[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-21, 08:53, said:

I have read no posts by anyone named "Brothgar". And Gwynn is right, that's enough of that.

On this topic, Blackshoe seems to be in broad agreement with Hrothgar, to whom I apologise for the misspelling.

[gwnn]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-21, 08:53, said:

I have read no posts by anyone named "Brothgar". And Gwynn is right, that's enough of that.

[nige1]

[bluejak]

bessi2, on 2011-March-20, 22:35, said:

What about playing conventions/systems without enough having enough grasp to play them/it. Here the defenders have no realistic chance of figuring out the situation given the explanation and their unfamiliarity with their opponent's system.

Lots of people play systems and conventions and somehow they have to learn them. Players get transfers, Stayman and Fourth suit forcing wrong. Why should there be special rules that are not in the laws for conventions? And are you asking for special rules for all conventions, or just ones you define as requiring special rules?

bessi2, on 2011-March-20, 22:35, said:

It is my contention that when the conventioneers, who themselves are trying to put their opponents out of their comfort zone by creating new situations at the table, provide an explanation not fitting with pd's hand causing damage to their opponents, any and all doubt should go against them. (although I feel more strongly about this when it comes to conventions designed to be disruptive/destructive)

It is a pretty libellous statement that that is what conventioneers are trying to do. Do you think that is what Jack Marx was trying to do when he invented Stayman? Or Jacoby when he invented a 2NT response showing a raise? Players do not invent and play conventions because they are trying to put opponents off, but because they think they are better.

bessi2, on 2011-March-20, 22:35, said:

Given that appeal committee members bring their own views and prejudices to the appeals procedure, and the fact that one committee might easily reach an entirely different conclusion than another, it is difficult to fully accept this assertion. And although this is not a rule, it is a valid view that is not without precedent or supporters.

A good AC applies the Laws, asking the TD if necessary what the Laws are. Only very poor ACs apply their own ideas to the Laws. Certainly different ACs have different views on bridge judgement, but different views on what the Laws are is unacceptable.

[bessi2]

Quote

Anyone who allows his own prejudices to take precedence over the rules shouldn't sit on an appeals committee

Very true, prejudice is way too strong a word. They rather bring their own feelings and judgment. Perhaps this shouldn't be so but committee members aren't robots and even though they might try to resist, it can sneak its way in there. Besides, many committe rulings are based on the committee's judgment rather than set rules.
For example, had I been on the committe in this case I am not even sure how I would have voted. As I mentioned before, my first impression was the e-w hadn't really done anything wrong. Had the other committee members been like minded, the ruling might have been that the table result should stand. Upon further reflection and analysis of the case I came to the conclusion that e-w caused damage and I would like to believe that I would have voted for +50. My opionion that I mentioned in an earlier post: score stands but a penalty for e-w was a personal view that I would certainly not have been adamant about in a committee. As a matter of fact, often when I give my opionion of how to rule cases, I am fully aware that it is a personal opinion, not something I would rule either as a director or a committe member.

Quote

Lots of people play systems and conventions and somehow they have to learn them. Players get transfers, Stayman and Fourth suit forcing wrong. Why should there be special rules that are not in the laws for conventions? And are you asking for special rules for all conventions, or just ones you define as requiring special rules?

I was referring to highly unusual conventions (often disruptive) that opponents are almost certainly not familiar with. But I guess it was an unnecessary statement as the misexplanation will be ruled against anyways. In this case in point, unless I am mistaken, it can possibly be determined that due to lack of partnership understanding there was no real agreement, hence misexplanation. At least I have seen more than one committe fall upon that logic. People can of course play whatever they want, no special rules required.

Quote

It is a pretty libellous statement that that is what conventioneers are trying to do. Do you think that is what Jack Marx was trying to do when he invented Stayman? Or Jacoby when he invented a 2NT response showing a raise? Players do not invent and play conventions because they are trying to put opponents off, but because they think they are better.

Again I am not referring to all conventions, not even close. But it is kind of a zoo out there, and as I have stated before, my views are mostly aimed at disruptive/destructive conventions which are certainly not better for any sort of constructive bidding but are designed to raise havoc for the opponents

Quote

A good AC applies the Laws, asking the TD if necessary what the Laws are. Only very poor ACs apply their own ideas to the Laws. Certainly different ACs have different views on bridge judgement, but different views on what the Laws are is unacceptable.

I couldn't agree more. AC's applying their own ideas to the Laws is unthinkable. But when it comes down to adjudicating cases with judgment (which is MUCH more common, if it were always a matter of law there would be much fewer appeals), there is, in some cases, a somewhat wide margin of possible rulings. The committe members' feelings and judgment certainly come into play in those cases.

