Fielding a misbid

[gnasher]

[hv=s=saj6543h9762dajc8]133|100|1♠ dbl 4♥ pass[/hv]

4♥ is systemically to play, but it seems likely from your hand and from previous experience that partner has forgotten this agreement. 1♠ (dbl) 4m would have been a fit bid; the only splinters that you play in competition are in an opponent's suit.

 

You are using screens. Your screenmate is to your right.

 

Which of these would be permitted:

 

(1) Tell RHO that 4♥ is supposed to be natural, but partner almost certainly has either a fit bid or a splinter, then bid 4♠.

 

As I understand it, the EBU penalises fielded misbids by inferring a concealed partnership understanding. If you explain both the actual agreement and what you think partner has got, does that get you off the hook?

 

It is permitted in the EBU to play partner's 4♥ bid as any game-forcing meaning, so it's legal to play it as a three-way bid - natural, a fit bid or a splinter. Hence the question is only one of disclosure. On the other side of the screen, of course, the explanation will have been different.

 

(2) Bid 4♠ as a cue-bid in support of hearts.

 

(3) Raise 4♥ to 5♥ preemptively, then pass partner's conversion to 5♠.

[mink]

The "no splinter in competition"-rule is easy to remember, so I think it is more likely to be a fitbid. In this case, 4♥ is not such a bad contract, so I pass. And if 4♥ was really to play, this is the best solution anyway.

 

I do not think it is a good idea to tell the screenmate about your partner having gotten this wrong in the past, because you got the idea that it happened again from your hand, and because you mislead the opp in case it was really to play. If it turns out afterwards that partner really had forgotten the system, you can still tell the director and he can take this into account when adjusting.

 

Karl

[gordontd]

I do not think it is a good idea to tell the screenmate about your partner having gotten this wrong in the past,

I agree that this sort of thing is problematic, because it simply creates uncertainty for the opponents in an attempt to avoid the consequences of one's own imperfect agreements or understandings.

[gnasher]

Right, but suppose that I'm prepared to take the risk of suffering an adjustment for misinformation?

 

Such misinformation can apply only to this round of the auction, anyway. If I bid 4♠ and partner passes, we'll know that he forgot the system; if he bids, we'll know that 4♥ was natural.

[greenender]

I do not think it is a good idea to tell the screenmate about your partner having gotten this wrong in the past,

I agree that this sort of thing is problematic, because it simply creates uncertainty for the opponents in an attempt to avoid the consequences of one's own imperfect agreements or understandings.

About four or five years ago, IIRC, the EBU L&E introduced a regulation that partner's propensity to forget an agreement should neither be disclosed nor acted on. I believe that the regulation was subsequently scrapped because a (slightly differently constituted, no doubt) L&E was persuaded that the non-disclosure part of the regulation was contrary to the Laws.

 

So whilst I agree with Gordon that telling the opponent that it is supposed to be natural, but may actually be something else, isn't necessarily helpful to the opponent, I think you have to do it because your information comes not just from the contents of your hand but also from partnership experience.

 

Sometimes, your opponent's hand will give him a clue what is going on.

 

I think that since you are effectively playing a legal (two- or three-way) method, you can bid what you like.

[helene_t]

In this case it probably doesn't matter since RHO already passed, but in general I don't like the idea of telling opps that p may have misbid.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and RHO bid 3♣. I ask and get the following answer:

- "Ghestem". OK, our defense against Ghestem applies.

- "No agreement". OK, our defense against natural 3♣ bids applies.

- "Ought to be Ghestem but don't count on it". Now this is awkward. Maybe I think that our defense should depend on how much stress LHO used when pronouncing "don't". But I have no clue if my partner is on the same wavelength.

[bluejak]

The EBU regulation was designed to help opponents. The decision that it was illegal and thus scrapped is not helpful to opponents.

 

The correct explanation of the partnership understanding, explicit and implicit, is that you play 4♥ as natural, but partner is likely to forget. Thus that is what you are required to tell your sreenmate. Of course, you may act on it as well. It is unfortunate in many positions and creates difficulties. Nevertheless, this is what you must do.

 

There will be some situations where such an explanation means that you are playing an illegal agreement: this makes it worse. But again, you must do what is right and live with the consequences. Fortunately this does not apply here since any responses [at Level 3+, anyway] are permitted.

