Convention Disruption

[hrothgar]

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.

 

I have mouthed off to Fred in the past. Perhaps the reason I haven't in this thread is the following statement that he made:

 

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.

 

As for part the second: I really don't play much tournament bridge anymore. When I do, I am playing in North America, so I hardly have the opportunity to play anything interesting. So, I hardly think that you theories are very well grounded. Thanks for trying though! (It's the thought that counts)

[aguahombre]

Actually, my real axe to grind is (and I brought it on myself) that I have admired the Wolffs forever and feel really, really horrible about how they come across in blogs.

 

It is hard to have strong feelings about an issue, but mixed feelings about the person(s) at the forefront of that same issue.

[paulg]

I get frustrated, as I imagine many do, when I can no longer play bridge when the opponents forget their system.

 

If they have a long relay sequence and get to a truly awful slam, discovering during the auction review that they were totally off the rails, then I have not been damaged by it and it really is rub of the green. Most of the time I will gain from this, sometimes lose, but I am a spectator.

 

However when they overcall 1NT with 2♦, showing the majors, but turn out to have had a momentary loss of concentration and really just have diamonds, then in some of the cases I am totally out of the game. All my counter-measures are predicated on the overcaller actually having the suits he's shown and you can easily imagine that I'll double to show interest in a penalty, LHO passes with equal majors and it gets passed out in their best suit. The current Laws essentially treat this as the same as a psych. I believe Wolff would like to treat this as MI and adjust accordingly, a view that many would agree with but is clearly not legal at this time.

 

Then, as Fred implies, there is the huge range of forgets that fall between these.

 

But I'm not convinced that the problem is as prevalent as it might seem and perhaps this would never be on the agenda except for Wolff. Naturally it is more prevalent in appeals, but given the amount of bridge played it is a rare occurrence and so is changing the laws in this area really important?

[gnasher]

If they have a long relay sequence and get to a truly awful slam, discovering during the auction review that they were totally off the rails, then I have not been damaged by it and it really is rub of the green. Most of the time I will gain from this, sometimes lose, but I am a spectator.

Personally I would consider that I have been damaged even by this. I play bridge for enjoyment. There's not much enjoyment to be had from watching the opponents suffer a self-made disaster. The more boards of this type that I have, the less I get for the time and money that I spend on playing.

 

Having said that, I inflict this type of damage on my opponents quite often, so I wouldn't necessarily welcome a change in the rules.

[barmar]

Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand. There were no alerts. CD?

 

Opener was an absolute beginner, playing in his first regular club game after having just taking 4 weeks of classes that our club offered. Responder was an experienced player, who correctly guessed that her partner didn't know that his bid was supposed to show extra values.

 

After the hand was over, we used this as a teaching moment. No one considered calling the director. But if the same auction were perpetrated by experienced club or tournament players in a regular partnership, it would be a very different situation.

[aguahombre]

Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand. There were no alerts. CD?

No convention, no disruption.

 

It seems as if in this case, there was no discussion or agreement either.

[hrothgar]

 

>> Last week at the club, a player reversed with a balanced 13 count, and his partner jumped to 3NT with a full opening hand.

>>There were no alerts. CD?

 

No convention, no disruption.

It seems as if in this case, there was no discussion or agreement either.

 

I think that the following two considerations are far more important:

 

1. "No convention disruption, no convention disruption"

 

Convention disruption does not exist as a legal principle.

It is a crank theory that has no bearing on the game.

 

2. "No damage, no adjustment"

 

How did the decision to reverse with a balanced 13 count damage the non offending side?

[mycroft]

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.

Yep. In another thread I mentioned that the Flannery players tell me they've never got a bad board when they open 2♦. Now I remember when they do (sometimes): when they have 6 diamonds and fewer points than they promise. Does that count as "not the norm"? Is there a requirement to remember that? What about 2♦-2NT; 3♣ and they forget whether they show their fragment or their shortness?

