Another misexplanation/misbid question

[aguahombre]

#48 was a reaction to "falsely" in #47, which to me seemed to imply at least the possibility that the player is cheating. We agree, I think, that if the player is wrong in what he believes is the agreement, then stating that what he believes to be the agreement is the agreement is MI.

Sorry. I meant falsely to mean incorrectly, not deliberately false. Much the same, I believe falsely accusing someone does not imply malice; it also could be carelessness or ignorance.

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=s82h64daqjckj8754&n=s93h952d7432cqt32&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1n2c(both%20majors)p2hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I may have got it wrong, it is, as barmar said, practically unreadable.

Assuming this is played without screens, if 2♣ was alerted and described as indicated in the diagram, south clearly has UI in the form of a "wake-up call" as to his misbid. Passing 2♥ undoubled is a very attractive option which is demonstrably suggested by the UI, so I would adjust score to an outcome likely if south had chosen to treat 2♥ as natural and forcing.

[aguahombre]

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

[McBruce]

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C.

 

If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands.

 

If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation

and a (probable) rectification.

 

But surely neither is true here: South believes that there is no good bid for this hand, and has chosen to take the chance that bidding 2C then 3C will work out better than passing, knowing that partner might well prefer the nonexistent heart suit. We may regard this as a very low percentage shot that succeeded, and South's problem may be that she has forgotten the system way to show this hand, whatever that may be. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as there is no prior partnership history of improvisation of this sequence.

 

It's fair to ask the partner what the proper bid on the hand is in their system, but unfair to use this strategy as a Morton's Fork: if North agrees that they have no good bid to describe the hand, aha! a concealed understanding -- and if North makes a different bid, aha! no real agreement. South has convinced me that she had a bridge reason for the deliberate misbid. It happens, and the great majority of the time it leads to a poor score. But a poor score is not a guarantee whenever someone errs.

[tabaresort]

See my post #34 in this thread.

 

Edit: I see the OP found my #34. :-)

 

When you click on the hand diagram icon you get a window with some checkboxes down the left side. They allow you to select which hands are shown, and whether the bidding is shown. If the "show bidding" box is checked, then once you get through filling in the hands the window should automatically proceed to the bidding.

 

In all cases of possible MI, the director has to collect as much evidence as he can, from statements from both members of the pair, from system cards, from system notes if they are available, from supplementary questions asked (for example in the instant case he should probably ask South why he bid 2C, if South doesn't volunteer that information), and from whatever else he can find. Then he decides whether the preponderance of the evidence favors misexplanation or misbid. In this case, it favors misbid. IIRC, South's reason for bidding 2C was not that he believed the agreement was "hearts and another or clubs", but that given the agreement "hearts and another" he had no systemic way to show clubs, so he had to invent one, and hope partner figured it out.

Thanks for the info re diagram. Certainly easier than my efforts.

Agree that in this case MB is correct decision not MI. However not sure about last bit, "partner fiquring it out" as this could imply that partner has UI. In the event north passes 3c as this, he believed showed the 5 card other suit.

[blackshoe]

No. North has no UI, and South's hope that North would pass 3♣ has nothing to do with UI. "Partner figuring it out" might, to a Secretary Bird, imply a CPU, and thus MI, but that's a different issue, and also not the case here. All the phrase means is that South hopes that North won't keep insisting on hearts after South shows clubs, a hope based not on UI or MI or a CPU, but pretty much on South's desperation. "I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out". I don't know how else to express it.

[mycroft]

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

Ah, this looks like a "two cultures set apart by a common language" issue. The easiest way to make 2♥ forcing believable is to make the 1NT opening 12-14 (or better, 10-12). Or, if not forcing, at least encouraging. If you play "2♥ is better than 2♣" responses to a weak NT, then either you're overcalling on crap - in which case, you're going to be missing a fair share of games - or you're going to have a hard time finding the right game - in which case, you're going to be missing a fair share of games.

 

And since MrDct is likely in a weak NT world...

 

Having said that, with UI, I'm passing every day of the week; I have 2 hearts and tricks in a heart contract. Without the UI, I'm still likely passing (assuming a weak NT) - I don't have anything extra for my overcall. But give me 1-3 in the majors, and another half-trick or so...

[Vampyr]

"I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out".

 

If partner does "figure it out" don't you now have an agreement? One that has not been disclosed?

[mycroft]

I ruled at one point that someone playing:

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h2np3dp3sppp]133|100|(dealer and vulnerability unremembered)[/hv]had an illegal agreement because they:

• didn't have a call to show top and bottom;
  
• bid 2NT ostensibly for the minors; knowing that
  
• if diamonds were corrected, both partners would "get it"
  

I ruled that given that information, their implied agreement was 2NT = "any two suits"; which was not how they described it, nor legal to the GCC. I also sympathised with their argument that "anybody" would figure that auction out; but that doesn't stop it from being illegal.

[aguahombre]

Is there going to be a correction in the bidding shown? Nevertheless I disagree that "anyone can figure it out", so it is illegal not to disclose the actual agreement.

 

We are the no one's who would use a bid of 3H or 3S to show a mountain in the minors.

