[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-September-14, 11:22, said:

The fact that 3NT has a decent chance of making as long as North follows the rules and does not use UI, is enough reason not to rule it a SEWoG (also if North happens to hold ♦AKQT9).

I am afraid this makes no sense to me whatever, so perhaps you could explain it.

mrdct, on 2011-September-15, 07:58, said:

That would be a matter of local regulation I would expect. My Spanish isn't good enough to find the appropriate reference on the FVB website, but I assume any sensible bridge jurisdiction would have an equivalent regulation to the ABF Tournament Regulations:

[i]5.5 A partnership’s knowledge of its system

5.5.1 A partnership should be able to explain its own system clearly. The Director may impose a procedural penalty upon any pair that consistently displays ignorance of its system and in an extreme case may require the pair to cease playing its system and revert to a more natural system for the remainder of the session. The Director shall report such a ruling to the Tournament Sub-Committee. The Tournament Sub-Committee may prohibit the partnership from playing its system in subsequent sessions and events unless and until the partnership is able to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of the system.

I really sometimes wonder about your opinions, Paul. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you must be out of their mind, even when you produce non-mainstream opinions.

I don't mind you thinking we should penalise in this way. I don't agree, since it will make the game poorer for people, especially at low levels, but that's not my main worry.

Most people think that the Bobby Wolff approach to bridge is seriously flawed. Having talked to Bobby myself on the subject, I think he never made it clear enough that his ideas on Convention Disruption were only really meant for top players and top events.

Most jurisdictions around the world consider penalising for Convention Disruption at all levels of the game a very poor idea. Calling all such jurisdictions, including the WBF, ACBL, EBU and so on, not "sensible" I find unfortunate.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 08:33, said:

I really sometimes wonder about your opinions, Paul. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you must be out of their mind, even when you produce non-mainstream opinions.

My name is Dave, not "Paul". What, pray tell, is my non-mainstream opinion on this topic? I was simply answering lamford's query as to the legal basis of hrothgar's assertion that players are required to "know their card".

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 08:33, said:

Most jurisdictions around the world consider penalising for Convention Disruption at all levels of the game a very poor idea. Calling all such jurisdictions, including the WBF, ACBL, EBU and so on, not "sensible" I find unfortunate.

I'm not quite sure what Convention Disruption is, but all I'm talking about is that it makes sense, and is regulated as such in some "sensible" bridge jurisdictions, that players should know what their system is. As far as I know the ACBL is in that camp.

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest include:

"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."

It makes perfect sense to me to regulate that players should know their system as it really isn't much fun playing against a pair that constantly have bidding misunderstandings in their complex home-grown system which just randomises things.

[bluejak]

Sorry for confusing two posts in my mind. You must be getting too similar.

If your idea of bridge is to discourage people and get rid of 80% of people so you can play your perfect game, it isn't mine. Try lightening up.

Sorry, Paul, I wonder how I managed this boo-boo!

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 13:57, said:

Sorry for confusing two posts in my mind. You must be getting too similar.

I wonder who is more offended, lamford or me?

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 13:57, said:

If your idea of bridge is to discourage people and get rid of 80% of people so you can play your perfect game, it isn't mine.

How is a Tournament Regulation such as the ABF's or ACBL's that encourages pairs to know their system going to get rid of 80% of people?

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 13:57, said:

Try lightening up.

Try not putting words in my mouth. hrothgar suggested that it is a requirement that players know their system; lamford queried under which law; and I opined that it's not in the laws and is more a matter of regulation and quoted some examples.

I would add that the Australian regulation, which pretty much only applies to top-level PQP-type events, is a "should" (i.e. best practice but rarely penalised) so the practical effect is that if a pair playing in such events ia consistently stuffing up their agreements, the TD will have a quite chat to them to get their act together or play something more simple.

[bluejak]

I do not care whether such a regulation applies at top level, but that is certainly not what was said earlier.

[Trinidad]

Trinidad, on 2011-September-14, 11:22, said:

The fact that 3NT has a decent chance of making as long as North follows the rules and does not use UI, is enough reason not to rule it a SEWoG (also if North happens to hold ♦AKQT9).

bluejak, on 2011-September-15, 08:33, said:

I am afraid this makes no sense to me whatever, so perhaps you could explain it.

I am sorry if I wasn't clear. The fact that the opening leader has UI from the explanation of 2♦ pretty much forces him to lead a heart. (It usually is an LA to lead your partner's suit and the UI makes this LA a lot less attractive.) I pointed out that 3NT has a decent chance of making on a heart lead. If you bid to a contract that has a decent chance of making (as long as the opponents play by the rules) then that can hardly be called a SEWoG.

