Convention Disruption

[Trinidad]

Furthermore, if this wasn't the first time you forgot, you must have an implicit agreement that you can forget. It is unreasonable to assume that this was the first time you forgot this agreement.

So a consequence of the fact that we're only human is an "implicit agreement"?

No, it is a consequence of the lack of understanding of probability distributions by the AC who reasoned:

 

After all, this could have been the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or nth time. Given all these possible values of n, how likely is it that n equals precisely 1?

They concluded from that reasoning that the probability that it was the first time must be extremely small (maybe even infinitesimally small).

 

And to be 100% clear: It is their reasoning, not mine. I don't support their reasoning at all. But it is a line of reasoning that was actually made (on many occasions) by some people with more bridge skills than me.

 

As an aside, I do agree with them that an implicit agreement exists if the same misbid has been made several times. And to be fair to the AC, the one misbid that they had to deal with more than any other was the Ghestem 3♣ misbid. In many of those cases partner passed the correction to 4♣ (which is evidence for an implicit agreement to me).

 

Rik

[fred]

The problem with this approach is that bridge is a game of mistakes. One of the problems with many of the posts in this thread is that they want to treat one type of mistake very differently from other types of mistake. You might just as well say that bridge is less fun when an opponent revokes or leads out of turn. In a way, that is right. But why not just accept such things as rare happenings that disrupt the normal game?

I am no expert on the Laws, but as I recall "mistakes" like your examples (revokes and leads out of turn) have penalties associated with them.

 

You suggestion to treat different kinds of mistakes in the same way implies (to me at least) that bidding "mistakes" should be penalized as well.

 

It sounds to me like you are making an argument in favor of something like convention disruption penalties even though I am guessing your intention was just the opposite.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bluejak]

I am no expert on the Laws, but as I recall "mistakes" like your examples (revokes and leads out of turn) have penalties associated with them.

 

You suggestion to treat different kinds of mistakes in the same way implies (to me at least) that bidding "mistakes" should be penalized as well.

 

It sounds to me like you are making an argument in favor of something like convention disruption penalties even though I am guessing your intention was just the opposite.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The level of penalties is the thing I really object to. If you propose a standard PP [10% in pairs, 3 imps in teams, in the EBU] for any Convention Disruption for any above-average pair I would have no problem at all with that.

[RMB1]

The level of penalties is the thing I really object to. If you propose a standard PP [10% in pairs, 3 imps in teams, in the EBU] for any Convention Disruption for any above-average pair I would have no problem at all with that.

 

Can convention disruption be disguished from misbids (or psyches). Are you proposing a "standard amount" PP for all misbids?

[nige1]

It's a badly worded law, as any TD who goes to a table and returns with no evidence must have gone to the wrong table. Surely the implication though is with equal evidence we rule MI.

I wish Law 75C said something like "When the available evidence does not clearly indicate that it was a Mistaken Call, the TD must presume Mistaken Explanation." but it doesn't.

Sure it is badly worded: TDs assume it means 'compelling evidence' and do not worry about it.

The WBFLC should publish a series of interim editions of the laws, until most disputed meanings are clarified..

[bluejak]

I was thinking of MI not misbids. I was not suggesting penalties for misbids, which are perfectly legal, but for MI.

[gnasher]

I was thinking of MI not misbids. I was not suggesting penalties for misbids, which are perfectly legal, but for MI.

I'm relieved to hear that.

 

Well, somewhat relieved. Would the same penalty apply regardless of when the MI occurred and how quickly it was corrected?

 

Suppose, for example, that a pair bids 2NT-3♣;3♦-3NT. 3♣ is alerted (in England, where almost all meanings are alertable). When 3♣ is bid, an opponent asks the meaning of 3♣ and is told that it is Stayman. At the end of the auction, responder corrects the explanation. The opponents weren't damaged by the MI. As I understand it, you'd be happy for the opening side to be penalised for giving MI.

 

At another table, the auction goes the same way and the same misunderstanding has occurred. However, the defenders don't ask about 3♣ until the end of the auction. Opener says it's Stayman, and responder immediately corrects the explanation. So there is MI, but because of the timing of the question the MI lasts for only a second. Would the opening side be penalised here too?

[Trinidad]

I was thinking of MI not misbids. I was not suggesting penalties for misbids, which are perfectly legal, but for MI.

Well "convention disruption" is invariably about misbids. If it would be about misinformation, there wouldn't be any discussion. The laws are already dealing with MI: It is an infraction, adjust and penalize to taste.

 

Misbids are not an infraction, in some cases to the chagrin of Bobby Wolff, at which point he calls these misbids "convention disruption".

 

The point of the discussion is that the line between MI and misbids seems clear, but it can be vague in cases. What if a player has forgotten Ghestem n times in the past and now bids 3♣ over 1♥? Are the opponents entitled to the information about his forgets? And for what value of n? Are they only entitled to it if partner allows for a misbid or also if partner stubbornly persists in bidding spades or diamonds?

