[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-11, 18:12, said:

Probably not. If the perfect system were really complicated, some players would want a system with less memory strain. Also some players would (especially in a field where they are relatively weak) prefer an anti-field system. But anyway, if a system was "perfect" in getting to the right contracts, it would have the drawback that it would give a lot of information away to the opponents. Different players will have different ideas of what is "perfect".

I don't think that these two points of view will ever be reconciled, so it is probably pointless to continue to try.

It is, however, possible to show that one of these points of view is mainstream and the other is not

Quote

I am still interested in the claim that all systems have holes, and I would be interested to learn how the people who have made this claim reached that conclusion.

Because we've seen plenty of cases where world class players, using systems that they've played for years, suddenly discover that they have holes in their systems...

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 19:03, said:

It is, however, possible to show that one of these points of view is mainstream and the other is not

This is unlikely too, because the posters on each side of the question are about equally divided.

Quote

Because we've seen plenty of cases where world class players, using systems that they've played for years, suddenly discover that they have holes in their systems...

This may be true, but I would wager that these holes appear in highly complex systems. With my regular partner, I play a very straightforward natural system, and I do not think that there can be holes in it because we have very few bids that are strictly defined. With other partners I usually play basic Acol. In this system there are even fewer bids with strict constraints, so it is very unlikely that a hand can be "unbiddable".

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-11, 16:56, said:

No system is perfect. If it were, everyone would play it, and no other.

The deviation is not from "the system bid with the given hand". The deviation is from "the announced methods of the partnership", which state that a 3♥ bid at this point in this auction will contain at least three hearts. To argue that this wasn't a deviation because there was no agreement on this hand from which to deviate is specious. The agreement was that the bid (and we do not, in ruling, need to look at the hand at this point) shows 3 hearts. This was explained to the opponents. The hand does not have three hearts. Perhaps you feel the explanation should be "usually at least three hearts, but occasionally only two", but you are requiring bidder's partner to make an explanation including a hand type which it has never occurred to him his partner might have, by his own testimony. Now you say you don't believe him. If he's lying, this isn't an MI case, it's a deliberate CPU case, and you should throw the book at him. I'm not going to believe a player (or a pair) is lying on such flimsy "evidence". Nor should you.

Why would this be a deliberate CPU case? Not everybody who makes a false statement is a liar. Maybe LHO was just confused or distracted.

To put it simple:
I think it is extremely naive to believe that an experienced pair doesn't know what opener's rebid means in an uncontested, constructive auction. To give you an idea of how naive: In the ACBL teaching material, developed by Audrey Grant in the 90's (the "club series"), opener's rebid is treated in lesson 5 of the absolute beginner's course. In the same lesson, the finesse is introduced.

This means that I consider the "evidence" far from flimsy. But, as I said before, this is a matter of judgement.

(An extra note: In some jurisdictions this is not even a matter of judgement anymore. There, a TD is supposed to rule MI automatically when in a simple auction (like this one) the explanation doesn't match the hand (with the obvious exceptions of down right psyches, mechanical errors, etc.).)

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2011-June-11, 21:17, said:

In the ACBL teaching material, developed by Audrey Grant in the 90's (the "club series"), opener's rebid is treated in lesson 5 of the absolute beginner's course. In the same lesson, the finesse is introduced.

lol

On reflection, I think that "complex" wasn't the right word in my previous post; "well-defined" would have been better.

Recently my partner made a bid that I did not like. He had a 3=5=2=3 hand in our opening NT range. He opened 1♥, I bid 1♠, and he rebid 2♠ with poor 3-card support.

I said later that I felt that opening 1NT would have been better on the hand. The point is, both auctions are "allowed", as is his rebidding a very good 5-card heart suit. (My other suggestion, that he rebid a good 3-card ♣ suit, would have been a deviation.)

Anyway. If the system had mandated that he must open 1♥ because he had five goodish ones, and needed 4 cards to raise spades or rebid clubs and six hearts to rebid them, he would have had an unbiddable hand. The fact that he did not is because most of our bids are flexible, rather than highly specific.


In the case of these world champions who are supposed to have discovered holes, it may be that the holes developed as a result of some seemingly minor tinkering -- adding a little bit of definition to one bid, unwittingly orphaning another hand-type.

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 18:57, said:

What choice do you have other than making a call? (And, presumably, making the call that seems to the best description of the hand?
Maybe we should chose the second or the third most descriptive call in order to avoid a possible "implicit understanding"

Why? What is wrong with deducing an implicit understanding, so long as it is explained at the appropriate time? I have had this sort of thing happen, and corrected my partner's explanation - "Yes, but I might have had to make this call with hand X" and partner says "yes, that's true".

[blackshoe]

We have a player who, looking at his hand, decided that {a} there was no systemic bid that would accurately describe his hand, and {b} the closest such bid would be 3♥, there being only a one card difference between his actually holding (2) and the minimum systemic holding (3). So he bid 3♥. We have his partner, to whom it didn't occur that he might have this hand. So he didn't alert (is an alert really required?) or otherwise explain. And some of you want to hang this pair. Personally, I think that's ridiculous.

