[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-June-06, 17:30, said:

Simplification of system should be mandatory for frequent misbidders anyway. I don't agree with you about how hard it is for players to prevent their own misbids; I remember making two in the last ten years. (One was 2NT-3NT intended as natural, when systemically it was not, and one was 1♥-2NT as a GF raise when systemically it was not, so at least our opponents were not damaged!)

I guess you're a really good player. I'll bet lesser players make misbids more often, especially if they change partners frequently and have different agreements with different partners. It's easy for such players to forget which agreement they have with the current partner.

Quote

But anyway, what is all this talk about morality? Bridge is a game, and no one dies no matter what happens at the table, and moral failings have nothing to do with it. I am talking about regulations, which are rules of the game, not criminal laws. Accidentally breaking the rules of a game is morally neutral, and whether the infraction should attract a penalty is a decision made for the benefit of the game, not for the punishment of evil-doers.

Of course accidents are morally neutral, but intentional violations are not. If they're extreme enough we call the perpetrators cheaters, and we take serious action against them: they may be publically embarassed, causing them to be shunned by other players, and we may suspend them from the league.

[jeffford76]

I would agree that in general penalizing misbids isn't a good idea.

The problem is in the specific case of bids that regulations prevent the psyching of. Presumably the point of having those regulations is that it is deemed to be a worse game if people can make the bid without having the hand required by the bid. I fail to see how if that is true that it matters whether the making of the bid was intentional or unintentional.

When misbids are allowed for bids that can't be psyched I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-07, 10:48, said:

When misbids are allowed for bids that can't be psyched I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

It should reduce the occurrence of these bids that don't match the hand. We may not be able to achieve perfection, but why not try to reduce the number of problem auctions?

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2012-June-07, 11:56, said:

It should reduce the occurrence of these bids that don't match the hand. We may not be able to achieve perfection, but why not try to reduce the number of problem auctions?

Well, I would argue that we *can* achieve perfection if the regulation prohibits the misbid with the psyche.

I just don't see much difference between "You can trust this bid unless they misbid" and "You can trust this bid unless they misbid or psyched". My actions over it just aren't going to be any different.

But there's an enormous difference between "You can trust this bid" and "You can trust this bid unless they misbid or psyched" to the point that I could understand a regulation to achieve it (even though personally I wouldn't want it).

[mjj29]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-07, 10:48, said:

I just don't see the point of the rule banning psyches. What is it achieving?

Fixed your post

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-07, 12:10, said:

Well, I would argue that we *can* achieve perfection if the regulation prohibits the misbid with the psyche.

This is obviously true, and it seems that it wouldn't hurt "lesser players" very much since it would only apply to psyches that are prohibited.

Luckily I play in an NBO that does not prohibit psyches of any class of bids, so I guess I shall leave it to the less fortunate to worry about this problem.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2012-June-07, 18:03, said:

Fixed your post

Well, indeed, but this discussion is in the context of psyches are banned; unbanning is of course better, but perhaps less likely.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-June-06, 09:59, said:

To relate that to my earlier analogy, this would be an argument for not distinguishing murder from manslaughter -- either way, the victim is dead, so it doesn't matter to them (or their loved ones) why you did it.

I think that is too much of a simplification.

Suppose convention X may not be psyched. If you psyche it the penalty would presumably be a score adjustment if there is damage, plus a PP. Now suppose the regulation also says you may not misbid it. If you do so I would imagine the penalty would be a score adjustment if there was damage, but no PP. This is roughly the difference between murder and manslaughter: both are illegal because of the effect on the victim, but one carries a higher penalty because it is deliberate.

[blackshoe]

The current law does not distinguish between bids you can psych and bids you cannot psych. Same for misbids- the law does not even contemplate the possibility of prohibiting misbids. Yet we have regulations, at least in some places, prohibiting certain psychs, and now here we are discussing the idea of throwing misbids into the pot. Why? Is it because some influential players get annoyed when someone perpetrates a successful psych against them, or someone's misbid works out well? Is it a holdover from Don Oakie's (and others') crusade against any psychs at all? Has there been a problem with frequent psychs or misbids (e.g., Ghestem) resulting in a high probability there is a CPU, and people would rather legislate against the psych/misbid than apply the existing law (which IMO is quite adequate to handle such cases)? Is it something else? I think before we can suggest a viable law or regulation in this area, we ought to identify why we are doing it, and why the current law is inadequate.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

The psyches/misbids that need to be banned and penalised are where a pair want to play an illegal agreement, modify it so it meets the local regs, then "psyche/misbid" it with some of the hands they wanted to put in it but weren't allowed to.

Example (hypothetical, the UK rules don't quite say this): I want to play 2♣ over a natural 1♣ as 3 suited short in clubs.

The regulations say I have to specify a suit that must have 4 cards or more.

I nominate spades, but occasionally do it when 3451 anyway.

bluejak, on 2012-June-07, 08:44, said:

If you are suggesting this is not illegal I do not agree. While it might be difficult to determine that is what records are for. If you make the bid from time to time with 3451 and partner knows it you are playing an illegal agreement: worse, you are playing it and not disclosing it, so if I determine that you are doing this deliberately and knowledgeably not only will you get a bad board from me but you will be reported to your National Authority by me.

I think you misunderstand, I'm saying it IS illegal and needs particularly harsh punishment. The I was from the point of view of the cheat, not meaning me.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-07, 12:10, said:

I just don't see much difference between "You can trust this bid unless they misbid" and "You can trust this bid unless they misbid or psyched". My actions over it just aren't going to be any different.

True. But I see the purpose of banning these psyches as intended to deter people from using certain tactics to gain an advantage over the opponents. A misbid is not a tactic.