[Sjoerds]

 barmar, on 2012-December-16, 22:08, said:

That Netherlands rule seems really weird to me. Basically, they're saying that for the first year after a partnership adds a convention to their agreements, if one of them misbids the convention they're right, and their partner's explanation is wrong, even though the latter presumably is supported by their system notes.

Don't shoot the messenger
It started with a discussion where top players were complaining that some players just make a mistake and disturb a normal sequence without actually knowing what they are doing. How does the TD handle that situation. The board (!) of the Dutch Bridge Organisation came up with this guideline.

[blackshoe]

 Sjoerds, on 2012-December-17, 16:52, said:

Don't shoot the messenger
It started with a discussion where top players were complaining that some players just make a mistake and disturb a normal sequence without actually knowing what they are doing. How does the TD handle that situation. The board (!) of the Dutch Bridge Organisation came up with this guideline.

"A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain." — From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein.

[barmar]

On further reflection, I have some sympathy for the Dutch regulators.

If UI weren't an issue, I expect that disclosure would always have come from the bidder, rather than their partner. This is normal online, and in events with screens the bidder discloses to their screenmate. An opponent is hardly ever going to complain of misinformation if it accurately describes the player's hand (although knowing what the bidder's partner thinks they have is also useful). So despite what the Laws actually say about disclosure, they've decided to err in the direction of accurate information about the hands rather than the agreements.

However, what I think they're forgetting is that the principle of full disclosure is not that opponents are entitled to know your holding, but that they're entitled to the same information your partner has about your holding. If you misbid, and partner has no a priori way of knowing that you've done so, the opponents are not entitled to this either. But apparently they're saying with this regulation that during the initial period of a partnership or convention change, partner DOES have reason to expect such mistakes, so explaining the agreement as if it's established is MI.

Even if that's a reasonable philsophy, a year seems like an awfully long time for it. It should probably be expressed in terms of the number of sessions played together, rather than a strict timeframe, and adjusted for the frequency that the convention comes up (if you switch from regular Stayman to Puppet Stayman over 1NT, I'd expect it to come up at least once a session, so there's no excuse for getting it wrong after 5 or 10 sessions).

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-December-18, 10:59, said:

However, what I think they're forgetting is that the principle of full disclosure is not that opponents are entitled to know your holding, but that they're entitled to the same information your partner has about your holding. If you misbid, and partner has no a priori way of knowing that you've done so, the opponents are not entitled to this either.

I assume the Dutch are bright enough not to have forgotten the principle of full disclosure which exists in the rest of the world. They simply have created a new game and are still calling it Bridge.

[mycroft]

Well, the counterargument - which we've all heard, and probably used ourselves - is that in cases where there is such "correct MI", the NOS didn't get the same information partner had about the bidding - the fact that they switched recently, and it used to mean [this]. This causes two problems: first, partner could later in the hand figure out that partner misbid, and therefore almost certainly what they have (the first only is possible for the NOS), and second, the NOS may misplay in a way that they would be less likely to with the correct information (especially if they get an inkling that there has to be a misbid; again, partner and only partner can work out what the likely misbid is going to be).

Something has to be done, and it's probably best to have a regulation that handles it, so that the players don't get "but it happened this way when I did it a month ago with the other TD" (or at least if we do, that there are words to pin the argument back on).

As I said above, I don't think the regulation as reported is the right way to go, as it's highly inflexible and doesn't compare "auctions that happen all the time" with "auctions that may only have come up once, or in practise" as far as "how much experience one needs to have with a system for it to be a legitimate forget". After all, at least around here, the people who "forget" their weak NT defence against us are almost always long-term established partnerships, who have been playing this for well over a year. They get protection for their "forget", but I'm stuck with MI ruling for mine because we switched 6 months ago, even though it's an auction that comes up once a night?

The above is actually my last forget: The auction went

---

1: No Alert, asked and explained as natural, very uncomfortable bidder
2: Alerted, range ask. I hope it wasn't obvious that there was a very uncomfortable bidder
3: Minimum, I assume :-)
*They* play DONT over strong NT, and natural over weak, and have for 4-5 years. Overcaller forgot, because they never play against weak NT. *We* play systems on over 2♣ interference (whatever it means), and lebensohl against higher. *I* forgot, because I play systems on over X and artificial 2♣ only with all the pairs I play a strong NT and Stayman with. But the 1NT(weak)-2♣(whatever it means) auction has come up much more for us than for them, even though we switched to Keri 6 months ago. According to the Dutch regulation, they're in the clear, but we (who used to play this as "systems on = natural, to play" before) misinformed.

[Sjoerds]

 aguahombre, on 2012-December-18, 12:02, said:

I assume the Dutch are bright enough not to have forgotten the principle of full disclosure which exists in the rest of the world. They simply have created a new game and are still calling it Bridge.

I do understand your arguments and I might even agree. As I stated before it is a guideline. The TD can make up his own mind.
And after almost 3 years experiences with this guideline, I must say it actually works! In particular for the less experienced TD it is really helpful.

[aguahombre]

And just in case there is the slightest doubt, my comments were about the rules...not about Dutch Bridge play or players. I know nothing about lower level standards in the Netherlands, but what I have seen of the top players is awsome.

[bluejak]

 billw55, on 2012-December-11, 09:07, said:

Continuing spades seems to be a logical alternative (does that term apply in the play?).

Certainly.

 Zelandakh, on 2012-December-11, 09:19, said:

I am not sure North could have bid or played this any worse and can see no reason to give her/him back via a ruling what (s)he lost at the table.

If you think something is SEWoG, fine. But that is no reason to not adjust for the offending side.

I worry at the approach, which seems to be getting more common, to see whether the non-offenders deserve something. Why don't we ask whether offenders deserve their good results?

May I suggest in future when looking at possible adjustments we always look at whether we should adjust for the offending side. Having decided that, and assuming the answer is Yes, then consider what the non-offenders should get, applying Law 12C1B, and also considering the different standards in Law 12C1E when inside the ACBL.

 RMB1, on 2012-December-11, 10:21, said:

... could demonstrably be suggested ...

I don't see why West thinking East has clubs suggests that East switches to diamonds.

One possible defence is to switch to diamonds now before declarer has worked out whether he needs to take the diamond finesse. If you switch to the ♦T declarer may worry about a ruff, especially if she does not know you have diamonds. You know this is more likely to work - considerably more likely - if your hand has been described as clubs and spades. Thus switching to the T is taking advantage of the description that you know that declarer has been given, so it is a breach of Law 73C.