 

How about Forget Transfers (which is another 2♦ call, oddly enough)? Do those count as "not the norm"?

 

How about preemptive jump raises by a passed hand (because they play Drury) - which isn't even a convention?

 

Where do we draw the line between CD and misbids, where we treat one leniently and the other as "gas warfare"?

[Trinidad]

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.

I think all players agree that mistakes make the game less fun. And that goes for any game. I guess you also prefer a basketball game with awesone "nothing but net" three point shots over one where air balls are exchanged.

 

But just as much as an air ball in basketball is not a foul (not even if the ball ends in the basket off a defender's back), a bidding mistake is not an infraction in bridge (not even if it leads to a winning contract).

 

Both basketball and bridge are played by people. And people make mistakes. That means that mistakes should be allowed in the game, otherwise we have to stop playing until we are all perfect.

 

Having said all that, I am perfectly willing to lose a board to someone who got lucky making a mistake. BUT... I need to be reasonably convinced that it truely was a mistake. The Laws require a TD to assume misinformation, rather than a mistake, unless they have evidence for a mistake. IMO this evidence should be pretty strong.

 

In these cases, a TD can go wrong in two ways:

- He can rule misinformation for something that in reality was an honest bidding mistake

- He can rule a bidding mistake for something that in reality was misinformation

 

In each of these two cases injustice is done. However, I find it much easier to accept that a TD ruled MI when I know that I only made an honest bidding mistake than to accept a ruling by a TD that my opponent made a mistake where I know that there was misinformation. Therefore, IMO we should make the requirements as to what is evidence for a mistake much stronger than they are right now.

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

I'm not sure, Rik, that the assumption should be that the TD will go wrong, which significantly strengthening the evidence needed would seem to imply. I think it's much more likely that the deicsions will be right, and fall into neither of your categories if the TD is allowed to use judgement, rather than have strict criteria for evidence. There is already an instruction on which way to go if unsure. Whilst this might get a few of the worse types of mistake, it would imo get many less mistakes than your suggestion.

 

At the top level your idea might work, as there is usually enough evidence to go on, but in the UK probably only half the room at any average club night will have convention cards, and most of those won't go into much detail on sequences. Do all of these poeple therefore autoamtically get ruled against? From what i've read I gather that the convention card situation is worse in the ABCL. I've heard of the dutch (i think) regulation to automatically rule against ghestemesque misbids as misinformation, and I don't like that either. By removing TD judgement you again seem to get a lot of objectivly incorrect decesions.

 

I'm not a fan of the idea of penalising "convention disruption". At the top level, again, it might work (although I am in full agreement with Hrothgar that you cannot apply it only to certain sitatuations deemed to be unusual conventions, but across the board), but at the club level, where mistakes are common in all areas of the game, including forgetting systems, this would frustrate and put off many poeple (imo), and at the beginner and novice level it would be even worse.

[blackshoe]

The Laws require a TD to assume misinformation, rather than a mistake, unless they have evidence for a mistake. IMO this evidence should be pretty strong.

The law doesn't say that the evidence needs to be strong, only that it needs to exist. What it says, then, is that when there is no evidence that there was a misbid, the TD is to rule MI, but if there is any evidence that it might have been a misbid, he is to use his judgement and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence.

 

I find it much easier to accept that a TD ruled MI when I know that I only made an honest bidding mistake than to accept a ruling by a TD that my opponent made a mistake where I know that there was misinformation.

How often do you know there was MI, as opposed to just thinking there was MI, or feeling that, in your judgement, there was MI? If you know, how is it that the TD called to the table doesn't?

[gartinmale]

I'm in the punishment camp.

 

The game becomes completely joyless for me when I don't know what is going on because they don't know what is going on. It has nothing to do with whether I get a good result or not. I would happily give up all good boards that result from MI and so forth in return for not having to play against forgetful or unprepared opponents.

