Another misexplanation/misbid question

[blackshoe]

I have no problem with an adjustment for MI in the instant case. All I'm saying is that the correct explanation depends on what, precisely, they agreed. If the discussion went (as it did with my Brozel example upthread) "Asptro, partner?' "Sure," then the correct explanation is "We agreed to play Asptro, but did not discuss it further".

[Vampyr]

.

It maybe useful to read the EBU's "Director's Training Book" which says on page 12;

 

 

Where did you get this book? It was not offered to me on the club or county director courses.

[lamford]

Where did you get this book? It was not offered to me on the club or county director courses.

I have not seen it either, nor is it listed among the EBU Laws and Ethics publications at

 

http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm

 

A search on Amazon also proved fruitless.

 

Its advice seems sensible however, and in this case the results stands. I think I overheard David Burn explaining, in this or a similar case, why South could bid what she liked. I suspect South may have forgotten that 2C was conventional, but 3C still seems the only LA.

[tabaresort]

The facts as I was able to obtain them

 

(1) North stated that 2C shows Hearts plus another

(2) The System Card showed 2C shows Hearts plus another

(3) South stated that to show her Clubs (she believed) she should bid 2C

 

So after the event South did not believe she had deviated from the

System either deliberately or accidentally.

 

So at least in my opinion that removes option (2) leaving option (1)

ie a misexplanation. You cannot have a partnership agreement upon which the

members of the partnership disagree.

 

Compare the following:

 

South North east south west north

s 82 s93 1nt 2c* p 2h

h64 h952 All pass

dAQJ d7432

cKJ8754 dQ 10 32 *2c alerted as showing majors

 

2h goes 5 off n/s -250. However every other e/w makes 4h or 4s so e/w have a complete bottom.

The ruling here is that south has made a misbid, but north has bid quite normally so the misbid has not been fielded. The score stands.

How does this example differ from the one under discussion?

At worst it is a psyche which although unpopular are permitted by law 40A provided partner makes no allowance for the psyche. In the event partner was as much in the dark as the opps. and in fact with 3 or more hearts would have ploughed on to 4 hearts and a resounding bottom!

[tabaresort]

I have not seen it either, nor is it listed among the EBU Laws and Ethics publications at

 

http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm

 

A search on Amazon also proved fruitless.

 

Its advice seems sensible however, and in this case the results stands. I think I overheard David Burn explaining, in this or a similar case, why South could bid what she liked. I suspect South may have forgotten that 2C was conventional, but 3C still seems the only LA.

Book is Club Director Training - Judgment Rulings. EBU Oct 2003

[tabaresort]

I have no problem with an adjustment for MI in the instant case. All I'm saying is that the correct explanation depends on what, precisely, they agreed. If the discussion went (as it did with my Brozel example upthread) "Asptro, partner?' "Sure," then the correct explanation is "We agreed to play Asptro, but did not discuss it further".

Unfortunately with new partnerships it is hard enough to agree a convention without realising that further problems can arise or indeed what those further problems will be until they occur. ( as in the event )

[blackshoe]

Sure, but that just emphasizes that the correct explanation is as I said.

[barmar]

Compare the following:

 

South North east south west north

s 82 s93 1nt 2c* p 2h

h64 h952 All pass

dAQJ d7432

cKJ8754 dQ 10 32 *2c alerted as showing majors

Please use the hand diagram tool, this is totally unreadable (the icon with the spade symbol).

[blackshoe]

[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.

[DaveB]

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

[RMB1]

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

 

What matter is the agreement/understanding.

 

What South believes is some evidence of what their agreement is. What North explains is also evidence of their agreement. But Law 21B1b instructs us to favour South if he believes he got the system right.

[barmar]

But Law 21B1b instructs us to favour South if he believes he got the system right.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary. The CC is such evidence.

[tabaresort]

Please use the hand diagram tool, this is totally unreadable (the icon with the spade symbol).

