I thought this was fairly easy, but I wondered ...

[Finch]

The only way you get to 4Sx NS is if you decide that (i) 3D was systemically natural (so there was MI), (ii) West would double a natural 3D and (iii) North would still believe that 3D showed the majors, and would bid 4S over a double from West.

 

I think this is all a bit of a stretch.

 

I agree with other people that I don't see how to rule unless we can ask North why he passed 3D.

I do find West's pass of a game forcing bid very odd. Surely this is close to a WoG action? Partner has promised game forcing values, why do you pass him out below game?

[Trinidad]

Can you really enforce a 4♠ bid (and a double passed out)? That bid was not made and the transgression was of a different sort, failure to disclose and likely deliberate?

You can "enforce" a 4♠ bid if you rule that North had Unauthorized Information (from South's body language when North explained). A 4♠ bid is certainly a logical alternative, as long as you believe that South has shown the majors. (In fact, I see it as the only alternative.)

 

If you would believe that South had shown the majors, would you run from 4♠ doubled?

 

Rik

[bluejak]

When I first looked at the hand I overlooked North's pass of 3♦. A great example of why TDs must always consult on judgement rulings: it is easy to overlook things.

 

I was not there so I cannot tell you what went through North’s mind. But the most likely thing in my view is that he either changed his mind or was not sure and did not say so. MI in both cases.

 

The thing I really wondered about is whether the pass in a GF auction was SEWoG.

[lamford]

Do we know what the actual N/S agreement for 3♦ was? [i see reading through we do not, but bluejak's guesses on what happened look very plausible].

 

And is West's pass a serious error, or wild or gambling? And how does one decide which of those it is, as it seems related to the infraction of the MI, so it is important to decide? And what is the logic of a wild or gambling bid related to the infraction being punished but a serious error related to the infraction being exempt?

[blackshoe]

I think the theory is that one would not make the serious error if one didn't have the MI.

[gnasher]

I'm puzzled by most of the opinions expressed above. It seems to me that the discussions of UI and MI are irrelevant.

 

On the face of it, South has misbid. This was in the EBU. The EBU regulates actions opposite a misbid in almost the same way as it regulates actions opposite a psyche. The first thing we do is to consider whether North's actions appeared to cater for a misbid. We don't have to show the existence of UI or of an implicit agreement, and we don't have to consider North's intent - the regulations tell us just to look at what North actually did. North's pass is a clearcut "Red" field of the misbid, so I award 60-40.

 

I may not like this regulation, but in this case it has the merit of being easy to apply.

[Vampyr]

North's pass is a clearcut "Red" field of the misbid, so I award 60-40.

 

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

[gnasher]

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

Yes, but red misbids are scored 60-40, according to my reading of the regulations.

[lamford]

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

Yes, but in the EBU it is 60-40 for a red fielded misbid and 60-30 for a red fielded psyche. I think it very unlikely that South psyched 3D showing both majors. I also think it unlikely that 3D showed both majors, but that is a separate issue.

 

"WB 90.4.2: In the case of a fielded psyche there is a further penalty to the offending side of at least the standard amount."

 

I see gnasher has made the same point, while I was typing.

[Vampyr]

Yes, but red misbids are scored 60-40, according to my reading of the regulations.

 

Oh, sorry. I didn't look it up, just assumed that it would be the same as for psyches.

[RMB1]

I'm puzzled by most of the opinions expressed above. It seems to me that the discussions of UI and MI are irrelevant.

 

On the face of it, South has misbid. ...

 

I did consider a fielded misbid when replying originally. That is why we needed to ask South why he bid 3♦ and ask North why he passed. I expected that NS did not have an agreement that 3♦ showed the majors; and that South had not misbid. In my opinion there needs to be an agreement on the meaning of a call for there to be a misbid (and a fielded misbid).

[mjj29]

Yes, but in the EBU it is 60-40 for a red fielded misbid and 60-30 for a red fielded psyche. I think it very unlikely that South psyched 3D showing both majors. I also think it unlikely that 3D showed both majors, but that is a separate issue.

 

Technically it's 60-40 and a standard PP in whatever the final form of scoring is (the OP didn't say), which is only the same as 60-30 at matchpoints.

 

Close enough though (-:

[gnasher]

I did consider a fielded misbid when replying originally. That is why we needed to ask South why he bid 3♦ and ask North why he passed. I expected that NS did not have an agreement that 3♦ showed the majors; and that South had not misbid. In my opinion there needs to be an agreement on the meaning of a call for there to be a misbid (and a fielded misbid).

So, as I understand it:

- If North and South both say that the agreement is "majors", you will rule that North has fielded a misbid. That is, you will rule that they have a concealed partnership agreement, in breach of Law 40.

- If North and South both say that the agreement is "natural", you will rule that North has not fielded a misbid. However, North has still concealed the partnership agreement, and is still in breach of Law 40.

 

North's offence, and the consequences thereof, are the same in both cases. Why, therefore, would your ruling be different?

 

[Edited to correct a fairly crucial typo.]

Edited November 2, 2011 by gnasher

[RMB1]

- If North and South both say that the agreement is "natural", you will rule that North has not fielded a misbid. However, North has still concealed the partnership agreement, and is still in breach of Law 40.

I don't think that North on his own can have a concealed partnership agreement. If North says "majors" but the agreement is "natural" and North bids as if it is "majors" then North has concealed the agreement but South has not misbid. North has changed his mind (for a number of reasons: he had another think, looked at his hand, received UI from partner) and should have called the TD and changed his explanation. But he is (apparently) guilty of misexplanation and there is no automatic penalty for misexplanation, we just rule on the basis of damage to the non-offending side.