 

Why should I have to suffer because you and your partner thought some unnecessary convention was so critical to having a good bridge game that you adopted it, but failed to discuss its applications or ramifications?

 

Why should the board be ruined, subject to MI, or subject to UI because you need all these fancy conventions to play bridge, but don't know if you play support doubles over 1C (P) 1D (1H)? If Puppet is on after 2!c followed by a 2NT rebid? If Puppet is on if we double your 2NT for penalty? If you play the same NT defense in direct and balancing seat? If after 1NT (2!c) X the asking call is XX or 2!d still - or if 2!d says you have a diamond suit? If your NT systems are on over all 2!c interference or just artificial 2!c interference? If lebensohl over weak 2s is only by an unpassed hand or by all hands? If 4!c over Flannery is RKCG or not? If 1!c (1!h) 1!s (P) 4!c still shows clubs and spades even with the interference, or just lots of clubs? If (1!d) X (1!h) X is penalty or your version of "responsive"? If you play Namyats in all four seats or just the first two? If (1!s) P (P) 2!s is Michaels or a strong hand? If you don't know whether (1!d!) 2!d is natural or Michaels over a 0+ 1!d opening, even though you play CRASH over a strong club (but naturally have not discussed it beyond agreeing that you play CRASH)?

 

In ACBL-land, I would be in favor of (say) a full board penalty the first time a sufficiently experienced pair forgets or misrepresents their agreements and disqualification from the event the second time, and immediate disqualification for any opponents who do not call the director when a pair forgets their agreements. Don't want to risk this? Play SAYC. Theoretically your opponents must know SAYC (since if they lose a convention card or don't have two matching convention cards you can force them to play it - yes, this has happened to me, and we deserved it for only having one complete card between the two of us), so they are not going to be inconvenienced by your agreements then.

 

And yes, I play a number of highly artificial systems, with tons of pages of system notes and meta-rules that attempt to cover unfamiliar situations, and painstaking disclosure. But I'd give them up too if it meant I didn't have to run into one more "We have an agreement, but I don't know what it is". I'd rather my partner revoke twenty times a session.

 

And I also play SAYC, straight down the middle of the card, including (3H) X! as penalty.

 

For the "we don't want to alienate beginners/novices" camp: I agree completely. But there is an easy solution: don't play all of this crap. It probably isn't helping your game overall anyway.

[Trinidad]

How often do you know there was MI, as opposed to just thinking there was MI, or feeling that, in your judgement, there was MI? If you know, how is it that the TD called to the table doesn't?

You don't always know. But there certainly are times when you do know.

 

In the '90s I moved to a jurisdiction where a player's statement that he misbid was considered sufficient evidence. At the time, this was an official interpretation of Law 75D by the LC of the NBO. The following scenario happened about 20-30 times to us before we gave up:

 

A hand has just been finished. Now one of the opponents starts to berate his partner:

"How can you say that I was showing X? Just last week, we agreed that this bid shows Y!".

- "Y? But.. Oh yeah, you are right. Sorry. My fault."

"Please wake up now, OK?"

 

You hear all this and think: "Wait a second, if I would have known that he showed Y instead of X, I could have done Z." and you tell the opponents that you want to call the TD.

 

The TD arrives. You explain that the bid was explained as X but that it shows Y and that with the correct information you might have done Z. The TD turns to the opponents and asks: "What are your agreements?". And the answer comes immediately: "I don't know what he is talking about. I misbid. My partner's explanation was correct. It's not against the laws to misbid, is it?". The TD decides "misbid" because there is sufficient evidence that it was a misbid: The 2 players said so. The TD leaves and the opponents smile.

 

At the beginning this made me feel sick and I wanted to quit bridge. But after a while, I just adapted and simply stopped calling the TD for MI cases. (During the national championships, I was once dumb enough to appeal. I lost the money, but learned the phrase "Bridge players usually don't freely admit their mistakes. So when they do, it must be true.")

