when partner has misbid and you know it

[Fluffy]

I had this problem once playing with screens

 

♠x

♥J98xxx

♦xxx

♣Qxx

 

 

auntion went 1♦ on my right, I passed, lho bid 1♥ and partner bid 2♥.

 

(1♦)-pass-(1♥)-2♥

 

Now I can clearly remember that partner insisted on playing this as exactly 5 spades and exactly 4 clubs, but I rejected to play such nonsense and finally we agreen on playing 2♥ as natural.

 

What's what I should do now?

 

---

 

 

Similar example, with a 6502 major 2 suiter LHO opens 1♣ and partner overcalls 2♦ showing the majors in your system, how do you alert?

 

I alerted as majors, and then RHO doubles showing penalty desires in at least one of the majors, making it even more obvious what now?

 

(1♣)-2♦-(X)-

[blackshoe]

In the first case, your LHO has 4+ ♥, your partner has 5+♥ (maybe 6, what's your agreement), and you have 6. That's 15 ♥. Clearly someone is full of it. LHO might have 3, but no way he has 2 or less, unless he's psyching. :blink: Most likely it's partner. You have partnership experience indicating that he may have 5 spades and 4 clubs. You should disclose this to opponents, particularly if you're going to act as if that's what he has (I would). You have no UI at this point, so your actions are not constrained. Partner, behind screens, will have no UI, so his actions aren't constrained either. So you can go ahead and bid whatever you think partner will expect you to bid with your hand, given he has the expected 5-4.

 

In case 2, alerting and explaining your actual agreement is the right thing to do. At the point of partner's bid, it is unlikely, but not impossible, that he has the majors. RHO's double makes it less likely, but still not impossible (maybe he doubled to try to talk you out of finding your huge major suit fit(s)).

[awm]

The first case seems iffy to me. The problem is that it is very possible LHO is psyching. You have to determine the relative chances that LHO is psyching vs. partner has 5♠/4♣ and forgot your agreement.

 

However, if you play partner to forget the agreement without disclosing to opponents, that seems like a concealed understanding (i.e. if I had this auction with a partner who I knew always plays 2♥ as natural in this sequence, I would certainly assume that LHO made a psych with a diamond fit). On the other hand, if you do disclose to opponents that partner "forgets" this agreement or whatever, it seems like it might impart some information about your hand -- certainly if you had a more normal hand with fewer hearts you would be playing partner for the heart suit and probably would not have disclosed the (non-agreement) that partner likes to play this as 5♠/4♣.

[Fluffy]

on the first case, what is the correct explanation I should give to my RHO? just tell him partner has spades and clubs, or alert him partner has misbid and I am knowing?

 

 

on the second hand, after alerting majors, I tried to solve the missunderstanding as quickly as possible by bidding 4♦ wich I hoped partner to pass with his diamonds, nevertheless it led to -1100 anyway, but was this an ethical bid?

[campboy]

The explanation you give to opponents really should not depend on the cards you hold. If partnership experience is that there is a fair chance partner has forgotten, then that is your implicit agreement and you should explain that whether the cards you can see make it more or less likely than it would otherwise be. On the other hand, if you have no reason other than your cards to suspect partner has forgotten then you do not have any implicit agreement to disclose.

[barmar]

But it seems like it's a combination. You don't have experience of the misbid, because you just discussed your system, but you DO have memory of partner wanting to use another meaning for the bid. But if it weren't for the hand you're holding, you probably wouldn't suspect that he thinks that's what you agreed on.

[dburn]

Just before the session begins, partner tells you that he has finally become convinced that Namyats is what you ought to be playing instead of his preference for a natural 4♣ opening. You welcome his conversion, and both of you write Namyats on your convention cards.

 

On the first board, you have five solid hearts. Partner opens 4♣ (in a jurisdiction where this is alertable). What should you do?

 

Why, you should alert and explain that he has a good 4♥ opening. You are under no obligation to disclose that he might not have, nor are you under any obligation to bid as though he might have.

 

Similarly, in the actual case you should (if required) explain 2♥ as showing hearts, for that is what it shows. You do not have to (nor should you) say anything about the possibility that partner actually has spades and clubs, since that is not your partnership agreement.

 

Of course, if this kind of thing happens again it may well become your "implicit" partnership agreement that a 2♥ overcall shows "either hearts, or spades and clubs". At that point, your opponents are entitled to know that this is your agreement, and also to know what responses you play to such an overcall (for example "I play partner to have hearts unless I have so many of them that I know he doesn't, in which case I play him to have spades and clubs.") But that point is not yet (and if you have any sense it never will be).

[Fluffy]

on the first one RHO asked me what it meant, I said hearts, then opps started to cuebid one in spades (LHO with the info spades+clubs) and RHO in hearts (with the info 2♥=hearts) till the 5 level, doubled for -1400. Director switched the score to 7♦ making for them wich only 1 pair reached on the 24 tables in play. Not a big success.