 

So you should do (1).

[bluejak]

In this case it probably doesn't matter since RHO already passed, but in general I don't like the idea of telling opps that p may have misbid.

Nor do I. But as a matter of law, you must.

[aguahombre]

Right, but suppose that I'm prepared to take the risk of suffering an adjustment for misinformation?

 

Such misinformation can apply only to this round of the auction, anyway.  If I bid 4♠ and partner passes, we'll know that he forgot the system; if he bids, we'll know that 4♥ was natural.

exactly. And the behind screen explanation? Would you go into detail, or just say "I think it is a splinter"? the 4S bid covers whatever partner meant, so that part is easy. The double helped you guess it was neither a fit bid, nor a long suit --plus your holding. In this instance, perhaps just stating you take it as a splinter is good enough.

[Poky]

There will be some situations where such an explanation means that you are playing an illegal agreement: this makes it worse. But again, you must do what is right and live with the consequences. Fortunately this does not apply here since any responses [at Level 3+, anyway] are permitted.

Are you telling that the statement:

"4♥ is natural, but partner is likely to forget"

is equivalent to

"4♥ is either natural or splinter in support of spades"?

[gnasher]

The EBU regulation was designed to help opponents. The decision that it was illegal and thus scrapped is not helpful to opponents.

 

The correct explanation of the partnership understanding, explicit and implicit, is that you play 4♥ as natural, but partner is likely to forget. Thus that is what you are required to tell your sreenmate. Of course, you may act on it as well. It is unfortunate in many positions and creates difficulties. Nevertheless, this is what you must do.

 

There will be some situations where such an explanation means that you are playing an illegal agreement: this makes it worse. But again, you must do what is right and live with the consequences. Fortunately this does not apply here since any responses [at Level 3+, anyway] are permitted.

 

So you should do (1).

OK, so I must explain that partner has a propensity to forget this agreement, and to describe the likely alternative meanings. That applies regardless of what I plan to call.

 

Having done that, am I now free to bid 4♠ without risk of being penalised for fielding the misbid? I realise that there may be other consequences of the misinformation, but I'm asking specifically about the question of fielding the misbid.

[bluejak]

Are you telling that the statement:

"4♥ is natural, but partner is likely to forget"

is equivalent to

"4♥ is either natural or splinter in support of spades"?

No, of course not. I would say the former because it is the truth.

 

OK, so I must explain that partner has a propensity to forget this agreement, and to describe the likely alternative meanings. That applies regardless of what I plan to call.

 

Having done that, am I now free to bid 4♠ without risk of being penalised for fielding the misbid? I realise that there may be other consequences of the misinformation, but I'm asking specifically about the question of fielding the misbid.

You are now safe from fielding the misbid. The whole business of fielding is based on allowing for partner to have something that the opponents do not know about: once they know about it, you cannot field.

[barmar]

In this case it probably doesn't matter since RHO already passed, but in general I don't like the idea of telling opps that p may have misbid.

 

Partner opens 1♠ and RHO bid 3♣. I ask and get the following answer:

- "Ghestem". OK, our defense against Ghestem applies.

- "No agreement". OK, our defense against natural 3♣ bids applies.

- "Ought to be Ghestem but don't count on it". Now this is awkward. Maybe I think that our defense should depend on how much stress LHO used when pronouncing "don't". But I have no clue if my partner is on the same wavelength.

The goal of full disclosure is that the opponents should be on an equal footing with the bidder's partner. If he has reason to suspect a misbid, based on partnership experience, the opponents are entitled to that. If this means they have to guess what defense they're using, that's too bad; LHO is also guessing whether 3♣ was Ghestem.

 

To avoid your own misunderstandings as a result, it's probably best to have a general agreement that you base your defenses upon what the opponent's bid is supposed to mean. Trying to accomodate the possibility of a misbid is just going to turn the entire auction into a guessing game.

[campboy]

The problem here is that defending against "Ghestem, but partner often forgets" is just as hard as defending against "3♣=natural or both red suits". Yet non-forgetful players are not permitted to play the latter (under most jurisdictions).

[RMB1]

I think there should be a different attitude to "but partner forgets" when the effective partnership understand is or is not a permitted agreement.

