, to some people bidding is more of an art than a science. That doesn't make it nonsense except to those who are incapable of appreciating art.

Scientists have a lot of explicit agreements. They are nicely documented in their 100+ page system book.

 

The problem is that the "artists" also have a vast arsenal of agreements. But their agreements are implicit rather than explicit. These agreements are not documented. But somehow the artist gets his message across to the "connoisseur" (his partner). The reason is that the formal, simple system that the artists use is full of holes. But during the years that they have played together, the system holes have been fixed "on the fly". Since people (even artists) tend to repeat their behavior when it was succesful, the artist is developing a pattern of "system hole fix methods". The partner knows this pattern, since he was present during the development.

 

The problem is that the artist thinks that this pattern is "general bridge knowledge" and that it therefore doesn't need to be disclosed, while in fact it is knowledge, specific for the partnership and has to be disclosed.

 

To state it clearly, the artists know exactly when a bid can be made on a three card suit, since they recognize the situation. They also know which bids are reliable. Not disclosing these tendencies is err well... , since you already used the "c-word", err... an infraction. Just as much as it is an infraction when scientists do not disclose their methods.

 

Rik

[NickRW]

What it might do is get me annoyed.

And I tend to get "creative" when I get annoyed...

Yes, I see what you mean. Frankly there is enough in the rules and regulations that I don't 100% see eye to eye with now - if this travesty were to overtake the game, I wouldn't be a player anymore.

 

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like - this change would make the whole thing unacceptable to me.

 

Nick

[helene_t]

Should we then penalize people who have insufficient complexity also?  If two peeple end up indicating "no agreement" too often, is that also actionable?

When playing without screens, "no agreement" may be more damaging than a wrong explanation. Say we have one defense against a natural 2♦ overcall and another against a Hamilton 2♦, but we forgot to agree on a defense against a "no agreement" 2♦ overcall.

 

With screens the wrong explanation is probably worse. We could agree on a defense against a "no agreement" 2♦ overcall, but it's hard to have solid agreement against bids that are explained differently at the two sides, other than making our defenses as independent as possible of the meaning of opps' bids.

[barmar]

I agree with Josh: the incentive is to not try to be a scientist if you don't have a scientific mind.

 

I read Ken's book on cue bidding a while ago. It looks like a great system, but I could tell right away that there's no way I can remember all those details.

 

Some people play RKCB in a way where the choice between 3014 and 1430 responses depends on whether asker is the stronger or weaker hand, which then requires sometimes complex ways of knowing which case applies. If you can't remember that part of the convention, you shouldn't play this form.

 

I have one question: when we talk about "frequent system-forgets", how frequent do we mean? Some of the responses have suggested that such players probably won't make it to the later rounds of any serious events, which suggests they think this happens multiple times in a session, enough to seriously impact their score. I doubt this is very likely, so I think frequent may mean once every 5-10 sessions. Also note Fred's later clarification; he's not talking about forgetting something that comes up once every 6 months in complex auctions, he's talking about relatively frequent situations, like forgetting whether a 2♦ opening is weak 2, multi, or Flannery, or what you do after interference with your 1NT oening.

[TimG]

Also note Fred's later clarification; he's not talking about forgetting something that comes up once every 6 months in complex auctions, he's talking about relatively frequent situations, like forgetting whether a 2♦ opening is weak 2, multi, or Flannery, or what you do after interference with your 1NT opening.

I wonder how often this sort of thing happens in a Vanderbilt, Spingold or US Team Trials? These are the sorts of events I think Fred would consider "serious".

 

Even in a "lesser" NABC event like an Open Pairs, I don't imagine these sorts of basic forgets are very common. I haven't played in one of these events in a while, so maybe I am wrong. If these events are plagued with forgets, then something should probably be done to address the situation. I think penalizing system forgets will simply discourage non-top-level players from entering the events rather than encouraging them to be more prepared when they do enter the events. But, maybe that's a good thing, at least from the perspective of a player like Fred.

[Free]

I wouldn't be against it, but I also wouldn't put any effort in this case either. If the error happens with the first bid anyone makes I think it should be penalized (like when you're playing Ghestem for example), but after a few rounds of bidding you should get away with it.

 

Imo it might be difficult to differentiate between an error and a psych. For example, what if you play transfer splinters, and you show a void in a suit where you have 432 while you have a void somewhere else. One could argue that you forgot you play transfer splinters...

[Sadie3]

Events are goverened by whoever runs the event. In my local club, I allow all conventions and encourage full disclosure. It is a learning tool and many mistakes are made. I think this is the level where these kinds of things should occur. I also think that the bidding and practice tables are great for this here at BBO. I would never tell a player they must take a convention off their card because they are playing it incorrectly. I would tell them them they must play it correctly, or be penalized if it causes their opps damage and follow through on it. Bridge players are not children and I believe they would be infuriated with me if I tried to tell them they were not allowed to play their conventions just because they hadn't followed it completely (for whatever reason).

