Convention Disruption Penalty

[jeremy69]

We had the good fortune :) in Lille some years ago to have a pair who played against us using a different defence according to whether we opened a strong NT or a weak NT. Even better they didn't agree with whether 14-16 was weak or strong leading to us playing in 3NT instead of 4S ( a suit which they had shown on one side of the screen only). Why good fortune? Because after an ill considered decision of no damage from a TD it went to an appeal committee chaired by Bobby Woolf who hung the opponents out to dry. They not only had an adjustment against them but had to listen to a scathing lecture on the responsibility that they had to know their methods in a world championship.

 

Maybe he might be right at this level but the EBU has a wing dedicated to storing all the report of hand forms in clubs and congresses where someone has opened 1H and the next hand has overcalled 3C to show two suits with, you guessed it, a load of clubs and then the other hand has played for Ghestem to be forgotten because it was on 9 of the previous 10 occasions. Whilst it undoubtedly adds a random element I don't think it is practical in the world of club bridge to have a situation where players are ruled against solely because they don't know their system not least because of the number of casual partnerships that exist of an evening. Acting on the information that it has happened 42 times before, of course, is a different matter.

If the sequence went as per the OP I would expect 5H to mean a maximum, a heart and diamond control and no club control with a couple of partners but I would be suspicious with most sitting opposite me! :D

[655321]

For those who came in late: another thread from a few months ago covering the same topic.

[iviehoff]

There are several examples of some top-level leading players (Auken/Arnim, Meckwell, etc) forgetting their agreements in the recent World Championships. I haven't got time to go and hunt them down just now. But when world champions forget their agreements, and end up at the 5-level in a 3-3 "fit", it is quite instructive for what ought to happen without screens. Remembering it is behind screens, if on other occasions they occasionally managed to end up in a sensible contract, that is instructive too. I don't recall any cases where they actually could be said to have got a "swindle" out of it. But I suspect that some of the more fortuitous outcomes might possibly have been ruled an abuse of UI had they not been behind screens.

 

People can make just as much a mess of their non-conventional bids as their conventional bids. If they "miss" an unmakeable game (with a 5-0 trump break), because they only raised to 2 instead of 3, should we penalise them?

[dan_ehh]

After reading past threads I see pretty much everything that has to be said has already been said. Post canceled.

[Trinidad]

1. Would this cover deliberate departures from system as well as accidental ones? If not, is the director supposed to ask the player which it was and believe them, or just form his own opinion?

You base it on the available evidence, just like now when they have to decide misexplanation or misbid.

 

2. If it extends to play as well as bidding as in Justin's example could our good result be taken away because I gave suit preference in a situation my partner thought was count? Or even if I knew it was count and just decided to throw out random small cards so as not to help declarer? Remember that directors are not always blessed with the finest bridge judgment and there's a good chance they will just apply the letter of the law.

Seriously, do you think anyone is arguing for a situation like this? If directors make bad rulings then that is a problem with directors, not rules.

 

Seriously, how is a TD supposed to gather this evidence?

 

It is important to have rules, but it is just as important to have rules that can be used, by players and TDs. If TDs make bad rulings because of bad rules, blame the rules, not the TD.

 

Rules against "Convention disruption" are impossible to formulate and therefore impossible to enforce, making every TD a bad TD. No matter how much we hate "convention disruption", if it is impossible to regulate then trying to regulate it will lead to bigger problems than not regulating it.

 

On top of all that trying to regulate "convention disruption" is silly. Regulations cannot stop "convention disruption" more effectively than "nature" is. After all, "convention disruption" is self-regulating. It is in every pairs interest to avoid disrupting their conventions, which is why you see "convention disruption" all the time when you play at your local club and rarely when you play in the Bermuda Bowl. Call it evolution if you like or Intelligent Design if you have to.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

How convoluted can an auction be for a "convention disruption" regulation to be in force?

 

If we go wrong after a 1NT opening and a DONT bid by the opponents are we then guilty of "convention disruption"? It would be entirely reasonable for the 'D' in 'DONT' to stand for 'Disrupt' (i.s.o. 'Disturb'). Are we then guilty, or the opponents?

 

At some point, any pair will get into a situation where they will have conflicting system rules. That includes Meckwell as well as many other worldclass pairs. The only thing that is different between Meckwell and Aunt Millie-Uncle Ted is the level of complication of the auction that the system can tolerate.

 

Aunt Millie and Uncle Ted are totally disrupted after a 2♦DONT overcall. (Does 3♣ now mean what 3♣ always meant or does it mean what 2♣ would have meant?) I am fairly sure that Meckwell can handle DONT quite well. And I am also sure that they get into situations where they can only guess what they are doing.

