[blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement

[Robert Frick]

Hi. I don't particularly like it when I bid a 20% slam and it makes. I  
apologize to the opps. But there is no proposal to change the situation,  
and I can't think of one that would make the game of bridge more  
enjoyable. Luck and evaluation by outcome are probably critical parts of  
making a game fun.

It doesn't seem fair or logical to say that if I unwilling to make changes  
in the fundamental nature of bridge as a game, I should also be unwilling  
to make changes about things that make bridge less of a game and less  
enjoyable.

Also, it seems that your argument would apply equally well to mistaken  
explanations, which I am guessing you in fact do not want to protect.  
(Although, at the moment, I cannot think of any reason other than  
tradition why anyone would want, when there is a conventional confusion,  
to protect misbids and not mistaken explanations.)

Bob







> If you miscount your points, and bid a 28 point balanced 6NT making on  
> four
> out of four finesses there is no skill involved either. Yet you keep your
> score.
>
> And the reason is simple: when you bid like this you stand a very good
> chance of getting a bad score. Your expectation is negative. The laws  
> just
> do not punish you in the exceptional circumstance that it happens to  
> work.
> Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short
> run).
>
> Exactly the same goes for misbids. Your expectation is negative(if not it
> would be a great convention). But if you are in luck, you keep your  
> score.
> Bad luck for opps. Bridge was never meant to be a fair game(in the short
> run).
>
> Hans
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org  
> [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Robert Frick
> Sent: zondag 25 mei 2008 6:50
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement
>
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 22:04:36 -0400, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
>> [following address discontinued:
>> grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
>> *************************
>> "A full cup must be carried steadily."
>>                       [English proverb ]
>> "*************************
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stefanie Rohan" <daisy_duck at btopenworld.com>
>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement
>>
>>
>>> Looks like I sent a blank reply earlier.
>>>
>>> Robert Frick:
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the critical distinction is between a psyche and an
>>> unintentional misbid, and that in practice these are usually easy to
>>> distinguish.
>>>
>>> SR:
>>>
>>> How?
>>>
>> +=+ Interesting question. A misbid, misexplanation, psyche, all
>> come the same to an opponent, do they not? They mislead.
>> Now if the partner is not misled, caters for the actual holding,
>> is the RA not entitled to say "We don't care how it happened,
>> the partner's action is to be deemed evidence of an partnership
>> understanding" ?
>>        Just throwing a pebble intro the pool,
>>                                  ~ Grattan ~   +=+
>
> Thanks. A very useful start, except that I think the issue is when  
> partner
> is misled as well as the opponents.
>
> When I psych, the opps do not like it when they get a bad board. If I run
> a squeeze for a top against them, they go "oh well", but when I psych,
> they are unhappy. I know this because I psyched last Monday, got a good
> score, and my opponent complained more than once to the director. (I was
> the director.) He knew he had no reason to complain, but he was unhappy.
>
> Nonetheless, psychs (and any intentional misbids made for tactical
> reasons) are a nice part of bridge. They take skill, and creativity. I
> like that the laws protect them. Many people don't, and there is a  
> problem
> with people psyching too much and the fact that partner can pick these up
> faster than the opps. But it's fine to protect them.
>
> But when I forget or imagine a convention, or my partner and I have a
> misunderstanding or no understanding, there is no skill involved. I do  
> not
> appreciate that the laws protect me. I don't want to be protected. I want
> the opps to know the intended meaning of my bid. Misleading explanations
> of conventional confusions are not popular with my opponents either. So I
> do not know why anyone is writing laws to try to protect my right to make
> conventional confusions and deceive my opponents, or why they work hard  
> to
> interpret the current laws that way.
>
> If you couldn't distinguish the two, then I can see trying to protect  
> them
> both. But they seem relatively easy to distinguish. In theory it sounds
> hard, but in practice, there is usually a tactical reason for the psych
> and no possibility of confusion about conventions. For the conventional
> confusion misbid, there is usually no tactical reason for the bid and an
> obvious confusion about conventions.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml