ahydra Posted April 4, 2012 Report Share Posted April 4, 2012 What is the limit? If you gave misbidder's partner's hand to 10 people and nobody would make the (successful given the misbid) call that was made at the table, it's a Red fielded misbid... But I thought here it is East who misbid, not West. Certainly upgrading a TOX by a couple of points is much less of a misbid than failing to bid game with a very good hand opposite a TOX. On the other hand, if it is East who has misbid then there's no fielding going on, so I guess the TD must have ruled the TOX as suspect. I don't like the idea of "poll 10 people" because there are bound to be cases where nobody picks it. e.g.: You're playing a club game and LHO opens a weak 2S, partner miscounts his points and doubles on xx Qxxx Axxxx Kx and you have Kx AKx xxxx QJxx. Now this might look like an obvious 3NT bid but suppose you decide to try 4H since you're playing for a "swing" (i.e. know you're close to 1st place and trying to win). [You know partner won't double without 4 hearts.] Sure enough, you can't make 9 tricks in NT but 4H rolls in on a 3-3 heart and 2-2 diamond break. Nobody in the club would pick 4H, but I don't think this should be a fielded misbid. The judgement should surely be closer to "does this make any bridge sense at all, taking into account the SotM, levels of players, knowledge about opps, ...". That's one of the reasons I asked if there were any (EBU) guidelines on this. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Rulings are not given solely on the hands, nor solely on polls. You seek for evidence, and then make a judgement. Evidence includes polls, reasons given by the players for their actions, and so on. Sadly, when discussing matters here, we cannot investigate further as we would like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Evidence includes ... reasons given by the players for their actions.I would certainly like TDs to do that, but it it consistent with the regulations? These parts: 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....If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.[emphasis added]suggest to me that the TD is expected to disregard any reasons given by the player for taking an unusual action. Or, if they don't mean that, what do they mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner. ahydra I think the definition of a deviation is that the partner must have no more reason to expect it than the opposition. If you are playing with beginners they never know what to expect from partners bidding, and, therefore cannot field a misbid. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 5, 2012 Report Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner.The evidence comprised West's bidding, East's bidding, East's non-alert of the double, and East's explanation of the double. The regulations say "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised* understanding." As I understand it, the rationale (which I'm not saying I agree with) is that their actions in combination tell us that they have an agreement (explicit or implicit) to make a takeout double on that West hand. The explanation and the failure to alert make it a concealed agreement. * I think we are supposed to interpret "unauthorised" as "undisclosed", in order to make sense of the regulations. Edited April 5, 2012 by gnasher 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 East's non-alert of the double Are you certain the double, if systemic, must be alerted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 6, 2012 Report Share Posted April 6, 2012 Are you certain the double, if systemic, must be alerted? No. I did qualify my comments with "(which I'm not saying I agree with)". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.