 

And some of the times, when Millie-Ted or Meck-Well screw up, they will get lucky. But most of the times they won't which is exactly why Meck-Well won the BB and Millie-Ted never will.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I play a convention that from time to time causes quite a bit of disruption with the opponents. (I don't play it with the intent to disrupt, but it does have that side effect.) We play something similar to DONT vs any NT opening, but with the addition that a Dbl promises a good suit and an entry against a weak 1NT. This means that the advancer can (and will) pass the double fairly often.

 

We have had a couple of good results in passing the double and when we meet "previous victims" their NT system is completely disrupted as soon as we double. One player sees it as a conventional double and plays "system on", the other sees it as a penalty double and starts the runout system. This has lead to even more good results.

 

And, inevitably, we got a bad result, since two opponents messed up the auction and stopped in 2♦ with a combined 27 HCPs. (Responder meant to transfer to hearts, opener thought he was running with ♦+♥ and passed 2♦.)

Obviously, the whole field is in a heart game with their hands and, equally obviously, this time 4♥ doesn't make. Needless to say that 2♦ made with overtricks when they happened to be in a fortunate 4-4 diamond fit at the 2 level, rather than the 6-2 heart fit at the 4 level.

 

If I would play in the ACBL would I now be supposed to call the TD because the opponents don't know their system? Or should I already have done that when we had the good results and the opponents screwed up just as badly, but they got the bottom themselves?

 

Rik

[jdonn]

1. Would this cover deliberate departures from system as well as accidental ones? If not, is the director supposed to ask the player which it was and believe them, or just form his own opinion?

You base it on the available evidence, just like now when they have to decide misexplanation or misbid.

 

2. If it extends to play as well as bidding as in Justin's example could our good result be taken away because I gave suit preference in a situation my partner thought was count? Or even if I knew it was count and just decided to throw out random small cards so as not to help declarer? Remember that directors are not always blessed with the finest bridge judgment and there's a good chance they will just apply the letter of the law.

Seriously, do you think anyone is arguing for a situation like this? If directors make bad rulings then that is a problem with directors, not rules.

 

Seriously, how is a TD supposed to gather this evidence?

 

It is important to have rules, but it is just as important to have rules that can be used, by players and TDs. If TDs make bad rulings because of bad rules, blame the rules, not the TD.

 

Rules against "Convention disruption" are impossible to formulate and therefore impossible to enforce, making every TD a bad TD. No matter how much we hate "convention disruption", if it is impossible to regulate then trying to regulate it will lead to bigger problems than not regulating it.

Be careful, impossible is a very strong word. There are such things as convention cards you know...

[jdonn]

Now that I see the other thread, I think I did a much better and more thorough job of making my case in that one. Oddly enough I couldn't even remember it while replying in this one until I saw it again just now.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps you're suffering from "convention disruption" yourself, Josh. :D

[bluejak]

If people at very high levels want Convention Disruption [CD] regulations I do not really care. I do not approve of them at any level, but it does not worry me. But this thread did not start with an example from a World Championship, and people who argue for CD in general are looking to penalise poor players for doing things that will benefit their opponents most of the time. Great: you say you do not want to win by opponents getting things wrong and then you support penalising them for doing so!!!! Amazing!!!!

 

Anyone who supports CD should note what they are supporting:

• If your opponents screw up and you get a good board you will get a good score, and
  
• if your opponents screw up and you get a normal score, they will be penalised, and
  
• if your opponents screw up and you get a poor score, it will be adjusted to give you a normal score
  

Is this really how you want to win? I don't! :D

 

It is difficult to learn conventions and strange agreements. How do you do it? Basically, you play them and learn from your mistakes, usually scattering a few good scores to opponents in the process. Is that not enough?

 

Fred: you do not want opponents to screw up: fair enough. But does that really mean you want to penalise them and adjust in your favour? Because that is the effect of CD.

[axman]

I agree with jdonn so I will take the liberty of answering your question:

 

For some players (including me) players who don't know their system ruin the experience of playing bridge. I would rather not play bridge than play bridge against people who don't know the system they are supposedly playing.

 

I realize this is a subjective opinion and that many people would disagree.

 

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

I am interested in the reason you feel this way. If you would put your finger on it and elaborate on the specifics I would appreciate it greatly.

 

THank you

I would be happy to try, but let me preface my attempt by saying that most of the bridge I have played in the past 15 years has been in ACBL National Championships, World Championships, and major invitational tournaments in various countries. My comments should be seen in that context and not in the context of lesser tournaments or club games (where my enjoyment of the game is almost entirely a function of social factors, where I generally don't care how well my opponents know their agreements, and where I don't think the standards or rules in this area should be the same as they are in high-level events).

