Uncertain agreements and the law

[bluejak]

If you do not like such events, surely you just do not play in them?

 

I agree that one solution is to take my bat home and not play again but a. I don't feel that strongly about a couple of pairs playing what they did b. I should be capable of taking care of myself anyway but I don't think systems such as these suit short rounds and if they contrive to spoil what is otherwise a good event then now is the time to say it before the next one is planned. The organisers, of course, are free to ignore me and probably will.

Sure. But such actions do not spoil such an event: it is is just a strange idea that has grown up with no apparent basis that misunderstandings spoil events. They don't. In fact misunderstandings are very common, but for some strange reason, when you misunderstand a natural system, no-one makes any remark: when you misunderstand a "strange" system people think it is totally different.

[jeremy69]

But such actions do not spoil such an event: it is is just a strange idea that has grown up with no apparent basis that misunderstandings spoil events. They don't. In fact misunderstandings are very common, but for some strange reason, when you misunderstand a natural system, no-one makes any remark: when you misunderstand a "strange" system people think it is totally different.

 

I don't agree with you. When a system is complex and unfamiliar to opponents then it causes difficulty. That on its own is not necessarily a reason for stopping it. However if a partnership play something which is quite complex and in short rounds then even with some generic defences you have work to do, probably most of it wasted as the sequence won't come up. Perhaps because opponents don't get all that many opportunites to play their toys the misunderstanding possibilities are greater. In addition sme of these systems which involve medium and forcing pass prevent you from playing your own system some of hte time.

[Blue Uriah]

Perhaps because opponents don't get all that many opportunites to play their toys the misunderstanding possibilities are greater.

So why are you arguing for even fewer opportunities? There are almost no events in the year where these systems can be played or played against and there are plenty of people like bluejak or mjj29 who enjoy doing both. If they go to one of the half-dozen or so where it's allowed and they don't have sufficient match practice to know their system then that's not really their fault is it.

[bluejak]

Players play natural systems and have misunderstandings. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play semi-artificial systems and have misunderstandings. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in relatively normal situations. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in abnormal situations. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players make abnormal decisions during the play. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players forget their card play agreements. Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Yes, I know the answers are No, No, No, Yes, No and No. I just do not understand why.

[dburn]

Players play natural systems and have misunderstandings.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play semi-artificial systems and have misunderstandings.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in relatively normal situations.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in abnormal situations.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players make abnormal decisions during the play.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players forget their card play agreements.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Yes, I know the answers are No, No, No, Yes, No and No.  I just do not understand why.

If I am to be considered one of the "others", then my answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, no and yes.

 

I do not want to play against people who do not know their methods, and thereby initiate calls for the Director - I would rather win or lose at bridge because I played better or worse than my opponents, not because their memory was worse or better than mine.

 

I do not want to sit on appeals committees when I could be sitting in the pub.

 

I do not want to have to decide whether or how I should be protecting myself against damage from possible misinformation, instead of deciding what to bid or how to play. Still less do I want Directors or Committees making those decisions for me, since absolutely none of them has any clue whatsoever how to do it.

 

I do not want to see tournaments decided on the basis of split scores, weighted scores, artificial adjusted scores, or anything but the scores obtained at the table.

 

All of these things make bridge a less enjoyable game for me than it ought to be. I don't care whether the methods people forget are artificial or not - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to be forgotten. I do care that a great many problems that spoil the game arise because the purveyors of both artificial and natural methods do not disclose them properly, and because their opponents are not given anything like enough opportunity to prepare defences - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to create such problems.

 

As I have said, I think people ought to be allowed to play whatever they like, but only if they can disclose it properly. As soon as it becomes clear that they can't, they should be prevented from playing it until they can.

[jeremy69]

So why are you arguing for even fewer opportunities? There are almost no events in the year where these systems can be played or played against and there are plenty of people like bluejak or mjj29 who enjoy doing both. If they go to one of the half-dozen or so where it's allowed and they don't have sufficient match practice to know their system then that's not really their fault is it.

 

I'm suggesting that the opportunities which might exist should be where the majority wish to do this and the number of boards make it reasonable to spend time working out defences. 3 board rounds in what is a social but decent standard event is not the place. Of course it is their fault they don't know their own system. They can practice to their hearts content at 3a.m. in an online game with consenting adults if they can find any.

