[blackshoe]

jeremy69, on May 16 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

I don't think systems such as these suit short rounds

This may be why the ACBL has adopted segment length (in terms of number of boards) as a criterion for deciding in which events certain methods may be played (see the ACBL MidChart.)

[RMB1]

It is disappointing but inevitable that threads get hijacked. It is more frustrating that a new thread in a different forum has reverted to discussing the original thread.

A bid is explained as "A or B, we haven't discussed which", and the bidder subsequently agrees that this is an accurate statement of their partnership understanding.

GordonTD and DBurn want to rule that this is not an adequate disclosure, and opponents are entitled to know which of A or B it is (unless there is evidence of an understading to play "A or B", I guess).

FrancesHinden and I think that this is adequate disclosure and that there is not misinformation if the bidder has A or has B. There may be an illegal agreement, and unauthorised information, but not necessarily misinformation.

Nige1 said that he would like the law to be as GordonTD and DBurn had said, but was not persuaded that the law did say so.

So it might be good to be able to rule misinformation and if that needs a change in the law then so be it. I was trying to suggest a possible change to the laws by extending Law 21B.

Are there other approaches or do others agree that the laws are adequate to rule misinformation?

[I blame a long bridge event and a long train journey home due to multiple instances of weekend engineering work. ]

[dburn]

RMB1, on May 16 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

It is disappointing but inevitable that threads get hijacked.  It is more frustrating that a new thread in a different forum has reverted to discussing the original thread.

A bid is explained as "A or B, we haven't discussed which", and the bidder subsequently agrees that this is an accurate statement of their partnership understanding. 

Gordon and DBurn want to rule that this is not an adequate disclosure, and opponents are entitled to know which of A or B it is (unless there is evidence of an understanding to play "A or B", I guess).

Frances and I think that this is adequate disclosure and that there is not misinformation if the bidder has A or has B.  There may be an illegal agreement, and unauthorised information, but not necessarily misinformation.

To be clear about this: the question was the meaning of a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening.

Now, the partnership had agreed to play that a 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening had some artificial meaning. It had not agreed to play that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening had the same (or any other) artificial meaning. It is all very well for the 2♠ overcaller to claim, with hindsight, that had he thought about the matter at all his partnership would have formed such an agreement. But the fact is that he did not and it had not.

Well, West bid 2♠ in accordance with his partnership agreements. East alerted and spoke to some agreement that did not exist, thereby conveying to North a totally false picture of what the West hand might contain. To me (and, I presume, to Gordon), it beggars belief that this should be considered "adequate disclosure", or anything at all but out-and-out misinformation. I say again: if East knew that 2♠ was artificial, but did not know what it meant, his efforts at disclosure might have been what Law and regulation require. But the fact is that he did not and they were not.

Like Gordon, and (as far as I can judge) like North and South, I have no doubt that East and West were attempting to act from the purest of motives - East in particular was trying to "be helpful". But when attempting to help a lady across the road, it is advisable to be sure [a] that she actually wants to cross the road in the first place and [b] that you are certain of what the road looks like. Otherwise, when the lady ends up (as she did) under the wheels of a bus, you may expect short shrift from Lords Rainsford and Burn when we try you for manslaughter (or perhaps, in these interesting times, "personslaughter").

[mjj29]

RMB1, on May 16 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

It is disappointing but inevitable that threads get hijacked. It is more frustrating that a new thread in a different forum has reverted to discussing the original thread.

A bid is explained as "A or B, we haven't discussed which", and the bidder subsequently agrees that this is an accurate statement of their partnership understanding.

GordonTD and DBurn want to rule that this is not an adequate disclosure, and opponents are entitled to know which of A or B it is (unless there is evidence of an understading to play "A or B", I guess).

FrancesHinden and I think that this is adequate disclosure and that there is not misinformation if the bidder has A or has B. There may be an illegal agreement, and unauthorised information, but not necessarily misinformation.

Nige1 said that he would like the law to be as GordonTD and DBurn had said, but was not persuaded that the law did say so.

So it might be good to be able to rule misinformation and if that needs a change in the law then so be it. I was trying to suggest a possible change to the laws by extending Law 21B.

Are there other approaches or do others agree that the laws are adequate to rule misinformation?

[I blame a long bridge event and a long train journey home due to multiple instances of weekend engineering work. ]

The one thing I would say when trying to redraft this law is that there must be some way that the side who have realised that they don't have a specific agreement here and that two disparate agreements are likely to apply (dburn wants to force it to be natural, but what if it's a cue of their suit, or something else obviously artificial, but not _how_ it is artificial) can act in accordance with the law and get a good result without it being ruled back. If all roads lead to rome, or at least score adjustment, I don't think that it is a good law.

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 16 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

Well, West bid 2♠ in accordance with his partnership agreements. East alerted and spoke to some agreement that did not exist, thereby conveying to North a totally false picture of what the West hand might contain. To me (and, I presume, to Gordon), it beggars belief that this should be considered "adequate disclosure", or anything at all but out-and-out misinformation. I say again: if East knew that 2♠ was artificial, but did not know what it meant, his efforts at disclosure might have been what Law and regulation require. But the fact is that he did not and they were not.

There should not be a difference if the ambiguity is between two artificial calls or between an artifical and a natural call.

And anyway, I meant "had I thought at the table" not "had I thought about discussing it in advance".

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on May 16 2010, 09:03 AM, said:

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

jeremy69, on May 18 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

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]

bluejak, on May 18 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

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]

Quote

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]

dburn, on May 18 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 18 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

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

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]

gerry, on May 20 2010, 05:32 AM, said:

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]

nige1, on May 20 2010, 07:41 PM, said:

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

Echognome, on May 20 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

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

Echognome, on May 20 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

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]

blackshoe, on May 21 2010, 05:21 AM, said:

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.

nigel1 said:

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.