[blml] Proposed new Dutch definition of the word agreement

[Robert Geller]

If the Dutch dederation (or any other) really wants to sort this out the 
solution is simple (but a lot of work!):  they need to keep a database of
ALL forgets, misexplanations, misbids, etc.  In the event that a pattern
emerges (an implicit or intentional CPU) strong measures should be
taken, but otherwise I don't see how they can eliminate "the rub of the
green" without fundamentally changing the rules of the game.

-Bob

Robert Frick writes:
>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com