[bluejak]

bessi2, on 2011-March-21, 12:28, said:

Again I am not referring to all conventions, not even close. But it is kind of a zoo out there, and as I have stated before, my views are mostly aimed at disruptive/destructive conventions which are certainly not better for any sort of constructive bidding but are designed to raise havoc for the opponents.

If you are - and you certainly did not say so - then everything you have written on the subject is irrelevant to this case where it was constructive bidding not destructive bidding that was involved.

[bessi2]

Quote

If you are - and you certainly did not say so - then everything you have written on the subject is irrelevant to this case where it was constructive bidding not destructive bidding that was involved.

I apologize if I was unclear but I did use the word "mostly". A convention played by perhaps 4-8% (by no means sure, but according to my experience, I feel that I am being generous) of pairs in the world, in my opinion, falls under the definition of a highly unusual convention. I also apologize for being unclear as to what conventions I was referring. Was just getting tired of writing "highly unusual (often disruptive) conventions, as I had done so before. After reading previous posts, it was my intention to discuss the point of unusual conventions in general as well as the case itself. Actually, I believe I mentioned in my first post that this case was a mild case of what I was discussing. But it certainly falls under the scope of it.
It might be interesting to discuss what people consider unusual or highly unusual conventions especially when it comes to constructive conventions. I guess there would be somewhat individual based answers, partly based on the region where they live. What is considered standard in, for example, Italy would probably not be considered standard in Iceland, or the US, so on and so forth. Who or what decides what is considered mainstream nowadays ?

[Math609]

As I have looked more closely into this case I’m convinced that West wasn’t carefull enough when describing his partners bid of 3♥, especially when playing a rare and unusual system unknown to his opponents. Hence, his (very) inaccurate description misled the defence with horrible consequences for the defence as you all know. But whether this is classified under misexplaination, misinformation or something else I will leve it to the law experts to discuss.

In my opinion West should have described the bidding of 3♥ closely to the following way:
,,3♥ is an invitational (natural) bid, 2NT wouldn’t have been a forcing bid,,

With this wery brief description he says about everything that has to be said concerning the pairs method of bidding and some of the main structure of the system. That 2NT is not a forcing bid is a substantial and valuable information that should not be a ,,hidden folder,, in the EW-system. Certainly not.

Whether West’s very inadequate or misleading answer was due to carelessness or laziness is not the issue here. We all pay our price for that kind of behavior at the bridge table (many times actually) and also according to the law. My final verdict: 4♥-1 (both ways). True, it is a harsh ruling but what else can we do?

[bessi2]

Quote

In my opinion West should have described the bidding of 3♥ closely to the following way:
,,3♥ is an invitational (natural) bid, 2NT wouldn’t have been a forcing bid,,

I don't think anyone can fault west for a very reasonable answer, in his mind his pd surely promised fit, as it probably would to anyone playing the convention i would imagine. Not sure how west could ever foresee this if it was a first time occurrance. In my opinion it was e-w's convention structure, or the seemingly lack thereof, that did the real damage. Either that or simply east's peculiar decision to bid 3♥, depending on what your opinion of the case is.
There is another point I would like to mention. I have already stated that, in my opinion, e-w's convention structure is undiscussed. Subsequently, I suggested that in that case e-w had no real agreement = misinformation. It was the BID itself that makes it somewhat obvious in my opinion. Now let's give east a hand like AJ109x KQ Axxx xx. If he had bid 3♥ on a hand like this (with the same following ruckus) I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever, then the bid suggests nothing else than good bridge judgment and, unusual convention or not, I would definately not be in favour of ruling against them in any way.
It should be noted that such hands are extremely rare so 3+♥ is an overwhelming likelihood. But if east can bid 3♥ on his actual hand or, given east's own comments, any good hands not including both minor stoppers, then the it most be deduced that it is rather frequant for east to hold a doubleton ♥

[ggwhiz]

bessi2, on 2011-March-21, 19:04, said:

I don't think anyone can fault west for a very reasonable answer, in his mind his pd surely promised fit, as it probably would to anyone playing the convention i would imagine. Not sure how west could ever foresee this if it was a first time occurrance. In my opinion it was e-w's convention structure, or the seemingly lack thereof, that did the real damage. Either that or simply east's peculiar decision to bid 3♥, depending on what your opinion of the case is.
There is another point I would like to mention. I have already stated that, in my opinion, e-w's convention structure is undiscussed. Subsequently, I suggested that in that case e-w had no real agreement = misinformation. It was the BID itself that makes it somewhat obvious in my opinion. Now let's give east a hand like AJ109x KQ Axxx xx. If he had bid 3♥ on a hand like this (with the same following ruckus) I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever, then the bid suggests nothing else than good bridge judgment and, unusual convention or not, I would definately not be in favour of ruling against them in any way.
It should be noted that such hands are extremely rare so 3+♥ is an overwhelming likelihood. But if east can bid 3♥ on his actual hand or, given east's own comments, any good hands not including both minor stoppers, then the it most be deduced that it is rather frequant for east to hold a doubleton ♥

I don't disagree with any of this, especially the way the laws are currently structured however, it just feels REALLY wrong that we simply take the potentially guilty parties word for it that it is a first time occurence. Very rarely would the non-offending side be able to prove otherwise.

