[ggwhiz]

My problem is not with the methods, just the burden of proof. If a pair introduces an unusual artificial method full of holes they MAY have an implicit agreement (or not). Is this the first occurrence?

How can the potentially damaged side make their case based on a history they know nothing about?

I think that these systems are fine but come with a responsibility that should be a bit more robust than "we'll take your word for it".

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, but that's not how the law is currently constructed.

[Math609]

We must focus on one thing and underline it with red: Those players who play rare and unusal system must have everything in the clear and beyond any sahadow of doubt. Their opponents are usually in total darkness (one benefit of such system) so that is the price for playing artificilal and unusal system: Every information must be very clear to their oppnents.

In every natural system players somtimes support partners suit on doubleton but that is familiar to the oppnents because the system is natural. This was not the case here because the opponents dosent have a clue about any bidding routine in this highly unusal system. Their opponents can not have any other choise but to believe them when the explain their biddings!

ICEMachine wrongly said: To say that just because East said at the table that 3♥ was the only bid availble, we should believe him. Common sense gives us a different answer.

Is it really so? I believed East! He played a system I did’nt have any knowledge of. I did’nt have any reason not to believe him! He must have had his system under control in situation like this. Or was there some hole in the system I did’nt know?

Again I will underline: East said that he had no other option but to bid 3♥ (I had no other bid). Why do we have any doubts about his statement? He knows the system! Or did’nt he?

Again: Who is going to pay? The defenders who was on the right track in their defence or the offensive par who put the defenders on the wrong track?

[blackshoe]

I don't think "offensive" means what you think it means. Or perhaps it does. Maybe the last meaning below:

Quote

1 |əˈfensiv| causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry : the allegations made are deeply offensive to us | offensive language.
• (of a sight or smell) disgusting; repulsive : an offensive odor.
2 |ˈäfensiv| [ attrib. ] actively aggressive; attacking : offensive operations against the insurgents.
• (of a weapon) meant for use in attack.
• (in a game) of or relating to the team or player who is seeking to score.

[blackshoe]

 Math609, on 2011-March-18, 18:14, said:

We must focus on one thing and underline it with red: Those players who play rare and unusal system must have everything in the clear and beyond any sahadow of doubt.

Which law says so? What we (as directors and committee members) must do is to rule in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.

[Math609]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-18, 18:22, said:

Which law says so? What we (as directors and committee members) must do is to rule in accordance with the laws and regulations in force.

I will answer this question very politely (and I already have): Those who play very rare and highly unusual system must have everything in the clear. Why? Because their opponents can not have any other choise but to believe them when they explain their biddings!. Clear enough? I think this is universal understanding, even to amateurs like me. Some emotins involved here? Or maybe the understanding of the law is to allow a pair to have lots of hole in their highly unusal system? You tell me, I'm the amateur!

Regarding your comments that I want to strenghten my score through trial rights is really not worth answering (maybe my english did confuse you, maybe offender was a better choise than offensive). I like to emphasize that I have no benefit to defend whatsoever, I’m here just because of the interest of this (rare) case.

[blackshoe]

My comment was intended to convey that it seems like you found the offender, or his actions, offensive in the "this makes me angry" sense. As for emotions, I'm not the one being emotional about this issue.

The laws require full disclosure. That means that everything a player knows about his partner's hand, whether from explicit agreement or partnership understanding (but not "knowledge generally available to bridge players") should be disclosed. There is no requirement in law that players close every loophole in their system, whether homegrown or otherwise. There are regulations in some places that require players to know their methods in common auctions, which is a bit more restrictive, but does not go as far as "Those players who play rare and unusual systems must have everything in the clear and beyond any shadow of doubt". If a contestant fails to disclose information that the law (not their opponents) says should be disclosed, then they are subject to rectification if their opponents are damaged, but that is a determination to be made by the TD (with, I'll grant you, input from the opponents as to how they may have been damaged).

I'll note that I've not expressed an opinion as to the particular case in hand, nor will I at the moment. The above is general principle, applicable to all such cases.

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-March-18, 18:14, said:

We must focus on one thing and underline it with red: Those players who play rare and unusal system must have everything in the clear and beyond any sahadow of doubt.

I don't accept this premise (not even remotely), nor do the laws

1. The laws do not establish a dual standard of care for different types of bidding systems
2. The laws explicitly allow any player using any system to make a deviation (thanks blackshoe)
3. If you think you have a clue what players using a "natural" system are going to do, you're deluding yourself into a false state of security

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-March-18, 19:24, said:

Those who play very rare and highly unusual system must have everything in the clear. ...
I think this is universal understanding, even to amateurs like me.

This interpretation is far from universal.

There are some well know figures in bridge who assert that this is the case.
Bobby Wolff is probably the best known example.