 

Maybe this explains why I knew and the TD didn't: The players had told the TD something different from what they told me and I judge that the information that I got was more reliable. But I think this judgement is reasonable. (And the TD may have had his suspicions, but was instructed to rule based on the "evidence".)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I would explain to the TD exactly what I had heard from the opponents that caused me to call him. Now he has the same information I do. If he reaches a different conclusion with that information, so be it. I would not consider that I have a leg to stand on if I don't give him that information.

[Cthulhu D]

I'm in the punishment camp.

 

The game becomes completely joyless for me when I don't know what is going on because they don't know what is going on. It has nothing to do with whether I get a good result or not. I would happily give up all good boards that result from MI and so forth in return for not having to play against forgetful or unprepared opponents.

 

For the "we don't want to alienate beginners/novices" camp: I agree completely. But there is an easy solution: don't play all of this crap. It probably isn't helping your game overall anyway.

 

Eh, I mean what defines that. To give two cases that happen to me with alarming frequency (as someone who has been playing for a bit over a year)

 

A) Sometimes partner and I are (still) sometimes not on the same page as to what is trumps (or not) in no fit auctions where we have a slam try, which often leads to bidding an invitational 4NT and the other guy responding to RKCB blackwood or whatever (though this is typically him hedging his bets with an accept). The most complex agreement in play here is usually 4th suit forcing, and blackwood itself.

 

B) Someone busts out the 4H pre-empt or whatever and you want to try for slam, the auction is often so cramped that it's not hugely clear what's going on. I mean, I got fixed by the pre-empt already and now don't have any space, booting me out of the event because I don't have the methods to try for slam and have to try something free-wheeling seems a bit ridiculous.

[aguahombre]

Whoa. we all know that high-level and/or highly competitive auctions lead to misunderstandings for everyone.

 

The people who pound on Convention Disruption and clamor for tighter sanctions are talking about common low-level conventions, treatments, and continuations which they strongly believe should not be screwed up by tournament players who choose to use these toys.

 

I could care less if a pair gets confused about what is trump, or what is RKCB, or what is quantitative, in a slam auction and sometimes gets lucky. We will call the TD if we think there is use of UI or the opening leader has been given MI, but won't be ranting about CD.

[c_corgi]

In ACBL-land, I would be in favor of (say) a full board penalty the first time a sufficiently experienced pair forgets or misrepresents their agreements and disqualification from the event the second time, and immediate disqualification for any opponents who do not call the director when a pair forgets their agreements. Don't want to risk this? Play SAYC. Theoretically your opponents must know SAYC (since if they lose a convention card or don't have two matching convention cards you can force them to play it - yes, this has happened to me, and we deserved it for only having one complete card between the two of us), so they are not going to be inconvenienced by your agreements then.

 

It sounds like an event from which early disqualification would be a favourable outcome.

[Trinidad]

I would explain to the TD exactly what I had heard from the opponents that caused me to call him. Now he has the same information I do. If he reaches a different conclusion with that information, so be it. I would not consider that I have a leg to stand on if I don't give him that information.

What makes you think that the TDs didn't have that information? Of course they did.

 

But the instruction from the NBO's LC was clear: The player says he misbid. That is "evidence to the contrary" and it must be ruled a misbid (no matter what).

 

The reasoning behind this instruction was something like:

- Bridge is a gentleman's game. Therefore, bridge players don't lie.

- The pair knows better than the opponents what their actual agreements are.

 

As a result, the evidence that I brought was viewed as a cheating accusation (perhaps rightly so). And for an accusation of cheating the evidence needs to be much stronger (definitely rightly so) than for the determination misbid/MI. And let's face it: In the end there is not more than our word against their word. End of story.