[Math609]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-12, 00:30, said:

We have a player who, looking at his hand, decided that {a} there was no systemic bid that would accurately describe his hand, and {b} the closest such bid would be 3♥, there being only a one card difference between his actually holding (2) and the minimum systemic holding (3). So he bid 3♥. We have his partner, to whom it didn't occur that he might have this hand. So he didn't alert (is an alert really required?) or otherwise explain. And some of you want to hang this pair. Personally, I think that's ridiculous.

So Blackshoe thinks it is ridiculous to punish (hang) EW. So Blackshoe will obviously punish the innocent side which of course is ridiculous in it's own way.

How Blackshoe reach his conclusion is beyond my understanding. Here are some important facts that we have not discussed properly and is of some (great) significance:

(1) It was admitted at the table that 3H was the only right bid on this hand. So no deviation in my opinion.

(2) The bid was not explained as highly invitational. That's perhaps alright because some could say that is rather obvious...

(3) The bid was not explained as the only bid available to invite to game in hearts. That's a very, very important information for NS, which they didn't get.

(4) It was not explained to NS that 2NT (instead of 3H) would be a non-forcing bid. Also a very, very important information which NS didn't get.

(5) It was not explained that very often the 2D-bidder holds an 6-card suit in hearts (similar to weak two in hearts). Also a very important information which NS didn't get. The 2D bid was alerted at the table and explained as at least 5-card suit in hearts, no further information added. Perhaps alright at that point in the bidding sequence, but not good enough when asked later about the meaning of 3H.

Now some say, that the pair who just described the bidding of 3H as "at least 3 hearts" and gave no further explanation of this very complex system is in top of things! Just fix your "rebidding-hole" before next tournament. No harm done guys, good luck! Sorry NS, nothing we can do for you...

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-11, 20:57, said:

This is unlikely too, because the posters on each side of the question are about equally divided.

Were this a democracy, numbers might matter.

However, on matters dealing with Bridge Laws I suspect that that Bluejak's opinion is a hell of a lot better guide to reality than, yours, Nigels, and for that matter mine...

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-12, 02:21, said:

So Blackshoe thinks it is ridiculous to punish (hang) EW. So Blackshoe will obviously punish the innocent side which of course is ridiculous in it's own way.

There is an enormous difference between failing to restore equity and actively "punishing" the non offending side.

The Laws are not intended to restore equity in each and every case.

[bluejak]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-11, 06:40, said:

This concept of a "forced deviation" is simply not acceptable. Even if it were, it is clear that the opponents are entitled to protection. I do hope no one actually disagrees about the latter point.

Not acceptable to whom? You do not get to make up Laws, Stephanie, even if you think they are reasonable.

If the opposition tell you their agreements, the fact that their agreements are poor is no reason for redress.

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-11, 09:28, said:

What on earth makes you think that?

Experience.

 Math609, on 2011-June-12, 02:21, said:

So Blackshoe thinks it is ridiculous to punish (hang) EW. So Blackshoe will obviously punish the innocent side which of course is ridiculous in it's own way.

It would be ridiculous if that is what he was doing. But he is not. If the relevant pair have not committed an infraction then you cannot refer to their opponents as "the" innocent side: both sides are Innocent.

Furthermore, you are not "punishing" anyone: if there is no infraction but someone has suffered a rub-of-the-green disadvantage they have not been punished.

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-12, 04:14, said:

Were this a democracy, numbers might matter.

However, on matters dealing with Bridge Laws I suspect that that Bluejak's opinion is a hell of a lot better guide to reality than, yours, Nigels, and for that matter mine...

If by "mainstream" you mean "agreeing with bluejak" please choose your terms more carefully.

[Vampyr]

Another upvote misclick! Seems only to happen with posts I strongly disagree with

 bluejak, on 2011-June-12, 08:14, said:

Experience.

What you have experienced in England is probably the same as I have -- that it is pretty easy to put holes in an otherwise OK method. For example, playing an ordinary natural-based system, some people will play that 1m-(1♥)-1♠ shows 5 spades, while double shows 4 spades. This immediately creates a class of unbiddable hands. Teammates recently encountered a method whereby a cuebid of opponents' suit showed a raise of pd's suit, even if the cuebidder were a passed hand. More unbiddable hands created...

I think that the majority of systems that suffer from over-definition do so in silly ways like the above. It's a bit of a different situation with rubbishy home-grown systems.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 18:57, said:

Meaningless statistic. I could play a system in which I call 7N on each and every hand that I get dealt.

Hrothgar is welcome to try his system in our rubber-bridge circle but such systems are illegal in most jurisdictions.

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 18:57, said:

What choice do you have other than making a call? (And, presumably, making the call that seems to the best description of the hand? Maybe we should chose the second or the third most descriptive call in order to avoid a possible "implicit understanding"

In this case the bone of contention is whether the chosen call involves an implicit understanding. If it does, then a legal option would be for declarer or dummy to disclose it.