South [hv=pc=n&s=s82h64daqjckj8754&w=shdc&n=s93h952d7432cqt32&e=shdc]399|300|Bidding<br>east south west north<br>1nt 2c* pass 2h<br><br>*alerted as Majors[/hv]

 

 

Many thanks, hope this works

[Trinidad]

The tool can also be used for the auction.

 

Rik

[tabaresort]

[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.

This is brilliant. Have tried but not able to show bidding.

Now 2C is alerted as both Majors but obviously not to south (for whatever reason). N/S go 5 off = -250 but E/W had game both in Hearts and Spades. South has MB, north has not fielded the MB so even though E/W far badly the score -250 stands.

[tabaresort]

If partner made allowance for a misbid, that is evidence of an implicit and presumably undisclosed agreement. So the infraction is of the disclosure rules. If however there is no such evidence, or the implicit agreement was disclosed, there is no infraction of law, and so no adjustment. I just don't want a reader to think that the "either.. or..." premise leads directly to your "unless..." The TD must investigate and determine which of your "either...or..." applies. If there was a misexplanation, then the score should be adjusted if there was damage.

 

In the instant case, of course, your "unless.." is correct. B-)

Indeed only if north had extra information could MI be implied. In the example under discussion north was just as much confused as E/W therefore it is not MI but a misbid from south and the score should stand. In this instance the misbid would have come off, however I am never that lucky and forced to plough on to a hopeless game contract.

[tabaresort]

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.

 

Only if north knew.

 

MI can be 1 of 4 reasons

 

a) Failure to alert

b)Incomplete explanation

c)mistaken explanation

d)wrong completed convention card.

 

It seems that MI comes from what the partner does (or in the case of failure to alert), does not do.

South can bid whatever she likes, for whatever reason and providing she is fooling partner as much as the others then it cannot be MI. It is a misbid or psyche, which if not fielded must be allowed to stand.

As in the the example outlined where 2C was bid with 6 clubs when the system shows 2C for both majors. E/W were damaged because game was missed but the ruling was that the score, 5 off = -250 should stand.

[blackshoe]

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.

[tabaresort]

To my mind South psyched - made a deliberate misbid. There is no evidence that the psyche was fielded, because South got lucky and had a partner with short hearts. Likely if his partner had had support for hearts, he would have ended up in a silly contract; or if he didn't, then we might really have evidence of a concealed agreement.

 

This is typical novice behaviour. The important thing is to tell them now what would constitute illegal behaviour, so that they realise they can't have play a bid 2-way without telling the opposition.

 

Note that although unpopular psyches are permitted under law 40A

[tabaresort]

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

I would agree. MI comes from the bidder's partner. The bidder can bid whatever they like.

[aguahombre]

I would agree. MI comes from the bidder's partner. The bidder can bid whatever they like.

The bidder can even misbid, and then in certain circumstances, explain what the actual agreement is without telling the opponents he misbid; and it still would not be MI. But, he also could falsely correct partner's explanation; that would be MI.

[blackshoe]

If a player bids 2♣, his partner explains it as "hearts and another", and he later explains it as "hearts and another or clubs" or just "clubs", because he honestly thought that was the agreement, he has not "falsely corrected" his partner's explanation. That construct implies that he's deliberately cheating. You do not want to go there without damn good evidence.

[aguahombre]

Does Post 48 have anything to do with post 47, before it? A correction is false, if it is not the actual agreement. The person might believe it is the agreement when he utters, but that still makes what he says MI. I did not mention cheating in reference to that. Cheating would be deliberately giving MI, much different from a false belief about the actual agreement.

[blackshoe]

Does Post 48 have anything to do with post 47, before it? A correction is false, if it is not the actual agreement. The person might believe it is the agreement when he utters, but that still makes what he says MI. I did not mention cheating in reference to that. Cheating would be deliberately giving MI, much different from a false belief about the actual agreement.

 

#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.