[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-06, 04:46, said:

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.

Trinidad, on 2013-February-06, 04:46, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-06, 08:42, said:

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]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

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]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-06, 16:07, said:

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]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

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]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

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

That's SAYC?

[hrothgar]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-06, 13:10, said:

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.../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.

Quote

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.

gnasher, on 2013-February-07, 03:54, said:

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?

hrothgar, on 2013-February-07, 08:00, said:

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.../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]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 10:04, said:

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.

[gartinmale]

Well, I stand corrected then. Good thing we've been alerting them. Not sure whether I want to play SAYC if I have to play takeout doubles...

I don't think this invalidates any of my concerns about system ramifications/disclosure though (given that we certainly know how to alert and disclose the meaning of non-standard penalty doubles) -- probably only my credibility when it comes to knowing SAYC.

So what are you deemed to be playing if you agree SAYC but don't check the boxes? It can't be takeout, since otherwise you'd check them...

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 10:27, said:

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.

[hrothgar]

gartinmale, on 2013-February-07, 10:04, said:

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?

No one is arguing that its a bad thing that players know there agreements.
This is a straw man that no has advanced.

The arguments against convention disruption are based on whether it makes sense to discriminate against players who use conventions that Bobby Wolff doesn't like.

What you have just demonstrated in an admirable fashion is that it quite easy for players to misunderstand very simple systems / conventions.
Even something as basic as whether or not takeout double apply is easy to get wrong if one player claims to know a system that he does not.

[aguahombre]

Note further that the Yellow Card to which you linked does not use red ink (normally indicating alertable methods). That does not mean that the Yellow Card conventions such as J2N and 4-suit transfers are not alertable.

[gartinmale]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-07, 10:36, said:

Note further that the Yellow Card to which you linked does not use red ink (normally indicating alertable methods). That does not mean that the Yellow Card conventions such as J2N and 4-suit transfers are not alertable.

I don't see how that makes a difference. The Alert Chart dictates what is alertable, not the card. Of course we alert (or announce) all of them.

hrothgar said:

What you have just demonstrated in an admirable fashion is that it quite easy for players to misunderstand very simple systems / conventions.

I don't think I've demonstrated that we misunderstand the penalty double at all (we even alert it, and I can tell you what our follow-ups are / when we are in a force / what it means if they redouble / what strength is required). I admit that I thought that SAYC defaulted to penalty doubles. If anything this strengthens my overall point (if you agree to play something you should know what it means - therefore agreeing to play penalty doubles and discussing the follow-ups is the right treatment, and agreeing 'SAYC' is not).

Before my partner and I decided to play the Yellow Card as we understood it we had lengthy discussions about the treatments on it.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-07, 02:47, said:

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).

Ridiculous. Practically every time a TD has to make a misbid-vs-MI decision, it's because the player says he misbid and this is being disputed. If that statement were all the evidence needed to satisfy the "evidence to the contrary" requirement, that clause in the Law would be meaningless.

While we've agreed that it doesn't require overwhelming evidence, surely the intent is that the evidence be credible, and the TD is expected to make this judgement.