LA

[gnasher]

I don't think so. 40C1 is concerned with damage to the opponents through poor disclosure. The EBU fielded misbid effectively assumes that there is sufficient likelyhood of unproven UI being present that the board is unplayable and an artificial score is required.

The EBU approach to fielded misbids is justified by reference to Law 40 - see White Book 40.1

 

Similarly, the section of the Orange Book that deals with psyches and misbids talks about evidence of partnership understandings, not about evidence of UI.

Edited July 6, 2012 by gnasher

[c_corgi]

The EBU approach to fielded misbids is justified by reference to Law 40 - see White Book 40.1

 

Similarly, the section of the Orange Book that dals with psyches and misbids talks about evidence of partnership understandings, not about evidence of UI.

 

Yes, the fielded misbid is discussed as a sort of off-shoot of psyches, without really explaining the principles involved. However, evidence of partnership understandings does not imply damage to the opponents through non-disclosure as discussed by 40C1. The EBU approach seems to target good results rather than poor disclosure, illegal agreements or use of UI. I don't see how to make the jump from what the laws say to how the EBU treats the fielded misbid without thinking of it as presumption of UI.

[blackshoe]

Fielding a misbid, unless fielded via use of UI is called Bridge. Whether it really was a misbid rather than an undisclosed agreement is a different matter.

 

Compensating misbids are irritating, but it is hard to prove malice. Rulings/laws against lucky mistakes are not a good thing anywhere.

I do not think you're using the word "fielding" in the same way Ahydra is using it. In English parlance, "fielding" means "illegally taking an action that caters for a misbid (or a psych, in that case)". So there must at least some evidence of a CPU. That is why the English regulation classifies misbids and psychs as either Red (A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorized understanding), Amber (whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score), or Green (In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward). Also, "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. As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green". Whether a psych, misbid or deviation has been fielded is a matter for TD judgment. The regulation is intended, I think, to assist that judgment.

 

There is no law against lucky mistakes.

[blackshoe]

Yes, the fielded misbid is discussed as a sort of off-shoot of psyches, without really explaining the principles involved. However, evidence of partnership understandings does not imply damage to the opponents through non-disclosure as discussed by 40C1. The EBU approach seems to target good results rather than poor disclosure, illegal agreements or use of UI. I don't see how to make the jump from what the laws say to how the EBU treats the fielded misbid without thinking of it as presumption of UI.

The EBU regulation says absolutely nothing about the result on a board. And if the regulation was based on a presumption of (use of) UI, OB 6B9 would not exist.

 

OB 6B9: Because of the difference between the player’s understanding of his call and any alerts and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised information problems to be present.

Clearly this implies that UI problems are a separate issue.

[c_corgi]

The EBU regulation says absolutely nothing about the result on a board. And if the regulation was based on a presumption of (use of) UI, OB 6B9 would not exist.

 

 

So, what is the damage that is being rectified?

[aguahombre]

I do not think you're using the word "fielding" in the same way Ahydra is using it. In English parlance, "fielding" means "illegally taking an action that caters for a misbid (or a psych, in that case)". So there must at least some evidence of a CPU.

 

There is no law against lucky mistakes.

Yeh, I keep forgetting we don't use real English over here. I now understand better how those colors work for misbids and psyches.

 

I remember Stef's thread about lucky mistakes, though; and, the prospect of laws against them is disturbing.

[blackshoe]

So, what is the damage that is being rectified?

I think you mean "what is the cause of the damage that is being rectified?" The answer to that is "violation of Law 40C1". The answer to your actual question is "non-offenders' receipt of a score less than they might have obtained absent the violation of Law 40C1".

[c_corgi]

40C1: A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. 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.

 

 

The last sentence implies that this law is concerned with failure to disclose and the damage arising from that, rather than ensuring that the CPU is not effective. In isolation, the first sentence implies that the CPU itself is a violation which may require rectification. I take it that your argument is based on the first sentence?

[blackshoe]

The rectification for a violation of 40C1 should include, IMO, instruction to amend the pair's system cards to include the heretofore undisclosed agreement, instruction to alert and explain it as appropriate, and score adjustment when there has been damage. If there has been no damage, there can be no score adjustment, but that doesn't mean the other rectifications should not be applied. I don't see that there is any problem here.