Note that I wrote this before I knew the entire hand and before I knew that declarer actually did seem to get a heart lead and "forgot" to test the clubs and take his 9 top tricks. Obviously, when declarer didn't make 3NT when he could have made it my point became completely irrelevant. But that knowledge wasn't available yet.

Rik

[blackshoe]

The ACBL regulation, quoted upthread somewhere, is part of the General Conditions of Contest, which are theoretically applicable at all ACBL Tournaments, including Sectionals. I don't think I've ever seen a ruling based on it, though.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-15, 19:26, said:

The ACBL regulation, quoted upthread somewhere, is part of the General Conditions of Contest, which are theoretically applicable at all ACBL Tournaments, including Sectionals. I don't think I've ever seen a ruling based on it, though.

The equivalent ABF regulation isn't so much for TDs to base rulings on, but is to give TDs the authority to tell a pair who is having an unacceptably high rate of system-forgets to either sort out their system or play something less complex. I'm not aware of any situation where a pair has actually been issued a PP or been forced to play a less complex system pursuant to this regulation, but I'm quite sure a few pairs have been given at least informal warnings to either get their act together or play something simple.

Despite what bluejak maintains, I think there is a universal expectation at all levels of the game that partnerships ought to know their system. To play a system that one or both members of a partnership don't know properly is disruptive to the orderly conduct of an event and is discourteous to one's opponents.

Adding to the list of "sensible" NBOs the EBU Tangerine Book states in Section 1:

"One way to avoid problems is to avoid putting partner into a difficult position in the first place. Don’t think then pass when partner might have a problem, don’t sign off slowly if partner may want to bid on, and (easier said than done) don’t forget the system". (my emphasis added).

[YesHoney]

Don't know if it matters at this point: 2♦ bidder and his partner said at the table they discussed both possibilities (DONT and Capp) and agreed on DONT. 2♦ bidder remembered, his partner forgot.
Lead was A♠.

[blackshoe]

It matters. We can't give accurate rulings if we don't have all the facts.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-15, 19:26, said:

The ACBL regulation, quoted upthread somewhere, is part of the General Conditions of Contest, which are theoretically applicable at all ACBL Tournaments, including Sectionals. I don't think I've ever seen a ruling based on it, though.

I'm surprised if there ever will be one. The wording is hazy enough to to allow arguments such as what "what is commonly occurring" etc. etc. The case has to be probably something like a misunderstanding in nearly every hand before any action is taken. Club level should be explicitly excluded from this regulation, but I really like it for higher level competition; however, the wording has to be tightened up before actual penalties can be given without counterargument (valid, too) from the pair that does not know its system. So far the only example which I remember from somewhere in the ACBL regulations, is that a common situation is first round of bidding in an uncontested auction. Not sure, if I actually read it in regulation or not.

[Siegmund]

Suppose, for the moment, that all of the following are true:

1) NS's real agreement is diamonds and a major, so there really was misinformation;
2) Had EW stopped in 3C, they would have gotten 130 or thereabouts;
3) Had there been no misinformation, NS would might have played in 2S and given up only 100, or even made 2S (they will be doubled, but they arent vulnerable, and if North has six spades or otherwise-exciting distribuiton, he could easily lose just two spades and the cashable heart and club tops.)

Is that a basis for ruling "no damage," period?
Is that ONLY a basis for ruling "no damage" if you believe the 3NT bid was SEWOG?

(My first take is that 3NT was pretty darn woggy, and that there are a lot of layouts where NS have 7+ tricks available in spades and/or 8+ tricks available in diamonds, but I have no idea how persuasive East's argument was, or how shapely the actual NS hands were.)

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-15, 21:08, said:

It matters. We can't give accurate rulings if we don't have all the facts.

I still don't understand why people are second-guessing the facts as presented in the OP and reiterated in subsequent postings by Hanoi5 and YesHoney.

The OP said: "the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M".
Hanoi5 clarified: "DONT alerted by North as Majors".
OP clarified: "2♦ bidder and his partner said at the table they discussed both possibilities (DONT and Capp) and agreed on DONT. 2♦ bidder remembered, his partner forgot".