 

North's offence, and the consequences thereof, are the same in both cases. Why, therefore, would your ruling be different?

Because the regulation talks about fielded misbids: there has to be a misbid for there to be an automatic penalty.

 

As I understand it, there has to be some apparent conspiracy between both members of the partnership to bid one way and explain it another way for there to be a fielded misbid ruling. If the bidder thought he was bidding according to partnership agreements (and those agreements are permitted) then it can not be "fielded". It can be deliberately misexplained and perhaps there should be an automatic penalty for that.

 

[Edited to correct a fairly crucial typo.]

 

Thanks. Otherwise my reply would have been longer and confused.

[campboy]

And is West's pass a serious error, or wild or gambling? And how does one decide which of those it is, as it seems related to the infraction of the MI, so it is important to decide? And what is the logic of a wild or gambling bid related to the infraction being punished but a serious error related to the infraction being exempt?

I would think that a wild or gambling action is in some sense wilful, that the player knows that it is off-centre (though he might disagree with the TD over how far off-centre it is). An error, on the other hand, is committed by mistake. I am not really sure of the difference between wild and gambling. (I'm reminded of these two comics.)

 

So here a player knowingly passed the GF bid and I consider that wild and gambling. If the auction had been different and he had passed a GF bid because he didn't realise it was forcing then that would be an error; usually when this happens in an MI case it is related to the infraction because the player would have been on firmer ground with the correct explanation.

 

The logic of only the serious error needing to be unrelated, then, is presumably that it is wrong to blame a player for getting a decision wrong that he should never have had to make, but if a player chooses to gamble then he should be prepared to take the consequences if it backfires.

[bluejak]

I think "wild" and "gambling" is a bit like the definition of pornography.

 

If your opponents bid 4♠ over your 4♥ apparently using UI, and you decide that you might get a good board out of 4♠ doubled even though you have not really got a double, but will get an adjustment if this does not work, that is "gambling".

 

If your opponents give you MI which affects your partner's bidding but not yours, and you bash 6♥ light-heartedly for no apparent reason, that's "wild".

 

I think. :(

[barmar]

IMHO....

 

"Wild" is taking a randomish action with practically no expectation of a good result, thinking you can get any damage adjudicated away due to the opponent's infraction. Like jumping to 7NT after they mis-explain something.

 

"Gambling" is taking an action with a low expectation of success, but not totally ridiculous or random. E.g. preempting with a long suit, but several levels higher than most would consider appropriate.

[AlexJonson]

I would think that a wild or gambling action is in some sense wilful, that the player knows that it is off-centre (though he might disagree with the TD over how far off-centre it is). An error, on the other hand, is committed by mistake. I am not really sure of the difference between wild and gambling. (I'm reminded of these two comics.)

 

So here a player knowingly passed the GF bid and I consider that wild and gambling. If the auction had been different and he had passed a GF bid because he didn't realise it was forcing then that would be an error; usually when this happens in an MI case it is related to the infraction because the player would have been on firmer ground with the correct explanation.

 

The logic of only the serious error needing to be unrelated, then, is presumably that it is wrong to blame a player for getting a decision wrong that he should never have had to make, but if a player chooses to gamble then he should be prepared to take the consequences if it backfires.

 

 

Interesting essay. Let's imagine that there is little problem with 'wild'.

 

What about 'gambling'?

 

'Off-centre'... centre of what?

[blackshoe]

I don't think that North on his own can have a concealed partnership agreement.…

As I understand it, there has to be some apparent conspiracy between both members of the partnership to bid one way and explain it another way for there to be a fielded misbid ruling. If the bidder thought he was bidding according to partnership agreements (and those agreements are permitted) then it can not be "fielded". It can be deliberately misexplained and perhaps there should be an automatic penalty for that.

 

I don't see how there need be any conspiracy. That would require South to deliberately misbid, knowing his partner will field it. Who does that?

 

I think North can field a misbid if he's aware from partnership experience that his partner frequently misbids in this situation, even if his partner is completely unaware that he does it. Law 40C1 says, in part "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." There's nothing here that implies that South (in this case) must be aware of his tendency to misbid. IOW, it's an understanding, even if both players in the partnership don't understand it. B-) Of course, even if they don't discuss it, if North starts alerting and explaining properly, South will soon be clued in.

 

I had a novice partner once who did not "get" Stayman. She would open 1NT, I would bid 2♣, she would bid 3♣. We talked about it, I explained that "everybody" plays Stayman, and why, she agreed to play it that way, and then she continued to misbid at the table. When I started alerting her 3♣, and explaining it as "she thinks I have clubs" or "she forgets that 2♣ is Stayman", she got upset, saying that I was embarrassing her. So we took Stayman off the card, and I had to remember that 2♣ was natural. Boy, that was hard! :P

[gnasher]

As I understand it, there has to be some apparent conspiracy between both members of the partnership to bid one way and explain it another way for there to be a fielded misbid ruling.

I don't think that's the intent of the rules, though it's not particularly clear. The relevant parts are:

"The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding."

"The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account."

"A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead."

 

Unless the third sentence is intended to create a qualitative difference between the treatment of psyches and the treatment of misbids, it seems to me that it's sufficient for the misbidder's partner to cater for the misbid, even though the misbidder himself is unaware of his own propensity to misbid.