Peers of a Pair

[savphantom]

[hv=pc=n&s=saht9dak8765c8532&w=skt6hq5dqjt3ckj64&n=sq875432h743d2ct7&e=sj9hakj862d94caq9&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1h3d3n4s5hppp]399|300|Alerted Diamonds+Spades<br>East bid 4H insufficient over 4S Not accepted corrected to 5H[/hv]

Score +200 NS

 

NS very experienced players, recent partnership , EW have less tournament experience.

Report of actual NS agreeement not confirmed.

 

Table director recalled by NS to suggest their misinformation of 3♦ may have damaged EW.

 

East stated that after Partner bids 3NT he is always bidding Hearts. South holding a Diamond pre-empt rather than two suits does not affect his intention to his bidding Hearts. He was sure he would bid 5♥ over 4♠ also.

Table director ruled no adjustment. Table score stands.

 

Director-in-Charge overuled the table decision and awarded score of -1100 to NS based upon 4♠X by North. A possible action for East with knowledge that South held only a Diamond suit.

 

North appealed.

 

Appeal Committee investigated in detail East's confidence in bidding on in Hearts. Specifically inquired whether doubling 4S could be a potential bid. East was adamant that she saw no alternative to bidding 5♥. did not mention passing 4♠ as an option she might consider.

Committee found that players of comparable standard using the methods of the EW partnership did not have a logical alternative to bidding 5♥.

 

Committee decision was Table score 200 NS to apply.

 

What would you rule in Appeal?

Do you believe adjustment should be made on the basis of actions slightly more experienced EW players might take or weight scores from actions such as 4♠ North, 4♠X or 5♥ East?

[Cyberyeti]

I might ask the question why North didn't bid 5♠ either initially or over 5♥ with a bucketload of spades and no defence. I think it's an action that's in the frame.

 

I also think in practice 4♠x may not go for as many as 1100, 3 rounds of hearts is a pretty normal start so declarer makes 4 spades in hand, 2 diamonds and the heart ruff with the A♠.

[bluejak]

If East thinks that ♠J9 is not a good holding to defend with when spades are apparently 5/3 why is it better when they are split 1/7?

 

The TD and AC were correct: the DIC made a TD beginner's blunder: he ruled on the basis that South had a one-suiter in diamonds and East knew that North did not know it.

 

:ph34r:

 

Incidentally, while I am convinced adjusting is wrong, not weighting the score if it were correct to adjust also seems a very poor effort by the DIC.

 

As for North not bidding 5♠ that looks like a fielded misbid to me. But as always, despite the breach of Law 40A3, fielded misbids do not seem to be treated as illegal outside the British Isles.

[Cyberyeti]

As for North not bidding 5♠ that looks like a fielded misbid to me. But as always, despite the breach of Law 40A3, fielded misbids do not seem to be treated as illegal outside the British Isles.

Yeah, but you have to wonder if there was some body language that told him not to bid 5♠, or whether partner had got this wrong before.

[bluejak]

Sure: body language, UI, etc. Got it wrong before, fielded misbid, problem.

[olien]

There are tactical reasons for not bidding 5♠ as well. If S is expected to be atleast 5/5 in ♠ and ♦, then there are no ♠ tricks to be taken, so bidding 5♠ may push E-W into a slam they would not have otherwise bid. Also, can S really be 5/5 in ♠ and ♦ when N is looking at 7♠ and W bid 3NT? Seems like N is able to use logic to figure out something is going on.

 

So, N has logical information and tactical reasons for not bidding 5♠.

[Cascade]

As for North not bidding 5♠ that looks like a fielded misbid to me. But as always, despite the breach of Law 40A3, fielded misbids do not seem to be treated as illegal outside the British Isles.

 

That is because they are not treated as illegal by the law book.

[blackshoe]

Are you sure, Wayne? David is using "field" in the sense of "illegally accounting for the possibility". IOW, fielding occurs when there is sufficient partnership experience that a particular "misbid" of a stated agreement implicitly creates a new agreement. If there is no implicit agreement, then I would agree there is no infraction of law, but if the TD determines that such an agreement is likely*, failure to disclose it is, as David said, a breach of Law 40A3.

 

*ruling, of course, on the preponderance of the evidence, and not the stronger "beyond reasonable doubt".

[Cascade]

Are you sure, Wayne? David is using "field" in the sense of "illegally accounting for the possibility". IOW, fielding occurs when there is sufficient partnership experience that a particular "misbid" of a stated agreement implicitly creates a new agreement. If there is no implicit agreement, then I would agree there is no infraction of law, but if the TD determines that such an agreement is likely*, failure to disclose it is, as David said, a breach of Law 40A3.

 

*ruling, of course, on the preponderance of the evidence, and not the stronger "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

If this is the case then I do not believe that such "fielded misbids" are "not ... treated as illegal outside the British Isles".

[blackshoe]

Perhaps not everywhere and always, but certainly often enough at club level in North America (at least the parts of North America with which I am familiar, bridge-wise). By omission, imo, rather than by design, but it does happen.

[bluejak]

That is because they are not treated as illegal by the law book.

My Law book has a 40A3 in it. Does not yours?