[c_corgi]

If I understand you correctly, your argument in support of the link between 40C1 and fielded misbid is as follows:

 

1. Having a CPU is a violation of 40C1(sentence 1).

2. If the CPU is effective and generates a good result, that result has been obtained illegally and should be rectified.

3. Fielded misbid is a way of doing this.

 

My problem is that 40C1(sentence 3) implies that the only rectification due to the opponents (as opposed to instructions regarding future disclosure) is damage arising from the lack of disclosure rather than the effectiveness of the understanding. This means that to justify rectification against the effectiveness of the understanding one must look elsewhere (I assumed UI, but maybe there are other possibilities).

[gnasher]

The EBU regulations assume that in any auction involving a CPU the possibilities are numerous or not obvious. This is no less logical than the assumption that anyone who fields a misbid must have a CPU.

[barmar]

The rectification for a violation of 40C1 should include, IMO, instruction to amend the pair's system cards to include the heretofore undisclosed agreement, instruction to alert and explain it as appropriate

Isn't that what "must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system", in the 2nd sentence of 40C1, requires?

[barmar]

This means that to justify rectification against the effectiveness of the understanding one must look elsewhere (I assumed UI, but maybe there are other possibilities).

If the CPU is an illegal agreement, you can use the law regarding system regulation, just as you would if the agreement were properly disclosed.

[blackshoe]

If I understand you correctly, your argument in support of the link between 40C1 and fielded misbid is as follows:

 

1. Having a CPU is a violation of 40C1(sentence 1).

2. If the CPU is effective and generates a good result, that result has been obtained illegally and should be rectified.

3. Fielded misbid is a way of doing this.

 

My problem is that 40C1(sentence 3) implies that the only rectification due to the opponents (as opposed to instructions regarding future disclosure) is damage arising from the lack of disclosure rather than the effectiveness of the understanding. This means that to justify rectification against the effectiveness of the understanding one must look elsewhere (I assumed UI, but maybe there are other possibilities).

Instructions regarding future disclosure are a rectification — for the offense of having an undisclosed agreement. The question of rectification of damage is a separate issue, which the TD may or may not be required to address, depending on whether damage occurred. "Rectification" is not synonymous with "score adjustment".

[c_corgi]

The question of rectification of damage is a separate issue, which the TD may or may not be required to address, depending on whether damage occurred.

 

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

[blackshoe]

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

[Vampyr]

If the CPU is an illegal agreement, you can use the law regarding system regulation, just as you would if the agreement were properly disclosed.

 

This is not too good as a go-to solution, since many if not most "CPUs" of this type (which tend to be two-way bids, such as 3♣ is clubs or ♦+♠) are not illegal.

[gnasher]

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

Once it is disclosed it ceases to be concealed. Hence I don't see how this can occur.

[pran]

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

How can the use of CPU not include absence of disclosure?

(A properly disclosed understanding is not concealed, is it?)

[mrdct]

We need to see the hand to make a ruling.

 

I've never played strong jump-shifts myself so in that systemic context would 3♦ be forcing? If so, it would seem to be a logical alternative for a 14-count with a long diamond suit.

[Cyberyeti]

We need to see the hand to make a ruling.

 

I've never played strong jump-shifts myself so in that systemic context would 3♦ be forcing? If so, it would seem to be a logical alternative for a 14-count with a long diamond suit.

Which bids are stronger and which are weaker (like the 2N) is a matter of system/agreement, but the SJS is GF in itself.

[c_corgi]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give an example?

 

Once it is disclosed it ceases to be concealed. Hence I don't see how this can occur.

 

How can the use of CPU not include absence of disclosure?

(A properly disclosed understanding is not concealed, is it?)

 

 

An understanding is never disclosed and at the end of the hand the director rules that it was a CPU. The effect of the CPU was (e.g.) that the offenders reached a cold 5C contract that no other pair could find. The non-offenders were not damaged by the absence of disclosure: they could not have done any better with complete disclosure, or even double dummy. Since the understanding that was concealed (apparently in violation of L40C1 sentence 1) was the reason the offenders achieved a good score, I am asking: can the director adjust for this under 40C1?

[blackshoe]

Law 12B1: …Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred…

 

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

[c_corgi]

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

 

L12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

The rectification due to use of the CPU is stipulated in the 3rd sentence of L40C1 and limited to the damage arising from lack of disclosure, so how can the director award further rectification unless it is based on a different law?

[blackshoe]

Who ever said that those were the grounds for an adjusted score in your example case? You are invoking a law that doesn't apply at all here.