I'm going to be polite and suggest that Wolff's interpretation is controversial.

If you really are an amateur, you might do better by asking questions rather than asserting erroneous axioms

[Math609]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-19, 04:35, said:

I don't accept this premise (not even remotely), nor do the laws

1. The laws do not establish a dual standard of care for different types of bidding systems
2. The laws explicitly allow any player using any system to make a deviation (thanks blackshoe)
3. If you think you have a clue what players using a "natural" system are going to do, you're deluding yourself into a false state of security

Thanks for lesson, pay you later!

When playing against normal system I assume that the opponents use their system while bidding their hand (without an interruption). But if the par often deviate from their system while bidding their hand, they better let me know, isn’t? And if the opponents play an imperfect system or a system with lots of holes in it, they also better let me know. Is that difficult to understand?

So playing against a normal system I usually know what is going on, simply because I know the system. I very rarely have to ask...So you call this deluding oneself into a false state of security. Very intellectual comments indeed

But playing against a highly artificial and unusual system I really cant deluding myself into a false state of security. I really have to understand the opponents ,,conversation,, isn’t? I have to ask them...I have to believe them...and I have to rely on they know their system. Sounds reasonable to you?

I hope I’ve made my point often enough! Or maybe you call this an ,,erroneous axioms from an amateur,,

Thanks again for lesson!

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-March-19, 07:08, said:

When playing against normal system I assume that the opponents use their system while bidding their hand (without an interruption). But if the par often deviate from their system while bidding their hand, they better let me know, isn’t? And if the opponents play an imperfect system or a system with lots of holes in, they also better let me know. Is that difficult to understand?

So playing against a normal system I usually know what is going on, simply because I know the system. I very rarely have to ask...So you call this deluding oneself into a false state of security. Very intellectual comments indeed

But playing against a highly artificial and unusual system I really cant deluding myself into a false state of security. I really have to know about the opponents conversation, isn’t? I have to ask them...I have to believe them...and I have to rely on they know their system. Sounds reasonable to you?

You have stated your opinion multiple times.
Repeating it again - and getting pissy - doesn't make it any more true.
The core problem is not one of communication, but rather the fact that you don't understand how the laws work.

With this said and done, from the beginning I have stressed that you need to provide concrete information about the opponent's system.
Instead, you speculate and make assumptions.

Case in point: In this last post, ask what happens if pair in question "often deviates from their system while bidding their hands"?

Question 1: How do you know this? Do you play against this pair frequently? Have other players come forward and recounted similar incidents? Or is this idle speculation based on this one hand?
Question 2: If you already know that the pair in question makes frequent deviations from their system, why did you chose to believe their explanation on this particular hand?

From my perspective, I don't think that you have a convincing claim that you were damaged.

From the sounds of things, you are now insinuating that the opposing pair makes frequent deviations from their agreements and fails to disclose this to the opponents.

You MIGHT be able to make a case that the opponents have concealed partnership agreements.
However, this is (essentially) a direct accusation of of cheating and the burden of proof is pretty high.

As long as you are shopping around for advice, here's some more:

Grow up
Get over it

[Math609]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-19, 07:44, said:

You have stated your opinion multiple times.
Repeating it again - and getting pissy - doesn't make it any more true.
The core problem is not one of communication, but rather the fact that you don't understand how the laws work.

With this said and done, from the beginning I have stressed that you need to provide concrete information about the opponent's system.
Instead, you speculate and make assumptions.

Case in point: In this last post, ask what happens if pair in question "often deviates from their system while bidding their hands"?

Question 1: How do you know this? Do you play against this pair frequently? Have other players come forward and recounted similar incidents? Or is this idle speculation based on this one hand?
Question 2: If you already know that the pair in question makes frequent deviations from their system, why did you chose to believe their explanation on this particular hand?

From my perspective, I don't think that you have a convincing claim that you were damaged.

From the sounds of things, you are now insinuating that the opposing pair makes frequent deviations from their agreements and fails to disclose this to the opponents.

You MIGHT be able to make a case that the opponents have concealed partnership agreements.
However, this is (essentially) a direct accusation of of cheating and the burden of proof is pretty high.

As long as you are shopping around for advice, here's some more:

Grow up
Get over it

Maybe my english is not good, but if it’s good enough then you dosen’t seem to understand a discussion from general point of view. That must be rather obvious to everyone. So any further conversation with you is useless of course.

Ps. I’ve never said that this particular pair often deviates from their system, on the contrary I’ve said before that this par was a very honest one. My advice to you? Read more carefully before you speak!

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-March-19, 08:24, said:

Maybe my english is not good, but if it’s good enough then you dosen’t seem to understand a discussion from general point of view. That must be rather obvious to everyone. So any further conversation with you is useless of course.

Ps. I’ve never said that this particular pair often deviates from their system, on the contrary I’ve said before that this par was a very honest one. My advice to you? Read more carefully before you speak!

As I recall, I described two very general principles:

1. The Law doesn't recognize any distinction between natural and artificial system with respect to disclosure
2. Pairs are allowed to deviate from their agreements

You were the one who then started to veer into hypotheticals about pairs that frequently deviate from their agreements
I'm sorry if I inferred that this had some relation to the original case that you described...

In any case, if the methods that a pair provides don't accurately describe their true agreements then the pair in question has one of more concealed partnership understandings.

Said pair is in violation of Law 40B (Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited)

Quote

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

However, thats just a random hypothetical and apparently has no bearing on the case at hand...

[Vampyr]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-19, 08:45, said:

1. The Law doesn't recognize any distinction between natural and artificial system with respect to disclosure

The (valid) point Math609 and others have made is that when a system is both artificial and unfamiliar to the opponents, loads of positive and negative inferences will be unavailable to the opponents, so the disclosure has to be more precise and complete in order to be considered "full disclosure".

The problem is worse when there are holes in the system, since opponents will not have the information needed to deduce that there are "unbiddable" hands under the system, or what they are.

Quote

2. Pairs are allowed to deviate from their agreements

That does not seem to be what happened here.

[nige1]

Earlier in this thread, Blackshoe quoted

Laws 40C1A said:

A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents ...

That law sheds light on this argument. West has more reason to be aware of East's "deviation" than have his opponents. In fact, a little thought would reveal to West that "deviation" is sometimes mandatory (as is already apparent to East).

[ggwhiz]

 nige1, on 2011-March-19, 19:55, said:

Earlier in this thread, Blackshoe quoted That sheds light on this argument. West has more reason to be aware of East's "deviation" than have his opponents. In fact, a little thought would reveal to West that "deviation" is sometimes mandatory (as is already apparent to East).

Excellent point IMO. I really do believe in allowing such systems but West MUST be or become aware of such a hole and disclose such to the opponents putting the onus of disclosure where it belongs.

No problem here with unusual systems but trotting them out is a priviledge.

[gnasher]

Quote

2. Pairs are allowed to deviate from their agreements

 Vampyr, on 2011-March-19, 18:29, said:

That does not seem to be what happened here.

I'm surprised that you're so confident of this.

[Math609]

Looking at the Law we can see:

40. Special Partnership Understandings

,,A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score,,

and later...

,,The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged,,

I think it’s fair to say that information given (by West) to NS was wery limited to say the least. Probably we can say the information was inadequate, because NS never got information about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

For instance if I had got that information that 2NT was not forcing (contrary to what most players would think) I might have reached that conclusion that East had possibly some problem with his hand...

But, I’m a very experinced player so I understand these inadequate situations at the table and therby I also understand why this special case is so difficult from a legal point of view, but as they often say: Lady justice is blind. But how blind is she?

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-March-20, 07:24, said:

Looking at the Law we can see:

40. Special Partnership Understandings

,,A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these laws require, is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score,,

and later...

,,The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent’s choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged,,

I think it’s fair to say that information given (by West) to NS was wery limited to say the least. Probably we can say the information was inadequate, because NS never got information about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

But, I’m a very experinced player so I understand these inadequate situations at the table and therby I also understand why this special case is so difficult from a legal point of view, but as they often say: Lady justice is blind. But how blind is she?

Are we talking about the "general" or the "specific" here...

Looking back at the specific case that you described, all we know is the following

1. You sat down and played a board against a pair that you describe as highly ethical
2. A member of that partnership made a deviation. He chose to make a bid that promises 3+ card support on a strong doubleton
3. You claim that you are entitled to an adjustment based on the system that the opponents are using

Futhermore, you haven't been able to offer any information regarding

The frequency with which the pair makes a deviation
The pairs written agreements regarding different agreements

All we have is your very one-sided portrayal of the events...

Sorry if many of us don't find this particularly convincing...

[Math609]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-20, 07:37, said:

Are we talking about the "general" or the "specific" here...

Looking back at the specific case that you described, all we know is the following

1. You sat down and played a board against a pair that you describe as highly ethical
2. A member of that partnership made a deviation. He chose to make a bid that promises 3+ card support on a strong doubleton
3. You claim that you are entitled to an adjustment based on the system that the opponents are using

Futhermore, you haven't been able to offer any information regarding

The frequency with which the pair makes a deviation
The pairs written agreements regarding different agreements

All we have is your very one-sided portrayal of the events...

Sorry if many of us don't find this particularly convincing...

As I've alredy stadet: Further conversation with you is usless. Try to respect that...
Change your opinion with someone else, I'm totally def when you speak. Sorry.

Ps. My advice: Talk to the AC (ICEmachine). They made the ruling, not I.