 

Here are some of the basic reasons I do not enjoy playing bridge when my opponents constantly screw up their system:

 

1. One of the primary pleasures I get from playing bridge involves the problem solving aspects of the game. I do not enjoy trying to solve problems that are impossible to solve because of faulty premises that my opponents have explicitly provided.

 

2. Just like players who constantly psych, players who constantly forget their alleged agreements randomize the results of the event. I do not enjoy it when bridge devolves into an exercise in randomness.

 

3. I do not enjoy calling the Director, getting into heated discussions with the Director and the opponents, being under time pressure as a result of such Director calls, going to committees, getting into heated discussions with those who serve on these committees and more heated discussions with the opponents, and not getting enough sleep to play effectively the next day as a result of such committees.

 

4. I believe that all partnerships have a responsibility to know their methods. I take this responsibility seriously. It irritates me when my opponents fail to do the same. I do not enjoy being irritated.

 

Note that the results I happen to achieve due to my opponents screwing up do not come into play. Of course it is true that, in the long run, my results are certainly more likely to benefit from such screwups. However, as far as I am concerned that respresents zero consolation for ruining my enjoyment of the game.

 

Please don't anyone bother trying to pick apart my points 1 through 4 above. I was asked to answer a question about why I feel a certain way. I make no claims that these points are or should be true for anyone other than me.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Much appreciation for your time and effort.

 

When I started the Fundamentals thread I had anticipated that topics such as this would eventually be discussed and tested, but the type of discussion needed as yet has been meager.

[jdonn]

But this thread did not start with an example from a World Championship, and people who argue for CD in general are looking to penalise poor players for doing things that will benefit their opponents most of the time.

Neither Fred nor I have suggested such a thing. Who are you debating, the people who are here or some perceived group that I for one don't know exists?

 

Great: you say you do not want to win by opponents getting things wrong and then you support penalising them for doing so!!!!  Amazing!!!!

Why is it amazing, with any amount of exclamation points, to suggest penalizing people for something you don't want them to do? That is exactly what a penalty is, incentive to prevent people from engaging in undesirable behavior.

 

Anyone who supports CD should note what they are supporting:

....

if your opponents screw up and you get a poor score, it will be adjusted to give you a normal score

Yet again, as I have noted you have a penchant for, you credit the opposition with an argument never made. You do this an amazing!!!!!! amount of the time! Please read

[fred]

Fred: you do not want opponents to screw up: fair enough.  But does that really mean you want to penalise them and adjust in your favour?  Because that is the effect of CD.

I don't know nor do I particularly care precisely how Bobby Wolff or anyone else defines the term "CD" or the specifics of how Bobby or anyone else thinks that "CD violations" should be handled.

 

What I want is to enjoy playing bridge. I do not enjoy playing bridge in serious events when my opponents habitually forget their alleged agreements.

 

If this problem can be addressed only by punishing those who don't know their system then so be it. I don't care whether or not such punishment has a direct impact on my score. Adjusting only the opponents score (while leaving mine alone), leaving the table result alone while giving the opponents a procedural penalty, throwing habitual offenders out of the tournament, or even forcing habitual offenders to play SAYC for the remainder of the event would be fine with me.

 

FWIW my clear sense is that Josh and I (and apparently Bobby Wolff) are far from the only high-level players who feel this way.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluejak]

jdonn: This thread is about Convention Disruption [CD]: read the title. That is a method of "controlling" what some people see as unfortunate by penalising. Furthermore, the thread was not aimed at the top level.

 

I do not care much if people just do not like opponents to screw up but not penalise them, but that is not CD - in fact it has nothing to do with this forum at all. The posts here on a thread to do with penalising for getting conventions wrong have included some who say they do not approve if opponents getting things wrong: none of those have then gone on to say "but I would not penalise".

 

Unless you are just talking about something else, I really cannot be blamed on a thread about penalising for getting conventions wrong if I assume that people who say they do not like playing against people who get conventions wrong are supporting this. Surely people who mean otherwise can say so?

[awm]

Perhaps there's a simpler way to deal with this. There are various things that happen in a bridge game which require the intervention of a director. This includes things like revokes, leads out of turn, insufficient bids, unauthorized information, misinformation, and so forth. In many cases there is an offending side which has created some "problem" which cannot be resolved through normal play.

 

This is undesirable for several reasons. First, it makes work for the director. Second, it often means that a "bridge result" cannot be obtained or must be adjusted to some artificial score. And finally, it creates delays in the movement while the director hears about the situation, instructs the players, and so on.

