Convention Disruption

[aguahombre]

Then why did you write on the previous page

Because there is a difference between not liking disruption of a convention and not liking the convention itself.

[blackshoe]

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings.

 

However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing. From the ACBL general conditions of contest (all events):

 

"2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid versus misinformation."

 

Perhaps other organizations have similar conditions which might be used as foundation for AC decisions.

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

[barmar]

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings.

 

However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing. From the ACBL general conditions of contest (all events):

...

You don't think Wolff had some hand in creating those conditions of contest?

 

Obviously, he couldn't get the COC to name specific conventions, so they're stated in general terms. But they provide the framework that allows him to adjudicate misuse of conventions.

[hrothgar]

Because there is a difference between not liking disruption of a convention and not liking the convention itself.

 

Fair enough, but still inconsistent with reality.

 

Wolff openly states that he would rule differently against a pair that screws up Stayman than a pair that screws up multi.

 

One convention is good. Pairs who screw it up get to slide on the CD front.

The other is "gas warfare". Pairs that screw it up are to be punished harshly.

[aguahombre]

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

You don't think Wolff had some hand in creating those conditions of contest?

O.K. Firstly I don't believe the CofC to which I referred is anything more than a foundation --certainly not an end in and of itself. When the evidence indicates a pair has been negligent in determining those common situations when their convention should apply ---resulting in MI, UI, etc. --- the general CofC provides a lawful basis upon which a PP, adjustment, or restriction of usage for that pair might be applied.

 

Secondly, of course, Wolff was influential in creating those conditions of contest. I was disagreeing with those who believe the CD concept has no basis in laws/regulations; the issue of who put them there doesn't affect their existence.

[blackshoe]

The laws regarding determination of misbid vs. misinformation set the standard at "preponderance of the evidence". Where in the laws is there justification for setting a higher standard?

[Flem72]

The general approach of the laws is to rule on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. "Prove beyond reasonable doubt" is a much stronger standard. On that basis it is certainly debatable whether this regulation is legal.

 

OTOH, general rules of construction favor general mandates over specific unless expressly stated otherwise. The stronger argument is that the "b/y rbl doubt" standard controls in cases of misbids vs. MI.

[nige1]

It has become good sport, here and on Bridgewinners, to bag on both Bobby and Judy. It is largely deserved, IMO, because of the tenor of their writings. However, although the term Convention Disruption was probably invented by Bobby, the concept is real; and it is not dependent on what conventions Wolff likes or dislikes. Furthermore CD has some degree of legal standing...

"2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

3. Players should review their own convention cards before the start of the session to make sure that they are current on the agreements with this particular partner. In cases of misinformation vs. misbids, it is the responsibility of the bidding side to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a misbid was made rather than misinformation given. The convention card and previous auctions are the most obvious ways to resolve any disagreements concerning misbid versus misinformation."

Just the ticket, aguahombre! Pity something like this isn't included, once and for all, in the law-book :)

[Mbodell]

The forms are not the solution, they're just part of it. It does no good to fill out forms if the information on them is not going to be available and used at future events (or even, in some cases, at the same event).

 

I realize that people don't publicize cheating/ethical lapses/frequent forgets or concealed partnership agreements, but have the recorder forms ever worked? Has anyone been sanctioned based on recorder forms? I've seen folks filling them out at nationals, and occasionally even a regional, but I've never heard of them applying to any ruling or effecting any player.

[hrothgar]

delete

[hrothgar]

I realize that people don't publicize cheating/ethical lapses/frequent forgets or concealed partnership agreements, but have the recorder forms ever worked? Has anyone been sanctioned based on recorder forms? I've seen folks filling them out at nationals, and occasionally even a regional, but I've never heard of them applying to any ruling or effecting any player.

 

I've heard speculation that the forms aren't indexed or stored in any accessible fashion.

They are the bridge equivalent to security theater.

[mycroft]

TDs don't have access to those records (that I know of), but they certainly can ask the relevant Recorder about it. Yes, that isn't perfect, but the alternatives are less feasible. Recorders don't have access to recorder information not stored with them, which I also have an issue with (especially with "that one pair" we all know that plays in 4 units and 3 districts, each with their own recorder).

 

Yes, I've heard of sanctions due to a pattern shown in recorder forms. They tend to be a fair more stringent than sanctions from "a hand". I'm more likely to suggest that a recorder form is filled out than most (and much more so than some of the TDs I work with); almost nobody does it when I suggest it (they do when they're annoyed at something, but that ends up being overblown (5 recorder forms on 24 hands; maybe 2 were warranted) and doesn't really assist the cause.

[barmar]

It doesn't sound like recorder forms are intended to be consulted in the heat of battle by TDs. I think the expectation is that they would be used by Conduct and Ethics committees after the fact, when considering sanctions against a player or pair for a pattern of behavior.

[billw55]

Wolff seems to be upset that occasionally players make a mistake (forget their system) and still, by luck, get a good result. I fail to understand how this is different from other types of mistakes that, from time to time, lead to a good result.

 

If the only difference is that the CD-er is suspected of doing it on purpose, then recorder forms, in theory, ought to suffice - forming a record of such instances, against which to judge future cases. As long as there is no CPU, psyches are allowed. And mistakes are certainly allowed, indeed, it will be nigh impossible to eradicate them.

 

Mr. Wolff is a great player who has given much to bridge, and perhaps deserves special consideration in view of his legacy. Nevertheless, if I was just reading those writings, with no idea who wrote them, I would probably consider the author a borderline crackpot. "Poison gas laboratory meetings"?