 

So that is why there always needs to be more evidence than just the word of the player that he misbid. I don't care much what kind of evidence. A system book would be nice, but a reference to a bridge book or a player who taught them the convention or "we also play this with Bob and Jim who are sitting over there" or previous experience of the TD or a sound logical argument why it must be a misbid or ...whatever... are also fine. Just something. But a player's statement that he misbid should not be sufficient evidence that he misbid.

 

-----------------------------

 

When I started playing bridge, I lived in the USA. I was told by my bridge teacher that the ACBL was responsible for the rules of the game. At the time, I didn't think much more about that, but I think that most players within the ACBL see it like that (and ignore the fact that the WBF LC is a higher authority).

 

Then I moved to other countries and I saw that the rules of the game changed. Since I moved, my view has always been that the WBF defines the Laws, but in practice everybody looks at the local authorities. They have to translate the lawbook into the local language. They have to interpret the laws. And they have to deal with the local culture. And different people in different countries lead to different interpretations.

 

Now I am living and playing in The Netherlands. Here nobody knows who is in the WBF LC. But people know who is on the Dutch LC. They write articles on the Laws in the bridge magazine and that is what the public sees. And their views are respected as the correct ones. The same holds for the ACBL. If I understand correctly, Mike Flader writes articles about the Laws in the ACBL magazine. Most players in the ACBL regard him as the ultimate oracle in matters of law. But ask aunt Millie or Uncle Bob who is on the WBF LC and they will deny that there is such a thing as the WBF LC. (They might even deny that there is an ACBL LC. After all, Jim, the nice club owner who bakes this delicious banana bread, is the authority on the rules of the game.)

 

Just imagine that somebody else would sit on Mike Flader's chair... Let's say... Bobby Wolff. How long do you think it will take before "Convention Disruption" will be considered as a solid basis for a ruling within the ACBL? I think not very long. After all, the Law book is like the bible. Nobody reads it, everybody just believes what the local oracle/minister says. And whoever starts to point out, with the Lawbook/Bible in his hand, that the local oracle/minister is wrong is just regarded as a very annoying, arrogant and unpleasant besserwisser.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

I'm in the punishment camp.

 

The game becomes completely joyless for me when I don't know what is going on because they don't know what is going on. It has nothing to do with whether I get a good result or not. I would happily give up all good boards that result from MI and so forth in return for not having to play against forgetful or unprepared opponents.

 

Why should I have to suffer because you and your partner thought some unnecessary convention was so critical to having a good bridge game that you adopted it, but failed to discuss its applications or ramifications?

 

Why should the board be ruined, subject to MI, or subject to UI because you need all these fancy conventions to play bridge, but don't know if you play support doubles over 1C (P) 1D (1H)? If Puppet is on after 2!c followed by a 2NT rebid? If Puppet is on if we double your 2NT for penalty? If you play the same NT defense in direct and balancing seat? If after 1NT (2!c) X the asking call is XX or 2!d still - or if 2!d says you have a diamond suit? If your NT systems are on over all 2!c interference or just artificial 2!c interference? If lebensohl over weak 2s is only by an unpassed hand or by all hands? If 4!c over Flannery is RKCG or not? If 1!c (1!h) 1!s (P) 4!c still shows clubs and spades even with the interference, or just lots of clubs? If (1!d) X (1!h) X is penalty or your version of "responsive"? If you play Namyats in all four seats or just the first two? If (1!s) P (P) 2!s is Michaels or a strong hand? If you don't know whether (1!d!) 2!d is natural or Michaels over a 0+ 1!d opening, even though you play CRASH over a strong club (but naturally have not discussed it beyond agreeing that you play CRASH)?

 

In ACBL-land, I would be in favor of (say) a full board penalty the first time a sufficiently experienced pair forgets or misrepresents their agreements and disqualification from the event the second time, and immediate disqualification for any opponents who do not call the director when a pair forgets their agreements. Don't want to risk this? Play SAYC. Theoretically your opponents must know SAYC (since if they lose a convention card or don't have two matching convention cards you can force them to play it - yes, this has happened to me, and we deserved it for only having one complete card between the two of us), so they are not going to be inconvenienced by your agreements then.