 

Now obviously these situations come up from time to time and mostly they are inadvertent. But if a particular pair creates these situations with substantially higher frequency than most pairs, it seems reasonable to assess a penalty for wasting the director's time, ruining the enjoyment of the game for the opponents (who spend more time explaining things to the director than playing cards) and even annoying the other pairs in the movement (who have to wait for this pair time and again, and also have this pairs occasionally bizarre director-adjusted scores in the comparisons, and may not even get to know the result of the event in a timely manner because of the appeals cases this pair generates). The issue in question (Convention Disruption) is one of many where a director call is basically inevitable, and the director gets to determine "mistaken agreement" versus "mistaken bid" and then has to decide whether to adjust and so forth.

 

Note that this is very different from simple poor plays and poor bids, which do not require the intervention of a director.

[aguahombre]

as Blue said, it is about whether there should be a penalty on this particular auction. I, too do not enjoy a game where people screw up the conventions, but in the given auction I think the action to take is clear. If 5H would be admitted by the opponents to mean something else, then a penalty should occur. If not, and 5H has no meaning to them, then 5H passed should stand.

[jdonn]

Unless you are just talking about something else, I really cannot be blamed on a thread about penalising for getting conventions wrong if I assume that people who say they do not like playing against people who get conventions wrong are supporting this.  Surely people who mean otherwise can say so?

I specifically objected to this comment of yours, in particular that people are looking to penalise poor players:

But this thread did not start with an example from a World Championship, and people who argue for CD in general are looking to penalise poor players for doing things that will benefit their opponents most of the time.

 

You want people to say if they mean otherwise?

 

At best it should be a matter of conditions of contest for a specific event (or class of events, such as NABC+).

Now I'm sure you wouldn't suggest the laws about taking advantage of UI not apply to lesser players. They are simply administered differently, so more experienced players are held to a higher standard. There is no reason that any penalties for forgetting agreements couldn't be administered in similar fashion.

I am not talking about occasional forgets. I am talking about people who basically have no idea what they are doing (and, no, I am not talking about novices either).

My comments should be seen in that context and not in the context of lesser tournaments or club games (where my enjoyment of the game is almost entirely a function of social factors, where I generally don't care how well my opponents know their agreements, and where I don't think the standards or rules in this area should be the same as they are in high-level events).

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

[Trinidad]

Be careful, impossible is a very strong word. There are such things as convention cards you know...

Ok, an example where it should be simple to see what happened. The CC says "Bergen Raises". The auction goes:

1♥-Pass-3♥-3♠

Pass-Pass-Dbl

 

The 3♥ bidder has a 4423 with 11 HCPs. Convention disruption, a silly isolated mistake or meant to pull the 3♦ card and found out too late that it actually was 3♥?

 

This is a very simple convention. (It isn't even a convention. ;)) In this case, we BBF'ers all agree what the 3♥ bid should show. And it starts to get slightly difficult already.

 

Part B

 

Now take a look at the examples of conventions below. They are found on many convention cards.

 

1a.

The convention card says "RKCB 1430" and "PODI/PORI after asking bids". The auction:

1♠ - ... - x♠-... (spades are trump)

4NT-5♥-Pass 1) - Pass

Dbl 2)

I. What does Pass show? (0 keycards or "step 1"= 1 keycard?)

II. What does Dbl mean? (Penalty or asking for the ♠Q?)

 

1b.

The convention card says: "DOPI below 5trump, DEPO above 5trump"

1♥-1♠-2♠*-4♠ * INV+ heart raise

4NT-5♥-Dbl-5♠

What did the double mean? (Same, but now CC said "DOPI/DEPO")

 

2.

The convention card says: "Texas transfers" and "Lebensohl". The auction:

I. 1NT-3♠-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?

II. 1NT-3♦-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?

III. 1NT-2♠-4♦ What does 4♦ mean?

IV. 1NT-2♠*-4♦ 2♠= 55+minors or majors What does 4♦ mean?

 

3.

I. The convention card says: "Weak two's", "Ogust", and "DOPI". The auction:

2♥-Pass-2NT-3♠

3NT

What does 3NT mean? Same, but now the CC says: "Weak two's", "Ogust", and "DOPI after asking bids". And how about (with the same CC's):

2♥-Pass-2NT-3♠

Dbl

 

Suppose that these auctions come up in, let's say, the Blue Ribbon pairs. I hope that you agree with me that the TD can find players who state that the bid should show A and some who state that it should show B. Suppose that an "A" player is playing with a "B" player. So, what is the evidence? What should the TD rule if the wheels came off but the pair using the convention got a lucky result because of it? Should he rule "convention disruption"?