[barmar]

The conventions he has a problem with tend to be used by more advanced players. They already have an advantage over most players due to their expertise, and their use of these conventions often intimidates, or at least confuses, novices. And when they screw up, they're probably better than most at recovering.

 

Compare this to normal players who just screw up. Most of the time, their mistakes will work against them; once in a while they fix you. But when the experts have a CD mistake, they're more likely to land on their feet. The opponents will still be confused, and may in fact help them.

 

No one argues that better players shouldn't have an advantage in the bidding and play -- that's the definition of "better". But it seems unfair that they should have an advantage even while misinforming opponents.

[fred]

Wolff seems to be upset that occasionally players make a mistake (forget their system) and still, by luck, get a good result. I fail to understand how this is different from other types of mistakes that, from time to time, lead to a good result.

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

OTOH, general rules of construction favor general mandates over specific unless expressly stated otherwise. The stronger argument is that the "b/y rbl doubt" standard controls in cases of misbids vs. MI.

I'm not sure I buy that. :huh:

[billw55]

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result). The bigger the difference between X and Y the worse it gets in my view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Agreed. And certainly agree that we should have rules to deal with misinformation. Don't we already?

 

But in cases of mistakes, will a special rule make a difference in the frequency of occurrence? It's not like they wanted to make the mistake. The rule can adjust the score, but (considering "regardless of the result") will that make it more fun?

[fred]

Agreed. And certainly agree that we should have rules to deal with misinformation. Don't we already?

 

But in cases of mistakes, will a special rule make a difference in the frequency of occurrence? It's not like they wanted to make the mistake. The rule can adjust the score, but (considering "regardless of the result") will that make it more fun?

Perhaps if the penalty is severe enough, players will be motivated to make fewer mistakes (either by becoming more familiar with their methods or by playing methods that are easier for them to remember).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I can't speak for Wolff, but some players (including me) think that bridge is not much fun when you are told X and Y exists instead (regardless of the result).

 

No one is arguing this point.

 

The question at hand is whether a pair who screws a sequence like

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♥

 

should be held to the same standards as one who screws up a conventional understanding.

[fred]

No one is arguing this point.

 

The question at hand is whether a pair who screws a sequence like

 

1♣ - 1♠

2♥

 

should be held to the same standards as one who screws up a conventional understanding.

A couple of thoughts:

 

1) At some level someone's (the TD's?) judgment has to enter into the equation. For example, if you are told that 2H in the auction above promises 17+ HCP and someone decides to do it with 16 (he can always claim "judgment" or "taking a view" even if the real reason is he forgot) I think it would be kind of silly to punish him for that. That feels very different to me from being told "he has the majors" when he actually has the minors.

 

I doubt there is any completely satisfactory way to draw the line so the TD has to decide which mistakes should be punished (based on the usual - past cases, his own judgment, consulting other TDs, consulting smart players...). Perhaps whether or not the mistake had any consequence in terms of the opponents' decisions leading to an impact on the final result should also matter.

 

2) Players who completely screw up the (presumably natural) auction you use as an example are probably beginners. If they are playing in a game for beginners then relaxing whatever mistake-rules might exist in a more serious game makes some sense to me.

 

But by and large I do think that, if you are going to punish people for forgetting their artificial agreements, you should also punish people for forgetting their natural agreements.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

If everyone involved in bridge rulings and at the table had the bridge acumen of Mr. Wolff (possibly with different biases), an idea like CD, especially the Potter Stewart-ish interpretation Mr. Wolff brings to the casebooks, might make sense.

 

Unfortunately, I play, and sometimes I direct. And I expect I'm better at both than 80% of duplicate players/directors. And yes, I know what I'm saying. Given that that's the case, I prefer the somewhat more objective Laws we have.

 

Having said all of that, if someone put through a "Ghestem screwups come with an automatic penalty", with the caveat that it be universal to "misbidding a weak hand with the wrong suit/s", I wouldn't pitch too hard.

[aguahombre]

Wolff openly states that he would rule differently against a pair that screws up Stayman than a pair that screws up multi.

 

One convention is good. Pairs who screw it up get to slide on the CD front.

The other is "gas warfare". Pairs that screw it up are to be punished harshly.

And you don't think there is a difference? Besides the obvious expectations that a pair using multi will be needing to explain their calls more frequently (MI, UI, etc.), the likelihood of gaining from a Stayman accident is much smaller, and the quality of the players in the two scenarios will be different.

 

Any way, I believe pairs who wish to play methods (convention or not) which are not the norm, also have the obligation to learn said methods and be able to explain them when others might be affected. Some players just feel entitled. It is not just a game philosophy. It goes beyond.

 

People who don't agree use the spurious argument that their pet convention is being discriminated against; it is the DISRUPTION that is being attacked.

[hrothgar]

 

Any way, I believe pairs who wish to play methods (convention or not) which are not the norm, also have the obligation to learn said methods and be able to explain them when others might be affected. Some players just feel entitled. It is not just a game philosophy. It goes beyond.

 

At least you finally have the honesty to admit that you're just as bigoted...

 

There are existing regulations in place to deal with MI.

And somehow, they do require discriminating against different types of players

(Even the ones who use Ghestem)

[aguahombre]

Just as bigoted? Is it merely discretion when your arguments aimed at Fred, etc., don't have the same venom? BTW, I don't really mind, because it is clear your real concern is the desire to play certain conventions without bothering to learn or explain them properly.