[blackshoe]

If you guys won't play nice, I will lock this thread. Only warning.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-10, 14:07, said:

If you guys won't play nice, I will lock this thread. Only warning.

Just reiterating your message

[Vampyr]

The problem with describing the 3♥ bid as a "deviation" is pretty obvious --the immediate question is: a deviation from what? What was the other bid the player deviated from? The answer is there wasn't one, because it has been established that there is no other bid that could have been used. I do not know whether bluejak and hrothgar are arguing for the sake of it, or if they really don't understand. A child could work this out. The mind boggles.

[Math609]

hrothgar, on 2011-June-10, 11:16, said:

How cute... Nigel has a sockpuppet.

Going back to Nigel's original post:



I don't recall anyone ever establishing that the decision to bid 3♥ was mandated by partnership understanding. From my perspective, we don't have anything remotely resembling an explanation why East chose to bid 3♥.

For example, the verbiage accompanying the 3♥ bid seems to have changed rather dramatically during the course of the conversation.

In the original post, Math609 made the following statement



Three days later, in post #38 Math609 has significantly changed his story. Here, for the first time, we see the claim that the 3♥ was the only possible bid with the given hand.



I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

Who is lying?? The first quote is certainly not from me!! My first statement about this deal was indeed #38 and I don't recall that I have ever changed my story. On the contrary I have stayed very firm in my writing.

Sadly, this is not the first time Hrothgar wrongly accuses me! Now I'm accused for lying, but in #91 Hrothgar very strongly implied that I was accusing EW for cheating!! But as I pointed out at that time I had on the contrary asserted that this pair is a very honest one.

So Hrothgar, please stop accusing me for something I haven't done. The discussion deserves a higher level than that!

[hrothgar]

Math609, on 2011-June-11, 03:03, said:

Who is lying?? The first quote is certainly not from me!! My first statement about this deal was indeed #38 and I don't recall that I have ever changed my story. On the contrary I have stayed very firm in my writing.

Sadly, this is not the first time Hrothgar wrongly accuses me! Now I'm accused for lying, but in #91 Hrothgar very strongly implied that I was accusing EW for cheating!! But as I pointed out at that time I had on the contrary asserted that this pair is a very honest one.

So Hrothgar, please stop accusing me for something I haven't done. The discussion deserves a higher level than that!

Sorry, the initial quote was from ICEmachine...
(I mistakenly though that you were the one who instigated the thread)

This was very sloppy of me. It shouldn't have happened.
Once again, I apologize.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-10, 18:42, said:

The problem with describing the 3♥ bid as a "deviation" is pretty obvious --the immediate question is: a deviation from what? What was the other bid the player deviated from? The answer is there wasn't one, because it has been established that there is no other bid that could have been used. I do not know whether bluejak and hrothgar are arguing for the sake of it, or if they really don't understand. A child could work this out. The mind boggles.

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-11, 05:48, said:

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

I don't buy this. The partnership has said that there was no system bid for this hand. So the player's choices were to wait for the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse or make a "deviation". There cannot be a deviation when there is no system bid.

Those who claim that the 3♥ bid was a deviation -- what would the player have bid had he decided not to deviate from his system?

Suppose I have decided to open 5+ card suits. I open the bidding and partner later explains that I have 5 cards in that suit. But it happens that I don't, because I didn't have any 5-card suits. Have I "deviated" from my agreements, or extended my system to handle hands without 5-card suits?

If finding a bid to plug a hole in a poorly-thought-out system is considered a "deviation", this is a disaster for disclosure. Unless the pair playing this system are prepared to, in their explanations, explain the entire system in minute detail so that the inference that there are hand-types which are unaccounted for is available to the opponents.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-11, 06:17, said:

I don't buy this. The partnership has said that there was no system bid for this hand. So the player's choices were to wait for the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse or make a "deviation". There cannot be a deviation when there is no system bid.

Those who claim that the 3♥ bid was a deviation -- what would the player have bid had he decided not to deviate from his system?

The player had no systemic bid available.
Any bid that the player makes is, perforce, nonsystemic.
Whatever bid the player chooses to make is deviating from the agreed upon meaning for that bid.

In this example, the deviation is defined vis-à-vis the 3H bid and there is a systemic agreement for what 3H does and does not show.

[Vampyr]

hrothgar, on 2011-June-11, 06:22, said:

The player had no systemic bid available.
Any bid that the player makes is, perforce, nonsystemic.
Whatever bid the player chooses to make is deviating from the agreed upon meaning for that bid.

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.

[hrothgar]

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.

It's fairly well established that that players are allowed to deviate from their agreements and that such deviations are not grounds for adjustment.

I understand that you don't like this, but stating that something is "simply not acceptable" doesn't make it true.

For better or worse, the Laws don't punish individuals for playing bad bridge; nor is is practical to assume that the systems that people play are perfect.

FWIW, I think that your opinions are a lot further removed from the mainstream than my own.

[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2011-June-10, 10:13, said:

I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

Maybe I'm not the only one who has nige1's posts filtered out by default.

[blackshoe]

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.

Protection from what?

Your "not acceptable" is not acceptable.

[Vampyr]

The only other position is that the opponents must be given comprehensive details of the OS system so that they can work out the hand-types that the OS have "forgotten" about, and make their own inferences about how the OS might "deviate" in order to cover them. Else there can be nothing remotely resembling full disclosure.

So then no adjusted score will be necessary, but I would imagine that a PP would be appropriate for delaying the event by several hours.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 06:07, said:

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out.

What on earth makes you think that?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-11, 05:48, said:

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

Unfortunately "deviation" is not defined in the laws. I looked it up in my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary and it explained: "The act of deviating". Under "deviate" it said: "To turn or move increasingly away from a specified course or prescribed mode of behavior".

The word deviation has two essential parts to it: There is a place where you deviate from and a place where you deviate to. (That last part isn't even mentioned in the dictionary definition, so it seems that the "from" part is more critical than the "to" part.)

This means that -in bridge use- a deviation is something like: "Taking an action other than the [systemically] prescribed one."

When you see it that way, it is clear that this was not a deviation. The "to" part is clear (3♥), but there is no "from" part: There was no systemic bid with the given hand (See the OP, 3rd paragraph). And if there is nothing to deviate from, it cannot be a deviation. If it isn't a deviation, don't act as if it was. Instead, it was a hole in the system.

EW claim that -prior to this hand- they weren't aware that they had this hole in their system. If that is true, then there was no agreement about this type of hand and then there is no misinformation and thus no case. End of story... in principle.

However, the TD/AC should look a little further. They should also determine the credibility of EW's claim that they weren't aware of this system hole. This requires judgement.

My own, personal judgement: Every pair will have holes in their system. However, I find it highly unlikely that an experienced pair will have a hole in their system
- in an uncontested auction
- at the point of opener's rebid
- with two common hand types facing each other
AND
- that they were not aware that this hole existed

In other words: I wouldn't believe EW. It is clear that the AC didn't believe EW either, otherwise they cannot possibly rule that this is a MI case.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2011-June-11, 10:11, said:

Every pair will have holes in their system.

Why do you think that? I find it an extraordinary claim.

[blackshoe]

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.

[Vampyr]

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

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

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".

Quote

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.

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

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. The truth is that most well-thought-out systems will have "anti-holes", where sometimes more than one bid is possible on a given hand.

[nige1]

There are more possible bidding sequences than possible deals. In that sense, you are likely to have "holes" in your system: incompletely discussed hand-types in auctions that you encounter for the first time. Notwithstanding, in the given auction, you work out that, in the context of your complex system, there is a logical call for your hand. Although your partnership has never met or discussed this before, you seem to have deduced an implicit understanding rather than fallen into an irreparable system-hole.

On the contrary, some here judge your mandated system-patch to be an undisclosable "deviation" . This encourages prevarication over disclosure. Damaged opponents are likely to feel victimised because it isn't rub-of-the green damage -- as from a misbid or other bidding accident. Damage to opponents is more likely than not. And such "Holes" are likely to occur quite often.

[hrothgar]

Quote

There are more possible bidding sequences than possible deals. In that sense, you are likely to have holes in your system.

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

Quote

Notwithstanding, you work out that, in the context of your complex system, there is a logical call to make on your hand in the given auction. Even if your partnership have never met or discussed this before, it seems to be an "implicit understanding".

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"

Quote

Damaged opponents are likely to feel victimised because it is not rub-of-the green damage -- as from a misbid or other bidding accident.
Here, damage to opponents is more likely than not. It encourages prevarication over disclosure.

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