 

And yes, I play a number of highly artificial systems, with tons of pages of system notes and meta-rules that attempt to cover unfamiliar situations, and painstaking disclosure. But I'd give them up too if it meant I didn't have to run into one more "We have an agreement, but I don't know what it is". I'd rather my partner revoke twenty times a session.

 

And I also play SAYC, straight down the middle of the card, including (3H) X! as penalty.

 

For the "we don't want to alienate beginners/novices" camp: I agree completely. But there is an easy solution: don't play all of this crap. It probably isn't helping your game overall anyway.

 

When I started reading this post, I thought you were satirising the CD argument, but you actually meant it, didn't you?

[gordontd]

And I also play SAYC, straight down the middle of the card, including (3H) X! as penalty.

That's SAYC?

[hrothgar]

 

And I also play SAYC, straight down the middle of the card, including (3H) X! as penalty.

 

 

Better not, least yee be subject to one of those convention disruption penalties for not understanding insidious conventional bids like take out doubles.

 

The ACBL has published copies of the yellow card at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

 

Here's a relevant quote that you really might want to familiar yourself with before boviating about player's responsibilities to know systems.

 

A double is for takeout over an opening partscore bid (4 or lower); penalty over opening game bids (4 or higher).

[blackshoe]

@Rik: That NBO's LC needs to get their head out of their ass.

 

Preponderance of the evidence means just what it says. If the evidence of misbid outweighs the evidence of mis-explanation, then we rule misbid. If the other way 'round, we rule mis-explanation. If it's unclear, we rule mis-explanation.

 

Re; oracles. Around here, I'm considered somewhat of an expert on what the law says. People will ask me what it says. Then they'll do whatever they damn well please. <shrug>

[gartinmale]

Heh.

 

How far do we take this argument? I'd hope at least that everyone can agree the game is better when people know their agreements.

 

When I started reading this post, I thought you were satirising the CD argument, but you actually meant it, didn't you?

[gartinmale]

The Yellow Card at my club (granted the same one that penalizes for not having matching convention cards, so perhaps I shouldn't trust it) has "takeout of weak 2s/3s" as checkable boxes. I'll see if I can drudge up a copy.

 

Edit: see this link. Note the unchecked boxes under takeout of weak 2s/3s. You were saying?

 

Second edit: I find it entirely believable that the ACBL contradicts itself on this. Shouldn't that be even *more* reason to want people to know their agreements? And yes, there's a bit of self-mockery in the previous post - after all, it doesn't really annoy me when beginners mess up their (non)-agreements, or when experts don't have room in a crowded slam auction. It does, however, piss me off when the rest of us (myself included) demand to play so many different conventions and then fail to discuss them. What gives us the right to add yes, even takeout doubles without understanding their basic follow-ups?

 

Better not, least yee be subject to one of those convention disruption penalties for not understanding insidious conventional bids like take out doubles.

 

The ACBL has published copies of the yellow card at http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/SP3%20(bk)%20single%20pages.pdf

 

Here's a relevant quote that you really might want to familiar yourself with before boviating about player's responsibilities to know systems.

[aguahombre]

The Yellow Card at my club (granted the same one that penalizes for not having matching convention cards, so perhaps I shouldn't trust it) has "takeout of weak 2s/3s" as checkable boxes. I'll see if I can drudge up a copy.

 

Edit: see this link. Note the unchecked boxes under takeout of weak 2s/3s. You were saying?

The regular ACBL CC has options vs. opening preempts and checkboxes for takeout and for penalty. The makers of the Yellow Card, in adapting that section to match what the SAYC booklet says, eliminated the penalty option. They probably should have either eliminated the checkboxes altogether or printed the Yellow Card with checks in the boxes.

 

But it is still clear that doubles of initial part-score preempts are for takeout in SAYC.