 

It's a fact of life that most people wish to play their bridge without being presented with a sheaf of notes on how to defend against the Mongolian Heart and having to learn for not many boards what to do over a 1D opening showing 6-11 with 5S+4C. The reason the "Groove is in the Head" minority don't organise their own tournaments and play all this to their hearts(or even spades) content is that all events would be two table Howells.

 

There is a difference, IMO, between innovation and inflicting your ill thought out and poorly remembered toys on the populace at large but I hope I'm not sounding illiberal in these matters.

 

In the event being discussed there was a problem arising from a lack of knowledge of the system and a resultant ruling. The TD was otherwise confined to checking players had moved to the right table and followed suit when they got there.

[awm]

Situations with uncertain agreements come up in all sorts of events -- this particular event allowed some unusual methods but it's quite common to see players unsure about their agreements in events with more typical system regulations. I do think it makes sense to require that pairs know their methods in common situations, and that a failure to know what an overcall of a natural 2♥ opening means would seem to fall afoul of such a rule.. but these rules are event by event (as they should be) and not something enforced in the laws.

 

A common one that seems to come up is people bidding 2NT in competitive sequences. There are often cases where it's unclear whether this is natural, some kind of lebensohl or good/bad bid, or some kind of scramble. However, even without explicit agreement about the sequence in question, usually long-time partnerships have some idea how the bid is intended (for example some pairs almost never play a competitive 2NT is natural, some pairs don't play good/bad 2NT, etc). It makes sense in these situations to alert (even though the bid might not be alertable) and explain that you're not sure of the meaning but that you have some agreements about similar situations. In the real world where people sometimes don't know what partner's bids mean, what more can we really ask?

[gerry]

Players play natural systems and have misunderstandings.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play semi-artificial systems and have misunderstandings.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in relatively normal situations.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players play artificial systems and have misunderstandings in abnormal situations.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players make abnormal decisions during the play.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Players forget their card play agreements.  Does that spoil the event for others?

 

Yes, I know the answers are No, No, No, Yes, No and No.  I just do not understand why.

If I am to be considered one of the "others", then my answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, no and yes.

 

I do not want to play against people who do not know their methods, and thereby initiate calls for the Director - I would rather win or lose at bridge because I played better or worse than my opponents, not because their memory was worse or better than mine.

 

I do not want to sit on appeals committees when I could be sitting in the pub.

 

I do not want to have to decide whether or how I should be protecting myself against damage from possible misinformation, instead of deciding what to bid or how to play. Still less do I want Directors or Committees making those decisions for me, since absolutely none of them has any clue whatsoever how to do it.

 

I do not want to see tournaments decided on the basis of split scores, weighted scores, artificial adjusted scores, or anything but the scores obtained at the table.

 

All of these things make bridge a less enjoyable game for me than it ought to be. I don't care whether the methods people forget are artificial or not - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to be forgotten. I do care that a great many problems that spoil the game arise because the purveyors of both artificial and natural methods do not disclose them properly, and because their opponents are not given anything like enough opportunity to prepare defences - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to create such problems.

 

As I have said, I think people ought to be allowed to play whatever they like, but only if they can disclose it properly. As soon as it becomes clear that they can't, they should be prevented from playing it until they can.

I don't usually agree with anyone B)

 

but I agree with ALL of this absolutely. Amazing.

 

 

IMO we should have either no explanations or treat mistaken explanations and mistaken bids the same, after all from the opponents point of view they ARE the same.

 

yes I realise psyches complicate this...

[Vampyr]

IMO we should have either no explanations or treat mistaken explanations and mistaken bids the same, after all from the opponents point of view they ARE the same.

 

yes I realise psyches complicate this...

Try the opposite approach then -- treat mistaken bids as psyches. Then repeated "forgets" will result in a situation where "his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" will no longer be true. And if the "implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed" that is then created is illegal, then the pair will not be allowed to play the system anymore. (All this assumes, however, that psyches and misbids are reported).

[nige1]

Alternative simple solutions: If an opponent asks you the systemic meaning of partner's call and you don't know then....

• You suggest that you leave the table and partner explains the systemic meaning of his own call.
  
• You must guess the single most likely meaning. If you guess wrongly then the director treats your explanation as misinformation.
  

To anticipate some possible objections to the latter suggestion.

• No. This doesn't force players to tell lies. It just forces them to guess. Hence prevarication is reduced.
  