 

(1S)-3C = "2-suiter with red suits but partner forgets" is not helpful.

The understanding is 3C="2-suiter D+H or 1-suiter C" and this is not a permitted agreement. Fourth hand will not be able to use the the information that partner forgets because this will be evidence of an illegal agreement and the opponents should not have to defend against 3C with the dual meaning. The explanation needs to be "2-suiter with D+H. Partner has forgotten before; but you and I should ignore that possibility because if he has forgotten we have an illegal understanding and you will get an adjusted score."

 

1NT-(X)-2H = "spades but parner forgets" might as well be "hearts or spades".

2H = "hearts or spades" is a permitted agreement (in the EBU), and this is how opener is going to treat the call, so the opponents might as well have the same clear (if unhelpful) explanation. There could still be a misinformation ruling and responder has UI if he was not aware that there was ambiguity when he bid 2H.

 

Robin

[Finch]

What Robin says.

[blackshoe]

I have some sympathy with Robin's view in the "illegal agreement" scenario, though I wonder what a pair is supposed to do if they're trying to learn a new convention. Is the fact that one member of the pair has forgotten the agreement frequently enough that his partner expects that sufficient to require, or at least to suggest, that they should abandon the attempt to learn and find some other meaning for the bid? I think people have to be given some leeway here, though I confess I'm not sure where to draw the line.

 

In the "legal agreement" scenario, my problem is a little different. I don't see how, if the "official" agreement is that 2♥ shows spades, but partner's forgets make the opener aware he might have hearts, and opener gives all that information, the TD can rule that there was MI. I do have a cold, so maybe I'm too sick to see it. :angry:

[jdonn]

I don't think you should have special rights to forget what you are playing to the point it becomes an agreement simply because you're in the process of trying to learn it. And frankly I think you aren't giving the learners enough credit anyway. It's one thing to mess up how a convention works, or which hand you use it on, but this is talking about forgetting that you are playing it altogether.

[Trinidad]

I have some sympathy with Robin's view in the "illegal agreement" scenario, though I wonder what a pair is supposed to do if they're trying to learn a new convention.

How about: Apologize, take the adjusted score with grace and take the bad board?

 

And then of course beat the opponents three months later with a convention that by then works smoothly.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

When I was your age, Josh, I had a very good memory, too. Now that I'm older, I've noticed that I sometimes forget something I never would have forgotten 40 years ago - such as that I'm playing X convention instead of Y convention with today's partner. Fortunately, it hasn't gotten to the point that any of my partners expect it (at least, I don't think it has) but still..

 

I'm not talking about "special rights", either.

 

Would you say then that once a player has established an implicit agreement by his forgets, he is ethically required to abandon his attempt to learn a new convention?

[jdonn]

Would you say then that once a player has established an implicit agreement by his forgets, he is ethically required to abandon his attempt to learn a new convention?

I think you are again missing the distinction between learning a new convention, which is dandy, with repeatedly forgetting what you are playing to begin with. And I don't know how I would word it as far as "ethically required" but I do think if you keep forgetting a convention you should stop playing it.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure that's not a distinction without a difference. Certainly if you have been playing some convention for years, and suddenly you keep forgetting it, that's one thing. But I would think that would be pretty rare - even for us senile old folks. :)

 

I had a partner once - she'd played rubber bridge a little in nursing school in the 60s, then had not played for some thirty years, and then started playing with me in duplicate clubs. One auction she never could get: she would open 1NT, I would bid 2♣ (Stayman), she would bid 3♣. She didn't play duplicate for long - the fine treatment she got from some of our local players drove her away from the game - but if she'd kept playing, well, which category would you put her in? Trying to learn, or hopelessly forgetful?

[jdonn]

I wouldn't categorize her as anything, I'd just believe she shouldn't play stayman.

[blackshoe]

Well, that's fine then, because she doesn't play bridge any more. :)

[campboy]

I don't think we need to be so harsh. If one player often forgets the system, this in itself isn't a problem. The problem is if partner might allow for it. If he doesn't, then I do not see how there can be an agreement.

 

I also do not normally tell my opponents "partner is not very good", even if it is true and potentially useful information; why should it be any different if there is one particular thinig he is not very good at?