[blackshoe]

If partner does "figure it out" don't you now have an agreement? One that has not been disclosed?

 

Perhaps - for the next time this happens. You don't have an agreement this time.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps - for the next time this happens. You don't have an agreement this time.

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

 

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

[blackshoe]

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

 

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

 

Certainly the TD should investigate these possibilities, and if evidence of a CPU is found, so be it. But I don't think we can say that because the player did what he did, there "must be" such evidence.

 

No, you wouldn't do that with any of your regular partners. Neither would I. But we've both been around the block a couple of times, and we know better. Not everyone has learned that lesson.

[mycroft]

Argh, after all of that, I did get it wrong. Auction fixed, in the obvious way. Thanks.

[bluejak]

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

There are too many posts like this one. Apparently you and other people with similar posts do not play enough bad club bridge.

 

I know plenty of people who treat a change of suit as forcing. They do not think about it, they have no idea whether it is logical or sensible, they ignore the range of the opening 1NT, partner changed suit so they do not pass.

[gnasher]

Are we talking about (1NT) 2♣ (pass) 2♥ ?

 

I never play 2♣ as natural, but if I did I would play a 2♥ advance as forcing, regardless of the notrump range. Or, at least, I play (1NT) 2♥ (pass) 2♠ as forcing, and I'd need to be convinced that there was sufficient reason to play this one differently.

[tabaresort]

Assuming this is played without screens, if 2♣ was alerted and described as indicated in the diagram, south clearly has UI in the form of a "wake-up call" as to his misbid. Passing 2♥ undoubled is a very attractive option which is demonstrably suggested by the UI, so I would adjust score to an outcome likely if south had chosen to treat 2♥ as natural and forcing.

Providing both convention cards show 2c as majors and north claims to have forgotten then the ruling should be MB with no adjustment.

[DaveB]

Agree

 

BUT

 

If the members of the partnership are (apparently) playing

different systems then there is misinformation irrespective

of what is on the system card.

[barmar]

If they're playing different systems, then the correct explanation is presumably "no agreement", and any more specific explanation is MI. Filling out that section of the CC is misinformation itself.

[tabaresort]

No. North has no UI, and South's hope that North would pass 3♣ has nothing to do with UI. "Partner figuring it out" might, to a Secretary Bird, imply a CPU, and thus MI, but that's a different issue, and also not the case here. All the phrase means is that South hopes that North won't keep insisting on hearts after South shows clubs, a hope based not on UI or MI or a CPU, but pretty much on South's desperation. "I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out". I don't know how else to express it.

In this case north is always going to pass south's 2nd suit as the previous 2d bid showed less that 3hearts and no game interest. 3c would then show the 5 card suit ie clubs.

[tabaresort]

Are we talking about (1NT) 2♣ (pass) 2♥ ?

 

I never play 2♣ as natural, but if I did I would play a 2♥ advance as forcing, regardless of the notrump range. Or, at least, I play (1NT) 2♥ (pass) 2♠ as forcing, and I'd need to be convinced that there was sufficient reason to play this one differently.

The example was (1nt) 2c (alerted as both majors) (pass) 2h. All pass. The 2c bidder "forgot" and has 6c. The opps miss a major game. The EBU ruling is MB.

The query in the first post is exactly the same and therefore should be treated in the same way and not as MI.

[tabaresort]

Agree

 

BUT

 

If the members of the partnership are (apparently) playing

different systems then there is misinformation irrespective

of what is on the system card.

Not according to the EBU see the example on #41. The bidder cannot give MI ( save by having an inaccurate CC which opps read). Generally MI comes from bidders partner. See also previous quote from Judgment Rulings which states if you depart from your system then accidentally (a MB) or deliberately (a psyche).

In the event south departed from the system being faced with a hand not previously discussed with partner and made the best of it. It cannot be MI. as partner was also fooled. South took a flyer and got lucky. However unless there is evidence that partner made allowance (fielding) your misbid or psyche the score stands, irrespective of the damage done.

[tabaresort]

Well... I am not so sure. There must be a reason for a player to believe that partner will think you have a different hand from the you have shown. I know that I would never assume this with any of my regular partners. Perhaps I wouldn't understand partner's bid, but I would puzzle over it and guess something. And that would never be that partner's hand is inconsistent with his previous bidding.

 

So what is the reason? UI? A history of "improvisation"? The opponents will probably assume that the second bid is a cuebid, shaping out, or whatever, and would have no idea that it might be showing a long suit. So somehow the partnership inventing this sequence knows more than their opponents.

If after puzzling over partners bid you realise that they have departed from your system, you are stuck!! and to guess at something could be UI. You must continue to bid according to your system.

[Vampyr]

If after puzzling over partners bid you realise that they have departed from your system, you are stuck!! and to guess at something could be UI. You must continue to bid according to your system.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If partner makes a bid that we have left undefined, I am not "stuck"; I have to figure out what he is trying to do, under the assumption that he is doing something intelligent. Of course it will be something of a guess, but I will not give any consideration to guesses that require that partner's bid on the previous round is somehow "cancelled". And how on earth could my bid be UI?

[barmar]

And how on earth could my bid be UI?

Agreed. The only potential UI is if you make your distress obvious.