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 18:57, said:

Its fine and dandy to argue about design principles assuming that we are discussing changing the Laws. However, here are discussing a ruling with the existing Laws

I was discussing judgement. I explicitly referred to judgement . But yes. More careful definition of terms like "deviation" and "impliciit understanding" would clarify interpretation and help to resolve this argument.

[blackshoe]

 Math609, on 2011-June-12, 02:21, said:

So Blackshoe thinks it is ridiculous to punish (hang) EW. So Blackshoe will obviously punish the innocent side which of course is ridiculous in it's own way.

How Blackshoe reach his conclusion is beyond my understanding. Here are some important facts that we have not discussed properly and is of some (great) significance:

(1) It was admitted at the table that 3H was the only right bid on this hand. So no deviation in my opinion.

(2) The bid was not explained as highly invitational. That's perhaps alright because some could say that is rather obvious...

(3) The bid was not explained as the only bid available to invite to game in hearts. That's a very, very important information for NS, which they didn't get.

(4) It was not explained to NS that 2NT (instead of 3H) would be a non-forcing bid. Also a very, very important information which NS didn't get.

(5) It was not explained that very often the 2D-bidder holds an 6-card suit in hearts (similar to weak two in hearts). Also a very important information which NS didn't get. The 2D bid was alerted at the table and explained as at least 5-card suit in hearts, no further information added. Perhaps alright at that point in the bidding sequence, but not good enough when asked later about the meaning of 3H.

Now some say, that the pair who just described the bidding of 3H as "at least 3 hearts" and gave no further explanation of this very complex system is in top of things! Just fix your "rebidding-hole" before next tournament. No harm done guys, good luck! Sorry NS, nothing we can do for you...

I did not say I was going to punish anyone. And I won't. I may adjust the score - that's a rectification, not a punishment. If the NOS were damaged by inadequate disclosure, then I will adjust the score. But not because there was a one card difference between the length of the suit as it existed and as it was described. Some of your arguments above have merit, and should certainly be considered, but those arguments are not what I was talking about.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-12, 00:30, said:

We have a player who, looking at his hand, decided that {a} there was no systemic bid that would accurately describe his hand, and {b} the closest such bid would be 3♥, there being only a one card difference between his actually holding (2) and the minimum systemic holding (3). So he bid 3♥. We have his partner, to whom it didn't occur that he might have this hand. So he didn't alert (is an alert really required?) or otherwise explain. And some of you want to hang this pair. Personally, I think that's ridiculous.

I would share your point of view completely if this would have been a highly competitive auction, an auction that rarely occurs, if the hand types were odd or if this would be the fifth round of a convoluted auction. In those cases I will certainly believe a statement that one partner discovered a hole in the system, was stuck for a bid and chose the least of evils.

However, we are talking about the simplest of auctions, very early in the auction, and hand types that occur 8 days a week. They must have been in this situation (or equivalent ones) I don't know how many times, unless this was one of the first times they were playing (this system) together.

Rik

[blackshoe]

If you're going to make a mathematical argument, Rik, you're going to have to show your work.

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2011-June-13, 00:38, said:

However, we are talking about the simplest of auctions, very early in the auction, and hand types that occur 8 days a week. They must have been in this situation (or equivalent ones) I don't know how many times, unless this was one of the first times they were playing (this system) together.

Rik

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-13, 09:45, said:

If you're going to make a mathematical argument, Rik, you're going to have to show your work.

I smiled.

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-12, 08:28, said:

Another upvote misclick! Seems only to happen with posts I strongly disagree with

My opinion of you was elevated for about 10 seconds! (The time between seeing that you had upvoted bluejak's post, which seemed like a classy action, and reading your retraction...)

[Vampyr]

I think that participants in this thread have been distracted by terminology. Did East deviate from his system or did he discover an agreement that was part of his system by inference? Which one it is is quite obvious to everyone, the only problem being...

Anyway, it is not actually relevant. The relevant fact is that even if "this" time was a "deviation" East knew, by the end of the auction, that the system required that the 3♥ bid would include some hands with only 2 hearts.

If East was, and I believe he was, an experienced players, he no doubt knew that he was required to disclose this to his opponents. He didn't want to do it because it would have revealed much about his hand. But we've all been there, haven't we, and taken our lumps, and so should East have.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2011-June-13, 09:45, said:

If you're going to make a mathematical argument, Rik, you're going to have to show your work.

All right. I did the mathematics on a rough basis. I calculated the percentage of 5233, 5224 and 5242 hands with 17-19 HCP. I calculated how often there will be 5+ and 6+ hearts opposite the doubleton (using the tables from the Encyclopedia of Bridge).

Pretty soon I came to the conclusion. My statement "8 days a week" was completely false. In fact "12 months a year" would be false too. The frequency of this situation arising is in the order of once a year if you play together once a week.

Therefore, I was completely off. It is entirely possible that these people have played this system for a few years without this situation coming up. Is this too political or am I allowed to change my point of view and still keep my seat in the forums?

Rik