[peachy]

Imo it might be difficult to differentiate between an error and a psych.

Little off topic since tis thread is about forgetting agreements, not about psychs.

 

A psych is a "deliberate and gross deviation from partnership agreement". A system forget is never a psych because if one does not know what the agreement is, one cannot deliberately (with intention) grossly deviate from it.

[cherdanno]

Btw, I now agree that this discussion is off-topic for a laws forum. Laws are meant to be the rules that are identical for events starting from the non-life masters Wednesday afternoon game to the final of the Bermuda Bowl. As long as noone wants to enforce Fred's rule in the Wednesday afternoon game, and as long as the laws allow for it, the place for this regulation is in the Condition of Contests. Where, apparently, at least in NA things are not so far removed from the way Fred and his friends like to see them. (I believe the USBF has a similar rule in the CoC.)

[kenrexford]

Fred,

 

I understand your point of view. Please consider mine a little more completely.

 

People who define a lot of sequences typically are able to provide much more detail about specific bids than other "artists." However, those of us in that camp often face constant director calls for ever-so-slight system exceptions. The rare deviation that would be ignored if we played "SAYC" becomes a moral outrage and sometimes even subject to extreme hostility.

 

Meanwhile, try asking an "artist" for more explanation of the bid and/or nuances therefrom, and you get snide remarks and scoffing, with belittling.

 

When the scientist considers the downside to his approach, it is in the over-disclosure to the opponents. However, an upside is actually ethics. Ethics, in two senses -- first, disclosure to the opponents, second, reduction of any risk of huddle-feels. When scientists compete against "artists," the sense that we have is that "artists" under-disclose and (subconsiously) use tempo as a means to relaying information (or, more precisely, read tempo changes subconsciously to retrieve information).

 

You are right that forgetting system is infuriating when the green rubs wrong or when the TD's adjust wrong. However, your suggestion meets some of us sourly because there is no real ability to right the wrongs of the errant artist, and even a lot of denial that the wrong even exists, by artists themselves.

[kenrexford]

Here's a way to illustrate what I mean.

 

Consider an auction:

 

1♠-P-2♣-P-

2♥-P-2♠-P-

4♦

 

Ask me, a scientist, what this shows, and I'll explain "precisely a stiff in diamonds, and not higher than the stiff Queen, two of the top three spades, three of the top four hearts, and not the Ace or King of clubs." Suppose, however, that I forgot to mention that the stiff could be as high as stiff Queen but not stiff King, or even worse if I violated somehow, even if intentionally. Partner might correct me after the auction, or my hand might end up dummy somehow and not meet the defintion, and then all Hell breaks loose.

 

Ask an "artist," or at least some of them, and you get something like "shortness in diamonds." Ask range, or specifics, and you get scorn, but no answer. Ask for how a 3♦ bid instead would be different, and you get that this would be information derived from information I am not entitled to because I am only entitled to the meaning of the 4♣ call, or something like that. Ask anything more, and you get nothing more. On top of that, the speed with which Opener bids 4♣ usually has a buried, subconscious meaning that Responder usually subconsciously "feels" and unwittingly acts upon, from at least perceived experience.

 

Note, by the way, the relative impossibility of taking any inference from the "scientific" 4♣ call, because the definition is so strict, and because only that call was allowed if the hand is otherwise suitable.

[jdonn]

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

[kenrexford]

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

Well, hyperbole, of course.

 

However, changing the rules to punish people who are trying to do the best that they can but forget their system, which usually results in a great score for us, simply because it stirs up the game, and is somehow worse than the other gifts and fixes tossed about constantly, seems similarly hyperbolic.

 

IMO, the problem is Matchpoints. The longer the session, and the more face-to-face the event, the less you care about the occasional fix.

[skjaeran]

My rule book seems to be very sparse in detailing exactly how much penalty to impose for a lot of infractions.  For instance, I can not find where it says to penalize a full board or a 1/3 board for cell phone usage.  Can anyone guide me to where it tells this?

There's nothing on this in the Laws, it's up to the Regulating Authorities to define these things.

 

In Norway we have guidelines on this in an appendix to our Tournament Regulations.

And they are?

Generally:

First time offence: Warning

Second offence: 10% of top on a board (0.5 VP)

Later: 20% of top on a board (1 VP)

 

Spesific:

Different types of offences are listed, for some you don't get a warning, but are awarded a PP as for second offence above.

[jdonn]

Ken the problems with those situations is with peoples' behavior, nothing more. Is it really scorn every single time you ask a question, and all hell breaking loose every single time you misexplain a bid? You must play in some rough company.

Well, hyperbole, of course.

 

However, changing the rules to punish people who are trying to do the best that they can but forget their system, which usually results in a great score for us, simply because it stirs up the game, and is somehow worse than the other gifts and fixes tossed about constantly, seems similarly hyperbolic.

 

IMO, the problem is Matchpoints. The longer the session, and the more face-to-face the event, the less you care about the occasional fix.

I want to argue but I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic.