[mich-b]

The following happened to me recently :

I was west holding
♠ xxx
♥ Axxx
♦ xxxx
♣ Ax

South North
1♦ 2♦*
3♣* 3NT
4♠ PASS

This was played behind screens , and my screenmate is South (RHO) who explains as follows :
1♦ = natural
2♦ = 5♠, 4+♥ 7-10
3♣ = invitational in ♥ (confirming 4♥s)
3NT = probably natural with ♣ values and max.
4♠ = to play.

Now you are on lead, and trusting RHO's explanations you lead the ♥A , hoping to give partner 2 ruffs.
Surprisingly dummy comes down with :
♠ Axx
♥ xx
♦ AJTx
♣ Txxx
(He forgot their agreement and bid 2♦ as an inverted raise).
And you realize that your lead may not have been the best...

Thanks to this lead , declarer was now in a position to make the contract. (In reality he guessed wrong and was down 3 , so nothing bad happened to me).
You examine your opp's CC (actually you did it even before the lead) and see the explanation you got is correct.
So , assuming that your lead , which was obviously based on the explanation you got , gave the contract away. If you will call the director , he will tell you that you got the correct explanation , so no MI , no adjustment.
How do you feel about this situation ? Does it sound "fair" ? Do we need any change in the laws that will prevent people from benefiting from their forgets?

[Free]

It definitely doesn't feel right. The problem is that sometimes you want to deliberately misbid, while in other situations you won't do it on purpose because the situation isn't clear or you forgot.

In theory you'd want these situations handled differently, but in reality it's impossible to do so.

In this case it's obviously an accident, but what with borderline cases? How many "1X vs 2♣ opening?"-polls didn't we have already? Some can easily be considered a misbid. As long as nobody can come up with a rule to determine if you forgot or if you did it deliberately, you can't treat this situation different than now.

[hotShot]

You should call the TD!

You are right about what he is likely to tell you, but at an event using screens player have an obligation to know their system. North could get a procedural penalty, if something like this happened before or if it happens again.

[pran]

Frankly, unless you have some reason to suspect that South knew more than he told you (e.g. that North quite possibly had forgotten agreements and misbid) I see no reason why you should feel bad.

And until (if ever) law 40A3 is changed with the effect that deliberate misbids (psyches) are no longer legal the situation and result you describe is fair.

[pran]

hotShot, on Jul 15 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

You should call the TD!

You are right about what he is likely to tell you, but at an event using screens player have an obligation to know their system.  North could get a procedural penalty, if something like this happened before or if it happens again.

Do screen regulations usually state that (what I have emphasized in the quote)?

[mich-b]

hotShot, on Jul 15 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

You should call the TD!

You are right about what he is likely to tell you, but at an event using screens player have an obligation to know their system.  North could get a procedural penalty, if something like this happened before or if it happens again.

In fact we did call the TD.
And , in fact, the same North , later in the same match again misexplained their (different) agreement , this time the director adjusting.
The director did not even consider a PP against North , and actually I don't think the current laws support PP against people forgetting their agreements.

[bluejak]

Does it sound fair? Yes. If opponents forget their system you will gain on balance. To have a rule that you must gain will make the hand unplayable. Just hope your opponents keep forgetting their system.

[Bbradley62]

Wow! I'm usually the "throw the book at them" advocate in these discussions, but even I think penalties for forgetting your system would be bad. Do we really want B/I players to be afraid to learn new things, because forgetting them would lead not only to bad results, but procedural penalties as well? (I realize that B/I and screens don't usually go together, but OP didn't specify, and I'm not sure it matters.) At least the screens prevented UI, which might have muddied the situation.

[mjj29]

mich-b, on Jul 15 2010, 07:04 AM, said:

And , in fact, the same North , later in the same match again misexplained their (different) agreement , this time the director adjusting.

This was a misbid - no adjustment. That was misinformation - adjustment. As bluejak says - usually you will gain from people not knowing their agreements, even with screens.

[655321]

There have been a number of threads on this sort of 'Convention Disruption' issue.

Here is one from around a year ago:
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=33160

[peachy]

No adjustment even if your lead would have let them make. However, if the Conditions of Contest say something about "knowing your system" and what the consequences are of not knowing it in simple situations like first round of bidding in uncontested auctions, then a PP might be appropriate whether damage occurred or not.

[dburn]

I read the previous thread with considerable interest, wondering how it was that I missed it the first time around. I was probably asleep.

I consider myself among the liberals when it comes to system regulation - at least to this extent: I believe that people who organize tournaments should have the absolute right to decide what methods should be played at those tournaments, while also believing that at any tournament calling itself a World Championship, the organizers should proscribe no methods whatsoever. I don't care how many boards per round there are - if you can't defend against strong passes and weak diamonds, and your inability to do this costs you the World Pairs Championship, then you didn't deserve the title of World Pairs Champion in the first place.

But I also believe that your licence to play a particular method is wholly conditional upon your ability to disclose that method in accordance with the Laws - that is to say, fully and without ambiguity. If you keep forgetting what it is you play, then you haven't a hope of being able to fulfil your responsibilities under Law 40, and if you can't do that, you have no business playing the methods in the first place.

All of which sounds very fine and noble (at least, I think it does - others may consider it absurdly Utopian or ridiculously Draconian, or if not inclined to sesquipedalianism, effing stupid). The question remains: what can be done to enforce it, even if it were felt desirable to do so?

Well, one could take the view that in auctions deemed to have a sufficiently high probability of actually occurring, any statement to the effect that "by agreement, my partner is showing X" is deemed misinformation if the partner does not hold X, regardless of what it might say on page 137 of the system file or even on the convention card. One would need to provide for cases where a player has deliberately diverted from his side's methods, but I don't envisage any particular difficulty in doing this. Actual psyches are usually clear enough; what is not desirable is to have a player claiming that he psyched when the truth is that he forgot, and for the Laws in effect to afford the same protection to an amnesiac as they do to a trick cyclist.

By the same token, in events where "anything goes" players should be assumed of sufficiently high standard to protect themselves against damage occurring from misinformation of this kind, and the onus on them to do so should in my view be significantly greater than it seems to be at present. In the actual case, then, if I ruled the world I would adjust the score when the OP found that his partner could not ruff the second round of hearts (unless, of course, declarer went three down anyway), but in less clear-cut positions I would not give redress for an analyzably stupid defence even if such a defence would not have been attempted had there been full disclosure.