[jillybean]

I enjoy reading the ACBL Appeal cases but come across one acronym used by some commentators where I am not entirely sure of its meaning.

"CD" I assume is convention disruption, what does this actually mean?

Thanks.

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2013-February-02, 10:43, said:

I enjoy reading the ACBL Appeal cases but come across one acronym used by some commentators where I am not entirely sure of its meaning.

"CD" I assume is convention disruption, what does this actually mean?

Thanks.

"Convention disruption" is a term that Bobby Wolff invented and tried (unsuccessfully) to introduce.
It has no legal standing and is not applied in case law.

At the most basic level, convention disruption means that players who use methods that Wolff dislikes should be held to different standards than players who use methods that Wolff approves of.

[awm]

To put this another way, it's the idea that a pair which plays "unusual" methods has a special responsibility to remember their agreements (at least in relatively simple auctions) and should not be allowed to benefit from apparent "forgets" where they land on their feet.

I agree with Hrothgar that this has no standing in law, but there is some logic behind it. A pair playing complicated methods often has a good idea of when a "forget" might be likely (what did they change recently in the methods, what almost never comes up, what is very different from other sequences) as well as a good idea as to what the "forgetter" might actually hold (what did the agreement used to be before the recent change, what agreement do they have in different but similar sequences). This knowledge is virtually never disclosed to opponents because it's not part of the "official" agreements pertaining to the call in question. Of course, this sort of situation comes up for pairs playing more standard methods too, but the opponents are typically less in the dark.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, you might find the following thread of interest

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille8.htm

You might want to check the initial appeal by Beate Birr

[PrecisionL]

I have followed CD with interest since I play various complicated systems and have forgotten the exact meaning of a relay auction twice in 10 years with no damage to the opponents. However, when partner mis-explains our bidding, I always correct before the opening lead when one of us is declarer.

I have also been on the receiving side of a zero when the opponent's used the wrong defense (forgot their convention) against our weak NT for which there was no adjustment by the director.

Here is a comment on Judy Kay-Wolff's blog [January 21st, 2012]:

Hi Judy,

Since my partner and I were the victim of an intentional and admitted CD a few weeks ago (discussed in Bobby’s blog a few days ago), I emailed the ACBL to ask their opinion about CD.
Here is an ACBL reply to CD:

“You are correct that there is no rule against forgetting your convention.

However, in the case that you gave where the person intention did this mainly because they didn’t like what partner put on the card, I, as the director, would have thrown the result out and given that person (pair) a procedural penalty.

In addition, if a pair routinely forgets their methods the director can forbid them from playing the conventions that seem to be causing.

This is disruptive to the game and the same people can not continue to do this with impunity and fall back on the “I forgot” time after time.”

Bernie Gorkin

Ref: http://judy.bridgebl...ades-this-time/

[bluejak]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-02, 11:22, said:

FWIW, you might find the following thread of interest

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille8.htm

You might want to check the initial appeal by Beate Birr

Many years ago I changed my basic domain to blakjak.org. It has taken a long time to persuade the world! My website is occasionally updated, but the blakjak.org one only, not the old Demon one. In fact the old Demon one should disappear within the month. So for the above article please go to

http://blakjak.org/lille8.htm

[hrothgar]

PrecisionL, on 2013-February-02, 11:49, said:

Ref: http://judy.bridgebl...ades-this-time/

This thread is really quite impressive.

Wish I knew whether Wolff actually believes what he is saying...

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2013-February-02, 16:09, said:

Many years ago I changed my basic domain to blakjak.org. It has taken a long time to persuade the world! My website is occasionally updated, but the blakjak.org one only, not the old Demon one. In fact the old Demon one should disappear within the month. So for the above article please go to

http://blakjak.org/lille8.htm

Thank you, a fascinating insight into AC reasoning,

Bobby Wolff, in his second reply to David said:

When I asked in the committee "Has this sequence come up before?" I was specifically told that South had not psyched before, but North had psyched an opening weak lNT several times (perhaps 5). When doubled, he always ran to 2 clubs, which according to them, "was an impossible bid in their system, hence a psychic." They never argued that they both didn't know or even doubted that 2 clubs was a psychic, rather they relied on that any pair playing in this event is sure to know without being told that 2 clubs is a psychic.

Perhaps Bobby Wolff is right that the law should be changed to deter "Convention disruption"; but he is quite wrong to anticipate such a change.

Nevertheless, Bobby Wolff points out that

• One of the N-S pair said he had psyched a 1N opening about five times before;
• A psychic 2♣ rebid was his way of advertising such a psyche. N-S both knew this but regarded the practice as general knowledge.

[mink]

nige1, on 2013-February-02, 20:03, said:

Nevertheless, Bobby Wolff points out that

• One of the N-S pair said he had psyched a 1N opening about five times before;
• A psychic 2♣ rebid was his way of advertising such a psyche. N-S both knew this but regarded the practice as general knowledge.

