c_corgi

South appears to be trying to cover all bases, which is common sense but also fielding. North probably hasn't misbid, but if their method of getting to 2 of a major in this situation is agreed (and different to what he did) then possibly he has. The use of the traffic light scale in this regulation suggests it is the fielding that is the infraction. These points don't appear to point towards any particular conclusion, which is one of the reasons I find the regulation puzzling.

Doesn't 40A3 simply refer to 40C1 for what to do in such circumstances? Whether that is the case or not, using that as the basis for the EBU reglation seems to rely on the same literal and draconian interpretation that Blackshoe says is not applicable for 40C1. It would mean that failure to disclose Stayman would lead to an artificial adjusted score when the convention had successfully located an 8 card major fit.

I think Law 11 gives the director wide and discretionary scope to restore equity that the offending side has lost through the failure of the non-offending side to summon him before taking action following the irregularity. Here dummy's LHO has followed suit either oblivous to the infraction, or knowing dummy's holding was irrelevant to the card they played, or trying to gain advantage. In the first two cases it is unlikely that he will wish to change the card unless sight of dummy provides material reason to do so e.g. Qxx sitting under KJx would argue in favour of withdrawing the King and playing the Jack instead after dummy continues to play low. If he changes the card for non material reasons, I think the director should invoke Law 11 to protect the declaring side against AI/UI manipulations caused by dummy's LHO acting after the irregularity.

North's right to change an uninteded call expires when her partner has made a call. I didn't find a law that clarifies when a call has been made, although this might be a matter for the RA. If it was clear that South was reaching for a pass rather than the bidding box in general, then possibly the call should be considered made at that point, although I suspect it isn't. North certainly has a hand which would want to make a game try but play at the 2 level if rejected.

1. In the EBU bidding 2NT would result in an artificial score. Elsewhere L40C1 applies, the scope of which is being debated in the thread. OP doesn't mention any UI available to North. 2. That North bid 2NT thinking South had a WJS is UI to South. He is certainly not obliged to invite slam on that basis: in fact he is not allowed to. Without knowing South's hand it is not clear whether he had an LA to 3NT, or indeed whether 3NT was demonstrably suggested over the LA by the UI.

I wasn't advocating that passage being interpreted literally. In fact I had not noticed the literal interpretation. I thought it was precluding any score adjustment due to 40C1 other than those arising from disclosure issues. Maybe the literal interpretation is what supports the view that the Fielded Misbid regulation is based on 40C1.

I thought you did (my emphasis): I am not invoking any law at all: I am trying to work out how 40C1 leads to fielded misbid. My suspicion is that 40C1 does not apply in a way that would lead to fielded misbid and your last statement seems to agree with that. I thought you were supporting the link between the two until your last post but now I am not sure.

L12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. The rectification due to use of the CPU is stipulated in the 3rd sentence of L40C1 and limited to the damage arising from lack of disclosure, so how can the director award further rectification unless it is based on a different law?

An understanding is never disclosed and at the end of the hand the director rules that it was a CPU. The effect of the CPU was (e.g.) that the offenders reached a cold 5C contract that no other pair could find. The non-offenders were not damaged by the absence of disclosure: they could not have done any better with complete disclosure, or even double dummy. Since the understanding that was concealed (apparently in violation of L40C1 sentence 1) was the reason the offenders achieved a good score, I am asking: can the director adjust for this under 40C1?

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

I was a bit surprised that the missing word got so much reaction, but looking again at what I wrote it maybe comes across as patronising when instead it was intended to suggest a lack of research on my part, so in that case apologies all round. Trying to discuss an interesting topic rather than invent new laws, but yes I was approaching the subject from the wrong angle as acknowledged upthread and also having railed against doing exactly that in another thread. Having said that, law 11 still seems perfectly applicable here.

If I understand you correctly, your argument in support of the link between 40C1 and fielded misbid is as follows: 1. Having a CPU is a violation of 40C1(sentence 1). 2. If the CPU is effective and generates a good result, that result has been obtained illegally and should be rectified. 3. Fielded misbid is a way of doing this. My problem is that 40C1(sentence 3) implies that the only rectification due to the opponents (as opposed to instructions regarding future disclosure) is damage arising from the lack of disclosure rather than the effectiveness of the understanding. This means that to justify rectification against the effectiveness of the understanding one must look elsewhere (I assumed UI, but maybe there are other possibilities).