• Suppose you really have no agreement about a call. Nevertheless, when partner made it, presumably, he hoped that you would read it correctly (by virtue of analogous agreements, negative inferences and general bidding philosophy). Almost always, even in a new partnership, after playing a few boards, you will be in a better position than opponents to guess what partner means.
  
• Neither suggestion prevents partner psyching. You don't have to reveal to opponents what you hold in your hand. Opponents are entitled only to the systemic meaning.
  

[blackshoe]

A guess is not an agreement.

[Echognome]

A lot of Draconian measures are being suggested where I think the cure will be worse than the disease.

 

Let's take a very simple example. Two people sit down to play a very natural system. They have a keycard Blackwood sequence come up. Keycard responder doesn't know whether they are playing 1430 or 0314. Opponents ask the meaning of their bidding.

 

Obviously this pair will figure out what they are playing after this hand. But if they can't come up with the right answer on this hand are we going to ban them from playing any version of keycard?

 

On another note, the eminent Mr. Burn stated that he would "rather win or lose at bridge because I played better or worse than my opponents, not because their memory was worse or better than mine."

 

I really don't understand this. Isn't memory a skill that is tied to my playing ability? Don't I need to remember the bidding during the auction while I defend? the spotcards that were played to the first few tricks? how many trumps are out while declaring?

 

Heck, if memory weren't a part of skill, then let me have a computer alongside while playing. Then, I can refer to the bidding and turned tricks while I'm playing. Bridge will be a much easier game. I can also have a very complicated bidding system, because I can simply refer to my ample notes.

 

As for Nigel's solution 1, isn't this already the case. If I say I don't recall our agreement, can't I go away from the table and partner can explain our agreement? (I believe this should be with a TD present, but the point remains.) If neither of us remembers our agreements, then what else can we say? Go back to the 1430 vs 0314 example. We might both say, "We haven't discussed this before, so I'm on a guess." We can obviously give reasons why we might guess one way or another. Personally, I think this explanation should only be done while the person's partner is away from the table.

 

But I digress...

[nige1]

you leave the table and partner explains the systemic meaning of his own call.

As for Nigel's solution 1, isn't this already the case.  If I say I don't recall our agreement, can't I go away from the table and partner can explain our agreement?  (I believe this should be with a TD present, but the point remains.)

The suggestion is that this be standard protocol whenever a player is unsure what his partner's call means. And the protocol is described and mandated in the law-book, itself. Currently, I believe that it's an option for the director but it's a little known option and rarely adopted. It seems to work well enough on-line but I can't recall a single case at face-to-face bridge

If neither of us remembers our agreements, then what else can we say?  Go back to the 1430 vs 0314 example.  We might both say, "We haven't discussed this before, so I'm on a guess."  We can obviously give reasons why we might guess one way or another.  Personally, I think this explanation should only be done while the person's partner is away from the table.

Presumably when partner chose to bid 4N, he thought it was subject to agreement or that you could work out its meaning. If so, he simply gives that explanation. Of course, he can deliberatedly make a call that he believes is meaningless. But, again, if that is the case, he can say so. I concede that there is a difficult third possibility: Concievably, in the RKCB case, he may know that you can't have more than two aces and he needs two aces to bid a slam, in which case, he may neither know nor care what replies other than 5♥ or 5♠ mean.

[blackshoe]

Which flavor of RKCB is in use is probably a bad example, because (at least around here) it's about equally divided who plays which - and many people play both (although with different partners). In my case, I play 1430 with some partners, and 0314 with others. The former want to play 1430 because it's the flavor of the month (and not, generally, because they've given any real thought to it), the latter don't want to play 1430 because it's "too hard" to learn. If I were playing with a new partner, and we hadn't discussed which version we were playing, I would never bid 4NT, because I would (generally speaking) have no idea what partner would do. Worse, a player asked what his partner's 5♣ response means is likely to say "I'm taking it as....". IOW, "I don't know what you intended partner, but I'm going to assume you have 1 or 4 (or 0 or 3) key cards". I've even seen "4NT... what flavor BW do you play?...I'm taking it as 1430". Okay, maybe it's a stupid question, but there it is.

 

I suppose the purpose of sending the partner away from the table is to avoid complications due to UI. I'm not so sure that's going to work all that well. And then, given the infirmities to which some of our players are subject, there can be cases where you'd have to send three players away from the table, rather than just one. Players will just love that!