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

The point of the discussion is that the line between MI and misbids seems clear, but it can be vague in cases. What if a player has forgotten Ghestem n times in the past and now bids 3♣ over 1♥? Are the opponents entitled to the information about his forgets? And for what value of n? Are they only entitled to it if partner allows for a misbid or also if partner stubbornly persists in bidding spades or diamonds?

 

Yes, it is an interesting question how many times a pair can forget a convention and still be said to be "playing" it. This is why recorder forms would be useful if they were used for misbids.

[blackshoe]

I begin to wonder if all the flap over Ghestem is more related to the frequency of forgets across the field rather than the frequency by one player or pair. :ph34r: :unsure:

 

Upthread Rik suggested that when one player forgets he's playing Ghestem, and bids 3♣ intending it as natural, that when his partner then raises to 4♣ that is evidence of a CPU. Well maybe. Possibly they both forgot. :blink:

[gnasher]

The point of the discussion is that the line between MI and misbids seems clear, but it can be vague in cases. What if a player has forgotten Ghestem n times in the past and now bids 3♣ over 1♥? Are the opponents entitled to the information about his forgets? And for what value of n? Are they only entitled to it if partner allows for a misbid or also if partner stubbornly persists in bidding spades or diamonds?

I don't think that is Wolff's point, or not his only point anyway. As I understand it, he wants to penalise people simply for forgetting their methods, even if it's the first time they've done so. He also wants to penalise people for playing methods which they haven't discussed in sufficient detail.

[gnasher]

I begin to wonder if all the flap over Ghestem is more related to the frequency of forgets across the field rather than the frequency by one player or pair.

Ghestem accidents ruin the game for people who don't play Ghestem. Hence people who have Ghestem accidents should be punished, especially when they happen to survive their accident.

 

This is my honestly held, impartial opinion. It's merely a coincidence that I don't play Ghestem, none of my friends play Ghestem, and none of the people I respect as bridge players play Ghestem*.

 

 

* That's actually part of the definition of "people I respect as bridge players".

[Trinidad]

The point of the discussion is that the line between MI and misbids seems clear, but it can be vague in cases. What if a player has forgotten Ghestem n times in the past and now bids 3♣ over 1♥? Are the opponents entitled to the information about his forgets? And for what value of n? Are they only entitled to it if partner allows for a misbid or also if partner stubbornly persists in bidding spades or diamonds?

 

I don't think that is Wolff's point, or not his only point anyway. As I understand it, he wants to penalise people simply for forgetting their methods, even if it's the first time they've done so. He also wants to penalise people for playing methods which they haven't discussed in sufficient detail.

 

I should have made a separate post out of that. As you point out, it has very little to do with Bobby Wolff's ideas on convention disruption. I didn't intend to suggest a link between "concealed history of misbids" (can we make a new acronym for that: CHoM?) and convention disruption because there is none.

 

Rik

[billw55]

* That's actually part of the definition of "people I respect as bridge players".

Now you have me curious about your definition of "impartial" :P

[mycroft]

Wolff does have a point; pre-emptive bids, especially those that are "assumed-fit" (i.e. shorter than normal, especially 4-cards where it could be our fit) and those that have unknown suits (in particular, no known suits) are pretty misbid-safe; the chance that they'll damage the side with the strength is much higher than the chance they will damage the preempting side.

 

Ghestem, as a specific example, has both suits known, but the "standard" way of playing and misbidding it makes it a psycho-Suction equivalent (either clubs or the other two suits). This makes it much harder to defend against, even if they don't play Forget Ghestem (i.e. if they forget, they suck it up). It's even harder to defend against if the opponents "play it" as two-way (for instance, just taking a preference instead of push-raising with 5-card support and a weak hand) but don't disclose the mistake potential.

 

And insufficient disclosure (especially of the "we haven't talked about it, at least partly so we 'don't know' when we would, for instance, pass a Multi 2♥ opening" or "oh, partner's described her hand completely, so we just place the contract" variety) doesn't help. Especially when said insufficient disclosure is at world championship level.

 

BUT: as I've said above, there are calls that are equally disruptive, that "everybody" plays, especially at "everybody" level. You play Bergen? Which way? Does it apply after a double? Does it apply after an overcall? What if it's not a jump? What if 3♣ wouldn't have been a jump, but your call is? What if it's a cuebid of our overcall? Would you raise to 3 with the right zero count, favourable? How about with a bad 7 (or, in a Precision context, a bad 8?) What's the difference between 3M and 4? Oh and what happens when this time partner forgot and has a WJS in clubs? Or: you play Lebensohl. The auction goes 1NT-(2♥ Alerted)-2NT!; 3♣!-3NT!. 2♥ was not asked about. Does 3NT show a spade stopper or not (of course, 2♥ shows spades)? A heart stopper? You play Good/Bad 2NT. Please explain (note, I have yet to get a good explanation at the table). You play Support doubles? Do they apply after 1NT overcalls? What about Sandwich 1NT overcalls?

 

It's really easy to put any non-serious partnership into "don't know" territory in *basic* auctions, if you don't do things the "normal" way (and sometimes even if you do). I play K/S in North America, trust me. Get it wrong, and it's CD. I'm willing to deal with the "germ warfare" problems over ruling CD to hell and back in normal games (and Wolff may be saying it's only at the highest levels, but he still mentions it in the non-NABC+ appeals, if they're appropriate; even Bracket 4 KOs and the like) (Again, I play K/S in mono-2/1-land; I'm going to be more-than-normal the victim on those "normal games"). I would be happy with, at higher levels and specific events, requirements for "basic auctions in normal situations", as long as they're much better defined than that. And it still means that cannon fodder in the Spingold get treated like professional pairs when they screw up against their first-ever Transfer-Walsh auction; I don't think we need to discourage players from playing the top events any more than we are.

[Trinidad]

Upthread Rik suggested that when one player forgets he's playing Ghestem, and bids 3♣ intending it as natural, that when his partner then raises to 4♣ that is evidence of a CPU. Well maybe. Possibly they both forgot. :blink:

I may be wrong, but I don't think I wrote anything like that. But if both players forget an agreement then that is certainly evidence that their agreement is not very solid.

 

What I may have written is that if one player forgets he's playing Ghestem and bids 3♣ with a club hand, his partner gives a preference for one of the suits shown, the Ghestem bidder rebids 4♣ and his partner passes then that is evidence of a CPU. (Where the CPU is that 3♣ is either Ghestem or natural.)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

What I may have written is that if one player forgets he's playing Ghestem and bids 3♣ with a club hand, his partner gives a preference for one of the suits shown, the Ghestem bidder rebids 4♣ and his partner passes then that is evidence of a CPU. (Where the CPU is that 3♣ is either Ghestem or natural.)

Yes, that was it. I guess I misread it.

 

I do have several partners who invariably pass when they don't understand what's going on. For them, there is no CPU.

[Vampyr]

I may be wrong, but I don't think I wrote anything like that. But if both players forget an agreement then that is certainly evidence that their agreement is not very solid.

 

What I may have written is that if one player forgets he's playing Ghestem and bids 3♣ with a club hand, his partner gives a preference for one of the suits shown, the Ghestem bidder rebids 4♣ and his partner passes then that is evidence of a CPU. (Where the CPU is that 3♣ is either Ghestem or natural.)

 

Rik

 

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

[blackshoe]

In making rulings, I don't think we get to ask that question.

[Vampyr]

In making rulings, I don't think we get to ask that question.

No. It's just a little suspicious.

[paulg]

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

If Fantoni-Nunes play it (as they do with1♦-3♣), then I expect it has slightly more merit than you imply. For a start as a limited bid it puts immediate pressure on the next opponent and removes a cue bid. We play the same, as we copied them (which is interesting, as this means that we are in the same circle as them in gnasher's eyes ... but perhaps only when it comes to this).

[gnasher]

If Fantoni-Nunes play it (as they do with1♦-3♣), then I expect it has slightly more merit than you imply. For a start as a limited bid it puts immediate pressure on the next opponent and removes a cue bid. We play the same, as we copied them (which is interesting, as this means that we are in the same circle as them in gnasher's eyes ... but perhaps only when it comes to this).

There are exceptions to every rule.

[gnasher]

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

If that's why they agreed to do this, what's wrong with it?

 

I have lots of agreements which, althogh not theoretically best, are intended to protect us from messing up the system. For example, in most partnerships I play 2♥-pass-2♠ as natural, even though I think that's clearly inferior to using it as an artificial enquiry. There are even some partnerships where I play 1♣-pass-1♦ as showing diamonds.

[Vampyr]

If that's why they agreed to do this, what's wrong with it?

 

The problem I have is that the partnership is protected from misbids. If I bid 3♣ with a WJS in clubs, maybe partner will prefer clubs to the other suit and I will be OK. If I bid 3♣ with clubs and whatever, and partner thinks I have a WJS in clubs, we will again be in an OK spot. It seems like a psyche control.

 

 

There are even some partnerships where I play 1♣-pass-1♦ as showing diamonds.

 

No way!

[Cthulhu D]

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

 

Isn't it? I play it that way and it seems superior because partner can pass much more often without giving them the chance to double an artifical bid.

 

edit: That said, I'm unconstrained by brown sticker stuff so maybe I could play 1H-3C as clubs or clubs and diamonds , though that seems kinda rubbish.