40C1: A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. The last sentence implies that this law is concerned with failure to disclose and the damage arising from that, rather than ensuring that the CPU is not effective. In isolation, the first sentence implies that the CPU itself is a violation which may require rectification. I take it that your argument is based on the first sentence?

So, what is the damage that is being rectified?

Yes, the fielded misbid is discussed as a sort of off-shoot of psyches, without really explaining the principles involved. However, evidence of partnership understandings does not imply damage to the opponents through non-disclosure as discussed by 40C1. The EBU approach seems to target good results rather than poor disclosure, illegal agreements or use of UI. I don't see how to make the jump from what the laws say to how the EBU treats the fielded misbid without thinking of it as presumption of UI.

I don't think so. 40C1 is concerned with damage to the opponents through poor disclosure. The EBU fielded misbid effectively assumes that there is sufficient likelyhood of unproven UI being present that the board is unplayable and an artificial score is required.

I suspect you are right. Unless I am mistaken the purpose of the laws is to restore equity rather than to penalise or rectify beyond the point of equity. The purpose of Law 11 is clearly to prevent angle-shooting for excessive penalties. In many cases, such as revokes, the situation is usually too complex to restore equity and instead penalties are prescribed for rectification. The same standards should not be applied to revokes as to situations where equity can be restored. In the case of revokes, determining whether a non-offender knew/should have known that it was a revoke would be too impractical to consider. It is not impractical to determine whether dummy's LHO should have known that dummy should not have been playing whist.

Indeed: the OP situation would be more akin to playing your card after the revoke, with the intention of then drawing attention to the revoke yourself and having the opportunity to change your card. I don't know what the legalities of this would be, but it isn't a manoeuvre to be proud of.

It is unclear to me whether the laws as a whole permit, preclude or require the defender who followed to dummy's card in this situation to be considered as an offender or non-offender.

To your first paragraph: yes. I don't think L10C is relevant because it discusses options, which the defender does not have: dummy's card is simply not played, he cannot decide accept it.

I suppose I should have said "hopefully this is supported by law/regulation". The only difference it makes whether the defence is non-offending or offending is whether information relating to the defender's withdrawn card is UI to the defence. If the defender is not considered offending (which seems unclear rather than wrong to me) then probably the AI relating to his withdrawn card should count as rectification that is forfeit under law 11, with the same outcome as if the defender were offending (although I suppose the TD could judge that the UI to declarer was also part of the forfeit rectification). But I am in danger of deciding how I want to rule and then looking for laws to justify it!

It would help in this situation if there were an onus on the defenders to ask about dummy's 4NT before declarer's 5D, but I don't think there is :(

Law 45D: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn to it before each side has played to the next trick, and a defender may withdraw and return to his hand a card played after the error but before attention was drawn to it; if declarer’s RHO changes his play, declarer may withdraw a card he had subsequently played to that trick. (See Law 16D.) So, in none of your cases is dummy's card played. In all cases partner can change his card and (only) if he does then so can declarer. It seems wrong for partner to be considered "not offending" having failed to notice that dummy was not tabled (hopefully this is not contradicted by law/regulation), so there would be a lot of UI to the defenders from partners change of card. Since neither side is non offending, information from opponents withdrawn cards is authorised (16D2 doesn't state this but implies it). Law 16D: When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide: 1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’. 2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the unauthorized information.

It might be worth considering whether 3D is an LA for South. It is forcing from his perspective, but not from North's so may become the final contract. Better to consider the situation objectively though!

This will make it difficult for them to fulfil their ethical obligations. It does not mean that the obligations are mitigated. Calling it by its name is likely to be a more effective deterrent than making excuses. I am not sure I have much sympathy in this instance, but I am uneasy with the principle that saying "no agreement" is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling, but making a genuine but flawed attempt at better disclosure is much more hazardous.