[Echognome]

Which flavor of RKCB is in use is probably a bad example, because (at least around here) it's about equally divided who plays which - and many people play both (although with different partners).

Funnily enough, this is exactly why I chose this example. When this example comes to mind are you thinking that the opponents have a CPU? or that the opponents seem to get it right more often than you would think if they were guessing? This is a situation that likely will only happen once a session between any particular pair, but is common to face as people play with new partners all the time.

 

Presumably when partner chose to bid 4N, he thought it was subject to agreement or that you could work out its meaning.

 

This is assuming a rationality that just isn't there. People choose bids all the time without working through all the consequences. What likely happens is they go along with their auction, make a normal (to them anyway) 4N call and then watch their partner struggle when he has anything except 2 keycards.

 

My point is that if we are talking about addressing forgotten agreements, then we either need to carve out situations that don't count (good luck with that) or we need to apply these rules to these common, but innocuous cases as well as to what people consider more egregious behavior. I personally think we just have to live with "rub of the green" lest we truly want to punish new partnerships.

[bluejak]

When a player is in a situation where there is no obvious call they can make because they do not have agreements for the calls they want, they have to improvise. I have noticed on previous occasions that people who post here and elsewhere assumes this never happens. Well, my experience is that it does, fairly frequently with some partners. I have just played with a partner in South Africa, and in eight consecutive days of bridge I may have made upwards of a dozen calls which were not agreed, because he is that sort of player. So I have had to improvise, leading to a number of good, fair and awful boards.

 

What happens if the opponents ask the meaning of a call? Well, my partner is always sure of what any call means. But they are not agreements in several cases: they are what he thinks. And our replies have to be legal, which is difficult.

 

The idea that you will not make a call which has no agreement seems naive to me: what do you do? Refuse to call at all?

 

Just because most posters to this forum have a lot of agreements with their partners does not mean everyone has. And those that do not have to guess the meanings, or what is best to bid, and hope it works out. It does not always. :(

[nige1]

My point is that if we are talking about addressing forgotten agreements, then we either need to carve out situations that don't count (good luck with that) or we need to apply these rules to these common, but innocuous cases as well as to what people consider more egregious behavior.  I personally think we just have to live with "rub of the green" lest we truly want to punish new partnerships.

On reflection, IMO, the law-book should mandate: When an opponent asks the systemic meaning of partner's call and you're unsure then :

• You may guess but, if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as misinformation.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the systemic meaning of his own call.
  
• If your partnersip agree to play the standard system, unembellished, then the director will be more lenient about partnership amnesia because your opponents can consult the book to find out what your call should mean.
  

I agree with Echognome that this isn't a perfect solution but it's a sensible protocol and better than current practice. Were it enforced, you would rarely encounter the currently popular "no agreement" and "unsure" mantras. Blackshoe would be relieved to discover that few players would ever need to leave the table. Miraculously and immediately, players' memories would undergo an enormous improvement :)

 

In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand. Such random disruptive calls can be quite effective (like the notorious Guessed 'em convention). If the new protocol mildly discouraged such ploys, that would be an additional benefit.

 

Some typos corrected. Thanks to David Burn (below)

Edited May 23, 2010 by nige1

[bluejak]

It is unnecessary to deliberately misquote people to make a point, and your comment "In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand." is completely untrue.

 

Players who are in difficult positions where there is no sensible call that they know partner will understand improvise by making a call that might solve their problem. That is what I said, and saying something completely different and ascribing it to me is an unacceptable way to make a point.

 

Furthermore, your "random disruptive calls" comment is another deliberate misstatement. I do not think telling untruths about what has been said makes your argument better.

 

I have a memory of you making such a call a few years back in a Gold Cup or Silver Plate match. Were you making a "random disruptive call"? Not in my view, but according to your statement here you were.

[dburn]

On reflection, IMO, the law-book should mandate: When an opponent asks the systemic meaning of partner's call and you're unsure then :

• You may guess but, if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as unauthorised information.
  
• If you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table, so that partner can explain the systemic meaning of his own call.
  
• If your partnersip agree to play the standard system, unimbellished, then the director will be more lenient about partnership amnesia because your opponents can consult the book to find out what your call should mean.
  