 

Explaining our agreement didn't work very well for me, it would had been very easy to explain spades and clubs and just go from there.

 

So my question is, if this happens again, explaining what I am sure is gonna be explained at the other side of the screen is: ilegal? legal but unethical?, or just legal.

 

 

------

 

On the other hand I also wanna know if making a bid that hopefully reveals the missunderstanding if it has happened, but keeps the bidding alive if not is legal and/or ethical.

[dburn]

on the first one RHO asked me what it meant, I said hearts, then opps started to cuebid one in spades (LHO with the info spades+clubs) and RHO in hearts (with the info 2♥=hearts) till the 5 level, doubled for -1400. Director switched the score to 7♦ making for them wich only 1 pair reached on the 24 tables in play. Not a big success.

 

Explaining our agreement didn't work very well for me, it would had been very easy to explain spades and clubs and just go from there.

 

So my question is, if this happens again, explaining what I am sure is gonna be explained at the other side of the screen is: ilegal? legal but unethical?, or just legal.

 

 

------

 

On the other hand I also wanna know if making a bid that hopefully reveals the missunderstanding if it has happened, but keeps the bidding alive if not is legal and/or ethical.

You must explain your partnership agreement. In this case, your partnership agreement is that 2♥ shows hearts. It is not legal to explain it as "spades and clubs", because it doesn't show spades and clubs.

 

Of course, it is also illegal for your partner to explain it as "spades and clubs" even though he intends it as spades and clubs, and he actually has spades and clubs.

 

I am not quite sure what your second question means. It is legal for you to bid anything you like, provided that such a call is not based on a concealed partnership understanding.

[awm]

Just before the session begins, partner tells you that he has finally become convinced that Namyats is what you ought to be playing instead of his preference for a natural 4♣ opening. You welcome his conversion, and both of you write Namyats on your convention cards.

 

On the first board, you have five solid hearts. Partner opens 4♣ (in a jurisdiction where this is alertable). What should you do?

 

Why, you should alert and explain that he has a good 4♥ opening. You are under no obligation to disclose that he might not have, nor are you under any obligation to bid as though he might have.

So suppose that North opens 4♣ with a stack of clubs. South alerts and says "good hand with hearts." East has a hand with both pointed suits, but decides to pass because he is assured of another chance to come in over 4♥ (perhaps their defense has no direct bid for this two-suiter). South now passes 4♣ because his heart holding is quite strong and he's sure that north just forgot their namyats agreement. 4♣ passes out; E/W can make 4♠.

 

Thus it appears that: (1) South alerted 4♣ and described it as something North does not in fact have. (2) South then took a call (pass) which seems to cater for North's actual hand rather than their described agreement. (3) E/W were damaged, because East's pass was based on the assumption that North's call was pretty much forcing, when in fact he had nothing of the sort and South treated north as having nothing of the sort.

 

Are you really going to say "well, namyats is on their card, so no adjustment"? Or are you going to rule "fielded misbid" or even misinformation?

[blackshoe]

Ruling "fielded misbid" is in effect a ruling that there was a CPU. What is the evidence that there is a CPU? Only the fact that South passed 4♣. But South has AI that North may well have misbid because of what is in South's hand. I would investigate, but unless I find more evidence indicating a CPU, I'm not going to adjust the score. In effect, in EBU terms, I will rule this "fielded misbid", if I rule it such at all, as Green.

[MFA]

I agree with dburn's theoretical view.

 

But it just doesn't work in practice. The director should rule misinformation rather than misbid (unless there is a particular reason not to).

 

So Fluffy can be pretty certain that if he says "hearts", which he can see his partner doesn't have, he will be subject to an automatically adjusted score if the opponent draws some unlucky conclusion from that. A pedestrian TD ruling. Just what happened.

 

The laws are inconsistent and unfair, since they encourage untruthful explanations.

 

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

[gnasher]

With screens' you have anther option, which is to tell them that systemically it shows hearts, but your heart holding is such as to make that impossible, you think it likely that partner has spades and clubs, and you plan to bid accordingly.

[blackshoe]

But it just doesn't work in practice. The director should rule misinformation rather than misbid (unless there is a particular reason not to).

No. The director should rule MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Players' statements are evidence. So the system card, and system notes if available. When there is evidence that it may have been a misbid, the director must decide on the preponderance of the evidence whether it is.

So Fluffy can be pretty certain that if he says "hearts", which he can see his partner doesn't have, he will be subject to an automatically adjusted score if the opponent draws some unlucky conclusion from that. A pedestrian TD ruling. Just what happened.

There is no "automatic score adjustment" if the director is at all competent.

The laws are inconsistent and unfair, since they encourage untruthful explanations.