If you do not only read what Bobby Wolff writes, you find out that Wolf Stahl, responder in this auction, wrote that they said in the hearing that in their 6 year partnership Wolf Stahl had psyched 5 or 6 times at all, in different situations. I have no reason to question this statement, and it is not uncommon that somebody unconsciously modifies what he hears to something that better fits into the way he sees the matter.

He also writes that he was not aware what had happened after he had seen the 2♣ bid. If he really anticipated what it meant he would have bid 2♦ (looking for a 4-4-fit) instead of passing.

By definition it is impossible to tell opps that we have psyched, because if we had to tell it would be an agreement and no psyche anymore.

Karl

[nige1]

mink, on 2013-February-03, 05:29, said:

If you do not only read what Bobby Wolff writes, you find out that Wolf Stahl, responder in this auction, wrote that they said in the hearing that in their 6 year partnership Wolf Stahl had psyched 5 or 6 times at all, in different situations. I have no reason to question this statement, and it is not uncommon that somebody unconsciously modifies what he hears to something that better fits into the way he sees the matter.
He also writes that he was not aware what had happened after he had seen the 2♣ bid. If he really anticipated what it meant he would have bid 2♦ (looking for a 4-4-fit) instead of passing.
By definition it is impossible to tell opps that we have psyched, because if we had to tell it would be an agreement and no psyche anymore.

What mink says is reasonable but it's still unclear how this appeal could hinge on convention disruption (even if the law were changed to ban such a thing).

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2013-February-03, 08:36, said:

What mink says is reasonable but it's still unclear how this appeal could hinge on convention disruption (even if the law were changed to ban such a thing).

True, but reading Wolff's views on the Lille appeal tells us quite a lot about him.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2013-February-03, 08:36, said:

What mink says is reasonable but it's still unclear how this appeal could hinge on convention disruption (even if the law were changed to ban such a thing).

Wolff has always maintained that he is above the law.

There are plenty of direct quotes available where Wolff states "The laws don't allow for X, however, what we really need is for a few good men to do the right thing, regardless of what the laws state."

There is a reason that Wolff doesn't serve on appeals committees any more...
Wolff has tried to retcon this based on hearing troubles. In actuality, he's a rogue cannon.

I was looking over the Bridgeblogging thread, in which Wolff directly states that the Europeans have adopted Convention Disruption" as part of the legal system. (He stated that Kaplan prevented him from applying this in the US). I found this a little surprising. I didn't thing that Convention Disruption had legal standing anywhere in the WBF.

[gnasher]

hrothgar, on 2013-February-03, 09:21, said:

I was looking over the Bridgeblogging thread, in which Wolff directly states that the Europeans have adopted Convention Disruption" as part of the legal system. (He stated that Kaplan prevented him from applying this in the US). I found this a little surprising. I didn't thing that Convention Disruption had legal standing anywhere in the WBF.

What does he mean by "the Europeans"? Each country in Europe has its own National Bridge Organisation with its regulations.

If he's talking about the rules used in the EBL's own events (eg the European Championships), last time I looked they were a direct copy of the WBF's regulations.

[Flem72]

Does anyone like getting fixed by opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the fix? Gratuitous aside: Wolff is a very poor writer.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2013-February-03, 11:04, said:

Does anyone like getting fixed by opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the fix? Gratuitous aside: Wolff is a very poor writer.

I think that its possible to have a legitimate discussion on this topic, however, I don't think that its reasonable to have a two tier legal system in which treatments that the Appeals Committee dislikes are treated differently than treatment that the Appeals Committee favors.

Wolff's system of Convention Disruption is institutionalized discrimination.

[bluejak]

Flem72, on 2013-February-03, 11:04, said:

Does anyone like getting fixed by opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the fix? Gratuitous aside: Wolff is a very poor writer.

Does anyone like getting good scores from opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the good score?

[ahydra]

Surely recorder forms are the solution to this?

- Record any instances of convention forgetting / psyches / etc at any county or higher event, whatever the final result.
- The forms should be stored electronically so the TD at the event can check for any records for this player.
- Rule CPU / fielded psyche / whatever is appropriate if the pair is found to have forgotten the convention / psyched in this situation on a previous occasion.
- Expire the recorded events after say 5 years.

A little bureaucratic (and complex to implement), perhaps - but seems to be a compromise between allowing psyches and complex conventions, and preventing pairs gaining (even unintentionally) from realising what's going on and not explaining it to the opponents or writing it on their CC.

And yes, this would apply to all conventions, from Stayman to ten-round asymmetric relay auctions.

ahydra

[aguahombre]

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.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 08:27, said:

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."

The Conditions of Contest that you cite refer to the "methods" that pairs are using and does not differentiate between natural bidding and conventional treatments. Wolff's writing on Convention Disruption makes it very clear that the nature of the bidding method being screwed up is used to determine whether or not to apply Convention Disruption. (Wolff really doesn't have a choice. He can't apply his draconian sanctions to players using natural methods because this would further cripple beginner's)

[Flem72]

bluejak, on 2013-February-03, 12:08, said:

Does anyone like getting good scores from opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the good score?

Not really.

Currently, yes.