Also germane to the ruling, we were told by Hanoi5 that 3NT failed despite being in a makeable position which can only mean that sometime before North-South cashed-out, declarer got in and failed to play on ♣ which in my books is a serious error. Accordingly, East-West keep their poor table result and North-South get an adjusted score based on what would've likely happened in the auction had East-West been given a correct explanation of 2♦ and North-South not taken advantage of any UI to extricate themselves from their bidding misunderstanding (which I believe will be 2♠S-3).

The side discussion about whether or not it is sensible to regulate that partnerships should know their system, perhaps belongs in the Changing Laws & Regulations forum; but in relation to the Australian regulation I posted above, one needs to understand that most of the high-level bridge in Australia is more-or-less free of system restrictions so at different points in time we have had pairs playing some pretty weird stuff which is fine under our rules, but when you get a pair playing a weird system and they don't even know it properly it is a pain in the %^&* to play againsts them.

My personal view (and apparently a non-mainstream view according to Bluejak) is that at all levels players should aspire to developing their partnership agreements and understandings such that you can have a sensible game against them without having to constantly involve the TD with misexplanations. As a "should" concept it describes best practice and failure to do it would rarely attract any penalty, but players should be aware that there is a general expectation that partnerships know their system.

Let me present a hypothetical example of a weekly duplicate at small club in England where a keen young pair decide that "Standard English Acol" isn't quite floating their boat so they decide to load-up their system with various complicated, but legal, conventions including relay continuations after an artifical one-level GF response to a natural 1♣ opening. The problem is, every single time their GF auctions go beyond the third round of bidding, one or both of them forgets the structure and they wind-up misinforming their opponents, create a myriad of UI situations, randomise the results, annoy the punters and consume a disproportionate amount of the TD's time. Now tell me, would a TD not be doing his job properly if he didn't sit down with these fellas and tell them that if they are going play these methods at his club they have a reasonsibility to make sure they actually know their system and that if he doesn't see a significant reduction in the TD calls he receives due to their bidding cock-ups, he's going to ask them to play something less complex?

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-September-15, 23:28, said:

Let me present a hypothetical example of a weekly duplicate at small club in England where a keen young pair decide that "Standard English Acol" isn't quite floating their boat so they decide to load-up their system with various complicated, but legal, conventions including relay continuations after an artifical one-level GF response to a natural 1♣ opening. The problem is, every single time their GF auctions go beyond the third round of bidding, one or both of them forgets the structure and they wind-up misinforming their opponents, create a myriad of UI situations, randomise the results, annoy the punters and consume a disproportionate amount of the TD's time. Now tell me, would a TD not be doing his job properly if he didn't sit down with these fellas and tell them that if they are going play these methods at his club they have a reasonsibility to make sure they actually know their system and that if he doesn't see a significant reduction in the TD calls he receives due to their bidding cock-ups, he's going to ask them to play something less complex?

His "job", at the club level, is more than just applying the written laws ---whatever the subject. It is to promote the game, provide a comfortable atmosphere for the players, and keep that 80 percent (alluded to earlier) coming back.

I hope EBU clubs have the same lattitude to do that job as ACBL clubs do. Dealing with the above hypothetical pair in the manner described ---and backing up the words with action if necessary ---would be appropriate. If adhering to sound business practice crosses with the exact letter of the laws in this case, at this level, the governing body hopefully will side with the club director.

[blackshoe]

mrdct, on 2011-September-15, 23:28, said:

I still don't understand why people are second-guessing the facts as presented in the OP and reiterated in subsequent postings by Hanoi5 and YesHoney.

The OP said: "the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M".
Hanoi5 clarified: "DONT alerted by North as Majors".
OP clarified: "2♦ bidder and his partner said at the table they discussed both possibilities (DONT and Capp) and agreed on DONT. 2♦ bidder remembered, his partner forgot".

Hanoi5 was not the original poster, and while they are both in Venezuela, it wasn't clear (at least not to me) that they were both at the site where this happened.

The OP said "2♦ alerted as Capp (M's), no particular agreement on X" and "at the end of the hand it is explained that the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M," which is an assertion, and hence evidence, that the agreement was DONT. It is not proof. OP stated two days and ten hours after the original post that the agreement was DONT, in the 29th post in the thread. It is thus not surprising that the previous 27 replies to the original post were not made with all the facts.

Note that the message to which I'm replying here was a reply to my message (post # 30) replying to YesHoney's #29. I said "we can't give accurate rulings if we don't have all the facts" and I stand by that.

Perhaps folks would like me to delete posts 2 through 28 (except perhaps for Hanoi's #9) and 29 through 34 and we can start over?