No, they don't.

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

This is the deWael School of thought, which has been explicitly deprecated by the WBFLC.

[peachy]

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

It is against the laws of the game to go into such guess work strategies. Knowing what the laws say and doing it anyway, makes it unethical.

[TimG]

Just before the session begins, partner tells you that he has finally become convinced that Namyats is what you ought to be playing instead of his preference for a natural 4♣ opening. You welcome his conversion, and both of you write Namyats on your convention cards.

 

On the first board, you have five solid hearts. Partner opens 4♣ (in a jurisdiction where this is alertable). What should you do?

 

Why, you should alert and explain that he has a good 4♥ opening. You are under no obligation to disclose that he might not have, nor are you under any obligation to bid as though he might have.

So suppose that North opens 4♣ with a stack of clubs. South alerts and says "good hand with hearts." East has a hand with both pointed suits, but decides to pass because he is assured of another chance to come in over 4♥ (perhaps their defense has no direct bid for this two-suiter). South now passes 4♣ because his heart holding is quite strong and he's sure that north just forgot their namyats agreement. 4♣ passes out; E/W can make 4♠.

 

Thus it appears that: (1) South alerted 4♣ and described it as something North does not in fact have. (2) South then took a call (pass) which seems to cater for North's actual hand rather than their described agreement. (3) E/W were damaged, because East's pass was based on the assumption that North's call was pretty much forcing, when in fact he had nothing of the sort and South treated north as having nothing of the sort.

 

Are you really going to say "well, namyats is on their card, so no adjustment"? Or are you going to rule "fielded misbid" or even misinformation?

South knows that his partner has either forgotten the agreement or intentionally decided to violate agreement, not because of a partnership understanding (concealed or otherwise), but because of the cards in his hand (the strong hearts).

 

I would not rule misinformation. Nor would I rule "fielded" anything if "fielded" carries with it an implication of being illegal (as it seems to in most places).

[bluejak]

Ruling "fielded misbid" is in effect a ruling that there was a CPU. What is the evidence that there is a CPU? Only the fact that South passed 4♣. But South has AI that North may well have misbid because of what is in South's hand. I would investigate, but unless I find more evidence indicating a CPU, I'm not going to adjust the score. In effect, in EBU terms, I will rule this "fielded misbid", if I rule it such at all, as Green.

On the matter of nomenclature, yes, a fielded misbid means evidence of a CPU. But if you rule a misbid as Green, you are ruling it as not fielded.

[blackshoe]

On the matter of nomenclature, yes, a fielded misbid means evidence of a CPU. But if you rule a misbid as Green, you are ruling it as not fielded.

Works for me.

[nige1]

Just before the session begins, partner tells you that he has finally become convinced that Namyats is what you ought to be playing instead of his preference for a natural 4♣ opening. You welcome his conversion, and both of you write Namyats on your convention cards. On the first board, you have five solid hearts. Partner opens 4♣ (in a jurisdiction where this is alertable). What should you do? Why, you should alert and explain that he has a good 4♥ opening. You are under no obligation to disclose that he might not have, nor are you under any obligation to bid as though he might have.

Legal but unfair in practice. When partner opens 4♣ = Solid ♥, suppose that both you and an opponent are looking at ♥ honours. Your previous agreement could have been that partner's 4♣ opener showed ♦ or some kind of 2-suiter. Your knowledge of your previous agreement helps you to recover and gives you an advantage over your opponent. Furthermore, if your agreement has always been tht 4♣ showed solid ♥, you may even suspect that partner has mixed up his red suits.

[dburn]

Legal but unfair in practice. When partner opens 4♣ = Solid ♥, suppose that both you and an opponent are looking at ♥ honours. Your previous agreement could have been that partner's 4♣ opener showed ♦ or some kind of 2-suiter. Your knowledge of your previous agreement helps you to recover and gives you an advantage over your opponent.

Sure it does (just as in Fluffy's question). If you know fortuitously from your own hand that partner has forgotten the system, and you know more than the opponents know about the type of hand that partner will have if he has forgotten the system, then:

 

one school of thought (which we will describe as "honest") holds that you are obliged to tell the opponents what amounts to all of the foregoing; while

 

another school of thought (which we will describe as "dutiful") holds that you are obliged to tell the opponents what amounts to none of the foregoing.

 

The irreconcilable differences between these two schools is nowhere more aptly summarized than by Nigel's "legal, but unfair in practice". awm is on record as asking whether a player should really explain his partner's call as: [1] showing something the player knows that his partner does not have; [2] taking advantage of the player's own (fortuitous) holding to sow confusion, usually to the player's own benefit.