 

I hope that you agree with me that you are allowed to go wrong here even in an event like the Blue ribbon pairs. And I assume that, if we ever can define "convention disruption", we both agree that a pair that doesn't know whether they play Stayman or Puppet Stayman in the Blue ribbon pairs is guilty of "convention disruption".

 

But then the next question is: Where between "(Puppet) Stayman" and "normally easy conventions, made complex by (wild) competitive action" do you draw the line? And after that: "How do you formulate that line in a Law or regulation?" And after that: "Is it worth the effort for a phenomenon that is self regulating because there are not many 'convention disruptors' playing in the Blue Ribbon pairs? (After all, most pairs that mess up Stayman won't manage to qualify.)"

 

If you seriously start to regulate "convention disruption", in my opinion, the cure will be worse than the disease.

 

I am with Andy:

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

 

Rik

[jdonn]

I am with Andy:

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

How can "serial forgetters" be taken care of by the current laws and regulations when there is no current law or regulation against forgetting? There is no misinformation or illegal agreement in play, there are simply forgets.

 

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

[nigel_k]

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

It's correct that there is no remedy for this now. However I don't think a specific cure has been proposed yet.

 

What has been suggested so far is really just that the game would be better if people knew their system and we should do more to bring that about. Which is about the same as Miss Universe contestants saying they want world peace. You have to have a specific plan. I suspect that any specific action in that direction would go some way towards achieving the objective and would also have unpleasant side effects. Also like trying to achieve world peace.

 

CD could apply to just conventions or to all agreements. or maybe only bidding. Or perhaps things that affect opponents bidding, so not RKCB accidents. Except maybe if that affects the defence. Possibly it also includes opening leads but not signals. or maybe not. Or maybe only if they admit they forgot but not if they say it was a deliberate departure.

 

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

[hrothgar]

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

This chambers resolves that

 

"Mom"

"Baseball"

and "Apple Pie"

 

are all good.

 

(So long as the Yankees aren't involved)

(And there is plenty of extra sharp cheddar cheese with said pie)

(And cheesecake is probably even better)

[Trinidad]

At that level of vagueness, of course you can swat away objections by claiming that any harmful side effect will not eventuate. But how about proposing an actual regulation with precise wording so we can have a real discussion?

This chambers resolves that

 

"Mom"

"Baseball"

and "Apple Pie"

 

are all good.

 

(So long as the Yankees aren't involved)

(And there is plenty of extra sharp cheddar cheese with said pie)

(And cheesecake is probably even better)

... And as long as mom doesn't put baseballs in her apple pie.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I am with Andy:

I wouldn't want the rules to penalise isolated instances.  However, I think there is something to be said for penalising serial forgetters in serious events.

And serial forgetters can be taken care of fairly well with the current laws and regulations (misinformation, illegal agreements, etc.).

How can "serial forgetters" be taken care of by the current laws and regulations when there is no current law or regulation against forgetting? There is no misinformation or illegal agreement in play, there are simply forgets.

 

If you think the cure is worse than the disease that's fine (I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with). But don't pretend there is another cure already in existence. There isn't.

No, the laws and regulations do not take care of all the forgets (and I don't think they should). Individual forgets are individual mistakes of the same category as individual misplays. And individual misplays can, on occasion, score well too, just like individual system forgets. You never hear anybody argue that law makers should do something about players who forget "8 ever, 9 never" after a deal where "9 ever, 8 never" happened to work.

 

Convention disruption is the systematic "abuse" of a convention. Typically the players want to play a certain convention and they just don't manage to master it. The original post is a typical example: Giving a transfer, but intended as natural. An other notorious example is the Ghestem error (bidding 3♣ showing the highest unbid, but intended as a natural WJO).

 

In the transfer in the OP, there is no reason to do anything, unless 5♥ has a meaning in the system. In that case, the pass is based on UI. Let the UI laws deal with it. (I don't think that players who forget a Texas transfer have agreements on rebids by responder.)

 

The Ghestem example is dealt with in various ways. A common way is to say that this error occurs so often that there is an implicit agreement that 3♣ is natural or a twosuiter. That would be an illegal agreement in many jurisdictions.

 

When the (natural or twosuiter) agreement is legal, Ghestem abuse is dealt with as misinformation (with the addition that the explanation is UI). This usually deals with the problem adequately.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I'm not going to bother with each of your examples but every single one is very easily dealt with

Fine. Write the regulation that easily deals with them.

 

Rik