Not to say it isn't true here but aren't we better off to rule against them (they then fix this hole) to prevent a free run to repeated violations?

[bluejak]

The way the Laws are written when something occurs we judge what we think has happened then apply the Law. We do not rule on a basis of what is good for the game or for the future unless the Law permits this. Generally it is the job of the WBFLC and the people who decide Regulations and CoCs to get things right for the good of the game.

There is an exception where penalties are concerned: whether to give a PP or DP and how much is very much a judgement matter for the TD and he can use his discretion as to how much good such a penalty will do.

But it is not acceptable for a TD or AC to decide whether something has happened by considering the effects of their ruling.

[Math609]

More as I read it looks to me we might get a different ruling depending on who of the law experts here inside were in AC. So what is your final verdict?
1) Agree with TD?
2) Agree with AC?
3) Another ruling?
4) Unsolveble problem?

[bluejak]

No to all four.

The point is that we are not on the AC. Unlike some situations which can be resolved online in this case you needed to be there. We need as AC members to talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth.

Furthermore, one of the advantages of ACs is that they do not consist of one person. Suppose three [or five] of us who have posted in this thread comprised the AC. Having asked lots of questions, considered the Law and so forth, we would then discuss it with all the information we have gathered. Having done so we would then come to our conclusion which would be . . . . . . . .

[Math609]

bluejak, on 2011-March-22, 19:20, said:

No to all four.

The point is that we are not on the AC. Unlike some situations which can be resolved online in this case you needed to be there. We need as AC members to talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth.

Furthermore, one of the advantages of ACs is that they do not consist of one person. Suppose three [or five] of us who have posted in this thread comprised the AC. Having asked lots of questions, considered the Law and so forth, we would then discuss it with all the information we have gathered. Having done so we would then come to our conclusion which would be . . . . . . . .

Thank you for your answer, but it raises another question: Is it a standard operating procedure for AC to ,, talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth,,?

[bluejak]

Yes. When I was asked to be Chairman of Appeals in Iceland last year I was very surprised when, at my first appeal, we were not expected to talk to the players, and because of time constraints we could not do so.

[sfi]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but one point immediately occurred to me and does not seem to have been mentioned in the seven pages that followed.

West may or may not have known about the hole in the system, but East certainly realised it. East had a clear opportunity to correct the misinformation by pointing that out before the opening lead and failed to do so.

So, if it was a system gap that required a 3♥ bid rather than merely East's judgment, it seems clear to adjust.

[bluejak]

I don't know about "clear": I do not think there is agreement over whether a system gap means MI. I do not think so, for example.

When there is MI, declarer or dummy is required to correct it: very true, but not a basis for whether there is MI nor for whether we should adjust.

[sfi]

But if there are gaps in the system that means that there are times when 3♥ will be bid on a doubleton, then describing it as 'showing 3 hearts' without any further elaboration surely is misinformation. If not, why not?

I am not talking about judgment here - just actual holes in the system akin to the 5543 opening bid agreement which I think you brought up earlier.

[bluejak]

All systems have holes in them - there are just too many possible hands. Players need not be aware of the holes. My guess is that very few players if any realise all the holes. If this pair had no realisation in advance that there was a hole then they have nothing to disclose.

[Math609]

In my opinion all facts are very clear and I doubt that any further talk to the players will clarify things better. Here is the facts that are relevant:

(1) EW is a strong pair, former National masters. They are honest and know their duties.

(2) It has been established after this hand that there was a gap in EW system.

(3) East was certainly aware of the gap at the table. Why? He said more than once when we discussed the bidding: "I had no other bid for my hand!"

(4) West's explanation was very inaccurate, to say the least: "At least 3 hearts". He gave no further detail of the system. His explanation of course meant that East hold at least 3 or more hearts, but NEVER 2 hearts. Hence his description was very misleading with severe consequences for the defense. The defense was indeed helpless after his explanation.

(5) East, aware of the inaccurate answer from his partner and also aware of the gap in the system, remained totally silent. Should he?

I really don't know what more facts you need, or what further questions is needed to be asked here.