 

In the days when Kaplan wrote the Laws, the answer to that question was an unqualified "yes, he should - if he is lucky enough to know that his partner has (in effect) psyched, he is under no obligation to inform the opponents that this is the case." In those days, there was no debate - you should be dutiful, and there was no obligation at all to be honest; indeed, it was on occasion held that being honest was unhelpful to the constabulary, and thus practically an offence it itself.

 

But that was then, and this is now. The Law regarding implicit (as opposed to, or in conjunction with) explicit agreements has acquired such force that nobody has actually got the faintest idea what Law 40 means for practical purposes; in particular, no one knows whether it obliges players to be honest, or dutiful, or somewhere between the two.

 

Fluffy was helpful enough to say that his partnership agreement at the time was "definitely" that 2♥ showed hearts; this allows us to say equally definitely that he should dutifully explain 2♥ as hearts and bid what he likes. If the opponents come to grief - well, they might or might not obtain redress, for his partner on the other side of the screen will have given misinformation (not about his hand, which is no infraction, but about the partnership agreement, which is).

 

Instead, Fluffy knew what was going on and wanted to be honest. Commendable though this may seem, it is probably still illegal, though this is unclear. You see, instead of trying to develop a legal system with some chance of working (or at any rate of being understood), the powers that be have concentrated on ways of stopping some idiots from going down seven in a cuebid just because one of the idiots may not have meant to make it, or the other one may not have meant to pass it.

 

Wherefore I propose Burn's 40th law:

 

Law 40

 

You should tell the opponents what methods you play, and you should tell them nothing else.

 

If you don't know what methods you play then you must not tell them anything, but you will not be permitted to play any methods relating to the sequence you have messed up until you have sorted it out. Moreover, the opponents should receive a score in respect of the current deal of no less than 90% of the match points, or 14 IMPs in team play (or their actual score if greater, as one sincerely hopes that it will be).

 

This penalty to be extended to at least 17 IMPs if you talk complete nonsense (e.g. describing a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening as "either clubs, or spades and diamonds" when you are both clearly deranged).

 

Law 41....

[MFA]

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

It is against the laws of the game to go into such guess work strategies. Knowing what the laws say and doing it anyway, makes it unethical.

Yes, I agree.

Hopefully it's clear that what I'm doing in this thread is critisizing the laws, not explaining how I handle the situations myself or how I would like others to handle them.

[MFA]

But it just doesn't work in practice. The director should rule misinformation rather than misbid (unless there is a particular reason not to).

No. The director should rule MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Players' statements are evidence. So the system card, and system notes if available. When there is evidence that it may have been a misbid, the director must decide on the preponderance of the evidence whether it is.

So Fluffy can be pretty certain that if he says "hearts", which he can see his partner doesn't have, he will be subject to an automatically adjusted score if the opponent draws some unlucky conclusion from that. A pedestrian TD ruling. Just what happened.

There is no "automatic score adjustment" if the director is at all competent.

The laws are inconsistent and unfair, since they encourage untruthful explanations.

No, they don't.

The best strategy (perhaps not ethically) is to try to guess what partner has and explain that. Always, since that will keep one out of trouble most often. That's how it is.

This is the deWael School of thought, which has been explicitly deprecated by the WBFLC.

I do think that the laws are pretty weak with dealing with potential misinformation.

 

I deliberately didn't use the exact words from the laws since the solemn and elegant wording may so easily seduce one to believe that the underlying logic is through and through sensible, which is not the case.

 

Yes the director is supposed to judge also from the players' statements and try to divine what's gong on. That immediately initiates a game of orally persuasion which favours untruthful players and players like myself, who just all too well know that as the bidder one should be quick to admit the "momentary lapse" that lead to the silly bid while as the explainer one should be persistent about being right about the explanation. The result is just even more success for grey area tactics.

[MFA]

Very nice post, mr. Burn. Although I'm pretty sure that I would vote against Burn's 40th Law. :)

[mich-b]

This discussion made me (again) think , that there is merit in Bobby Wolff's approach known as "convention disruption". Once a player makes a conventional bid, whose meaning , according to partnership agreement, is completely inconsistent with his hand (and this is essentially the case in Fluffy's examples) the board too often becomes unplayable and random.

To discourage that , and to avoid rulings where the opps were given correct infrmation according to system , but incorrect in reality, perhaps just settle the board as A- for the forgetter's side , A+ (or whatever) to the other side, and dont get into this "what should I explain when I know he doesnt have what he showed"?

 

If Fluffy's pd bid 2♥ , that shows ♥ with 5♠/4♣ you cant really expect his opps to continue biddining sensibly, can you?

[bluejak]

I take it you do not play in a club? Do you really think cancelling a fairly reasonable percentage of boards played in clubs actually helps the game?

 

We need approaches that are practical as well as what is perceived as fair. And practical, the WBFLC may be surprised to hear, means in th 95% of duplicates played in clubs as well as the 5% played elsewhere.