Convention Disruption Penalty

[Vampyr]

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.

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

[Vampyr]

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 led to even more good results.

It sounds to me as if your disclosure methods are faulty. I hesitate to use the C word, but I cannot imagine what you are telling the opponents to get one person to "see it" as a conventional double and one to "see it" as a penalty double.

 

You have to examine how frequently the double is passed. If it is more than half the time, you should alert the call, and explain it as "penalty, but based on a source of tricks, so not strong balanced" or something like that.

 

If it is less than half the time, you should say something like, "artificial, single suited with an entry".

 

Out of common courtesy you could also mention the method at the beginning of a round. At least it should be on the most prominent part of your convention card, so that your opponents will be likely to see it as soon as you hand it to them.

 

There is no excuse for allowing your opponents to get this wrong.

[blackshoe]

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

Isn't that what the current EBU regulation does?

[blackshoe]

Out of common courtesy you could also mention the method at the beginning of a round. At least it should be on the most prominent part of your convention card, so that your opponents will be likely to see it as soon as you hand it to them.

Last time I tried to hand my SC to an opponent, she said something like "get that thing out of my face" and refused to look at it. Come to think on it, that's part of the reason it was the last time. They want to look at the damn thing, they can ask for it (they very rarely do).

 

Where's the smiley for "disgusted"? :)

[Vampyr]

There is potentially a cure, which I think would work pretty well -- simply treat misbids as psyches. There is no objective way to tell the difference anyway. Now if patterns emerge the offenders can be dealt with.

Isn't that what the current EBU regulation does?

Only if it is fielded, I think. Not if it just screws the opponents up.

[Trinidad]

It sounds to me as if your disclosure methods are faulty. I hesitate to use the C word, but I cannot imagine what you are telling the opponents to get one person to "see it" as a conventional double and one to "see it" as a penalty double.

[]

There is no excuse for allowing your opponents to get this wrong.

When you explain a bid, you need to tell what it shows, by partnership agreement. End of story. In this case the partnership agreement is: "A one suiter with a good suit and an entry". It is not our job to tell the opponents that they may go down in 1NT when the opening leader holds a good 6 card suit and an outside entry. And it is certainly not our job to get the opponents to agree on their system.

 

About the frequency of a passed out double:

Where I play (a small club with an average player rating in the top 25 in The Netherlands, no Mrs Guggenheims), there are two pairs that play a weak 1NT. One pair knows what they are doing. They will run from the double before we can pass it out. And as a consequence, if they pass, advancer won't have the hand to pass it out with. When either side has a game, both pairs will usually find a way to bid it. Against them, the frequency is '0'.

 

But the other pair is a combination of Futile Willie-Unlucky Expert. Against this pair, I guess that we may have doubled their 1NT about 10-15 times over the past few years. Of these 10-15 times, responder passed maybe 4 times, and we passed twice, with a good result. Thus, against them, the frequency is 50%. These opponents have their system crossed ever since the first passed out double. One regards the double as not "15+ Bal" (which is probably their system book definition of "conventional") and keeps playing "system on". The other remembers that they went for 500 on a 20-20 hand previously, and thinks 'RUN!'.

 

We play the same method against strong 1NT, but the style is different. The suit requirements are less strict but "garbage" is still not allowed. I passed my partner's double once (for a frequency of about 0.5%), with something like a 15 point balanced hand and we got a good result. I really don't remember who our opponents were on that board.

 

Rik

 

About 10 years ago, I was one of the TDs at a (or maybe "THE") bridge festival in Sweden, which in those days was held in Skövde. David Stevenson had a role as something like "Guest Codirector In Chief". (I guess the "Guest Co" part was because he didn't speak Swedish and because he wasn't familiar with the Swedish regulations.) He told me a story about a ruling (not necessarily from Sweden). I don't remember the details (maybe David does), but the player who called him had something like: ♠xxx ♥AKQJTx ♦Ax ♣xx. The auction had started with a 1NT opening by RHO:

1NT (15-17) - Dbl (DONT)-RDbl-Pass

Pass - 2♥ - etc.

 

David was called to the table since the redouble was conventional and should have been alerted. The doubler claimed to be damaged by the MI. :)

[olegru]

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 believe the key word here is habitually . By some reason this word is missed in your next sentence. I hope you did not want to say that because you do not want to play against people habitually forget their conventions you are willing to punish everybody who misbid.

Problem is – it is the only way how CD could possible work.

Let’s take a look a hypothetical case.

In the first round of Blue Ribbon in San Diego I will misbid against you. Am I habitually misbidder? How could director tell it? I am not good enough to be recognizable and nobody knows how often I forget conventions. No player memos against my misbids were ever filled out. Are directors supposed to investigate partnership experience? It is one thing to misbid with permanent partner, other with somebody you usually have as a teammate but almost never as a partner and absolutely other with picked up partner.

 

I believe somebody already said it, but let’s repeat.

Habitually misbidders have concealed agreements. If they misbid often enough to be known by others they defiantly know that partner’s bid could mean something different from written in convention card. In this case the current bridge law already has mechanism of punishing them. There are no needs to create any additional terms like CD and any additional penalties to fight with them.

[MFA]

I'm against the CD penalty idea. Working with conventional systems is a part of the game and we already have (too) strict limitations in that departement. The bad results optained will be penalty enough.

 

I agree with those saying that the laws already deal with excessive forgets, since that would constitute a partnership understanding that has to be disclosed.

 

I can understand why players don't like much playing against habitual forgetters, but for me it's just equivalent to any other bad bridge which is not so enjoyable as good bridge. Others can feel differently about this of course.

[Zelandakh]

The solution to this one is simple! Just describe the 4♥ bid as "spades, or a hand that 'wants' to play 5♥" :)

[aguahombre]

The solution to this one is simple! Just describe the 4♥ bid as "spades, or a hand that 'wants' to play 5♥" :)

Great post :) I might use it next time at the table, if my opps have a sense of humor.