I agree with Echognome that this isn't a perfect solution but it's a sensible protocol and better than current practice. Were it enforced, you would rarely encounter the currently popular "no agreement" and "unsure" mantras. Blackshoe would be relieved to discover that few players would ever need to leave the table. Miraculously and immediately, players' memories would undergo an enormous improvement :ph34r:

 

In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand. Such random disruptive calls can be quite effective (like the notorious Guessed 'em convention). If the new protocol mildly discouraged such ploys, that would be an additional benefit.

I think you mean "if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as misinformation". That seems to me reasonable, for any statement to the effect that "we have such-and-such an agreement" is misinformation if in fact "we" don't, but if your guess is correct, the chances are that no harm will be done.

 

I do not agree at all with the notion that "if you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table". Apart from the fact that this creates UI for partner, which is admittedly only a minor inconvenience since he is constrained not to act on it, there is no reason why you should have to guess even though you may opt to do so. If it really is the case that your partnership has no agreement as to the meaning of a call, that is what you should say, for that is all the information to which your opponents are entitled.

 

As to "the standard system", that - whether em (not im) bellished or otherwise - is pie in the sky. It is hard enough to remember one's own methods, without having to remember the extent to which they might deviate from some "standard" or other. Even Paul Erdos was wise enough to know that he had to meet the Supreme Fascist before being permitted to read The Book.

[nige1]

Presumably when partner chose to bid 4N, he thought it was subject to agreement or that you could work out its meaning.

This is assuming a rationality that just isn't there.  People choose bids all the time without working through all the consequences.

It is unnecessary to deliberately misquote people to make a point, and your comment "In the experience of Bluejak and Echognome, thoughtless players make meaningless calls that their partners can't understand." is completely untrue. Players who are in difficult positions where there is no sensible call that they know partner will understand improvise by making a call that might solve their problem.  That is what I said, and saying something completely different and ascribing it to me is an unacceptable way to make a point.

I don't mean to misrepresent Echognome or Bluejak; but Bluejak is right that I should quote verbatim.

Furthermore, your "random disruptive calls" comment is another deliberate misstatement.  I do not think telling untruths about what has been said makes your argument better.  I have a memory of you making such a call a few years back in a Gold Cup or Silver Plate match.  Were you making a "random disruptive call"?  Not in my view, but according to your statement here you were.

I don't remember the incident but if I improvised by making a call that might solve my problem but that I knew my partner would be most unlikely to understand, then it would be "a random disruptive call" (as I define the term).

[nige1]

I do not agree at all with the notion that "if you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table". Apart from the fact that this creates UI for partner, which is admittedly only a minor inconvenience since he is constrained not to act on it, there is no reason why you should have to guess even though you may opt to do so. If it really is the case that your partnership has no agreement as to the meaning of a call, that is what you should say, for that is all the information to which your opponents are entitled.

Earlier, you may have agreed the systemic meaning of a call (implicitly or explicitly) -- even if, now, you are unaware of it. In that case, aren't opponents entitled to know what your agreement is? Partner, who chose to make the call, is likely to know that systemic agreement, if there is one. I believe that some Australian directors do ask the bidder to explain his own call if his partner doesn't know their agreement.

As to "the standard system", that - whether em (not im) bellished or otherwise - is pie in the sky. It is hard enough to remember one's own methods, without having to remember the extent to which they might deviate from some "standard" or other. Even Paul Erdos was wise enough to know that he had to meet the Supreme Fascist before being permitted to read The Book.

That is why the director may be tolerant of misexplanations by epsilons (or pick-up partners), who attempt to play the standard system.

[bluejak]

Who on earth said "would be most unlikely to understand"?

[nige1]

Who on earth said "would be most unlikely to understand"?

I did :ph34r:

[bluejak]

Ok, fine, but it is not responsive. We were discussing calls made when a player is not sure what to do so improvises. That is not calls that partner "would be most unlikely to understand". Nor are they "random disruptive calls". They are merely a reasonable effort to play bridge to the best of one's ability in a difficult circumstance.

[nige1]

Ok, fine, but it is not responsive.  We were discussing calls made when a player is not sure what to do so improvises.  That is not calls that partner "would be most unlikely to understand".  Nor are they "random disruptive calls".  They are merely a reasonable effort to play bridge to the best of one's ability in a difficult circumstance.

If partner is likely to work out the intended constructive meaning of my call then I don't think I'm making a random disruptive call (as I define the term). Instead, we probably have an implicit understanding. IMO, if asked, we should divulge that understanding rather than claim "no agreement".