Fielded Misbid?

[Quartic]

Club game, both NS and EW are experienced players.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqtht74daq87caj2&w=sj73h52dkjt3cq853&n=s952hj9863d542ct6&e=sk864hakqd96ck974&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1s1np2hp3h(Long%20tank)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

After North's 2♥ bid (not alerted) South thinks for a long time and bids 3♥. NS's agreement is "systems on" after a 1NT overcall, but they haven't discussed what a transfer to the opponents' suit shows. 3♥ goes 2 off.

 

Has South fielded North's misbid? Would you adjust the score? EW gained 7/12 matchpoints on the board.

 

Also, when should EW call the director? When South's hand goes down as dummy, or at the end of the hand?

[blackshoe]

No, and no. If EW are going to call, they should do so at the end of the hand.

[RMB1]

How can North misbid when they have no agreement about 2♥?

 

I know the card says "System On" but it appears their agreement is "System On, no agreement about a transfer to opponent's suit" - this is what "System On" means for many partnerships.

 

South cannot field a misbid if there is no agreement. He is entitled to use general bridge knowledge, partnership experience, and his hand to guess what North might have.

 

As to when to call the TD:

 

If the defenders need to know the partnership understanding of 2♥ and 3♥, they should ask.

If the explanations given by NS suggest there haas been an infraction EW should call the TD at that point.

Otherwise EW should wait until the end of the hand, when they know what NS's hands are, before calling the TD.

[RMB1]

How can North misbid when they have no agreement about 2♥?

 

I know the card says "System On" but it appears their agreement is "System On, no agreement about a transfer to opponent's suit" - this is what "System On" means for many partnerships.

 

South cannot field a misbid if there is no agreement. He is entitled to use general bridge knowledge, partnership experience, and his hand to guess what North might have.

 

As to when to call the TD:

 

If the defenders need to know the partnership understanding of 2♥ and 3♥, they should ask.

If the explanations given by NS suggest there haas been an infraction EW should call the TD at that point.

Otherwise EW should wait until the end of the hand, when they know what NS's hands are, before calling the TD.

[CamHenry]

Club game, both NS and EW are experienced players.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqtht74daq87caj2&w=sj73h52dkjt3cq853&n=s952hj9863d542ct6&e=sk864hakqd96ck974&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1s1np2hp3h(Long%20tank)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

After North's 2♥ bid (not alerted) South thinks for a long time and bids 3♥. NS's agreement is "systems on" after a 1NT overcall, but they haven't discussed what a transfer to the opponents' suit shows. 3♥ goes 2 off.

 

Has South fielded North's misbid? Would you adjust the score? EW gained 7/12 matchpoints on the board.

 

Also, when should EW call the director? When South's hand goes down as dummy, or at the end of the hand?

 

Unless the card says "Systems on", rather than "Oh we forgot about transfers to opps' suit", South has actually been quite ethical here. With a maximum and decent support facing partner's heart suit, he's raised despite the fact that doing so almost certainly lowers his matchpoint expectations. If called, I would suggest to NS that they form an agreement and use it for the rest of this session at least!

[Cyberyeti]

Unless the card says "Systems on", rather than "Oh we forgot about transfers to opps' suit", South has actually been quite ethical here. With a maximum and decent support facing partner's heart suit, he's raised despite the fact that doing so almost certainly lowers his matchpoint expectations. If called, I would suggest to NS that they form an agreement and use it for the rest of this session at least!

Although I would ask S why he assumed partner had hearts of all the possible meanings given that 2♦ would show hearts and they have discussed that. On that basis he has sort of fielded a misbid, the ethical consideration only comes in if he realised partner might not have hearts, which he probably didn't as he didn't alert 2♥. I'm not sure how the director is supposed to rule in the circumstance where both partners forget they're playing a convention at the same time when bad or inexperienced players are involved.

[RMB1]

I'm not sure how the director is supposed to rule in the circumstance where both partners forget they're playing a convention at the same time ...

 

That's called partnership understanding. :)

 

If they both forget they are playing a convention then they are not playing that convention: they clearly have a different understanding. They may be guilty of not properly disclosing their understanding - although I do not think (as an opponent) you can assume any meaning for a transfer to opener's suit from "system on". I do not think they are guilty of having a concealed partnership understanding.

[gnasher]

They may be guilty of not properly disclosing their understanding.... I do not think they are guilty of having a concealed partnership understanding.

Can you explain the difference between these two? Are these two distinct infractions, or is it more of a sliding scale?

[RMB1]

They may be guilty of not properly disclosing their understanding.... I do not think they are guilty of having a concealed partnership understanding.

Can you explain the difference between these two? Are these two distinct infractions, or is it more of a sliding scale?

 

Good question. I hope this is not just a "know it when I see it" distinction.

 

I think "concealed" requires a positive desire to conceal, not just a failure to disclose. As evidence of a desire to conceal might be:

• intent (if 2♥ was explained as "take-out of spades"); or
  
• motive (for instance, if the full understanding is not a permitted agreement).
  

[c_corgi]

South appears to be trying to cover all bases, which is common sense but also fielding. North probably hasn't misbid, but if their method of getting to 2 of a major in this situation is agreed (and different to what he did) then possibly he has. The use of the traffic light scale in this regulation suggests it is the fielding that is the infraction. These points don't appear to point towards any particular conclusion, which is one of the reasons I find the regulation puzzling.

[iviehoff]

South appears to be trying to cover all bases, which is common sense but also fielding.

Which of these bids by South do you think would be more ethical than 3H? Pass, 2S, 2N or 3D? Any other bid you can think of that is in any way plausible for S to make? Pass fillets N if he doesnt' have hearts, but he does have hearts, so I doubt ex post it could be considered more ethical to end up at a lower level in hearts, especially since 3H commits them to about the 4 level if he doesn't have hearts. The others are all below 3H and therefore arguably cater better for N not having H than 3H does, though arguably there is a greater risk of an accident that way. 3D is probably the most likely to lead to an accident, but is that the criterion we should use? And unless there is some plausibility of N using 3H for "pick a suit" I don't really think we can really insist S bids it.

 

There is something one can criticise in any plausible bid S can make, especially if it is successful. 3H does seem to be the most ethical bids among those S could plausibly make.

[barmar]

Good question. I hope this is not just a "know it when I see it" distinction.

 

I think "concealed" requires a positive desire to conceal, not just a failure to disclose. As evidence of a desire to conceal might be:

• intent (if 2♥ was explained as "take-out of spades"); or
  
• motive (for instance, if the full understanding is not a permitted agreement).
  

40B4 only talks about "failure to disclose" -- the reason for the failure (deliberate versus forgetting) is not relevant, unless you intend to accuse the offender of cheating. I don't think the phrase "concealed partnership understanding" appears anywhere, so the nuances of this word should not affect how we rule (a better phrase would probably be "undisclosed partnership agreement", but it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily).

[blackshoe]

I don't think the phrase "concealed partnership understanding" appears anywhere, so the nuances of this word should not affect how we rule (a better phrase would probably be "undisclosed partnership agreement", but it doesn't roll off the tongue as easily).

Law 73E: A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play (so long as the de- ception is not protected by concealed partnership understanding or experience).

Law 40A3: A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

Law 40C1 (in part): If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

[gnasher]

Correcting my question, what's the difference between (1) an undisclosed partnership understanding and (2) an understanding about which the opponents have been misinformed?

[blackshoe]

Practically speaking, I'm not sure there is a difference. In practice, both infractions, assuming they are caught, should result in a score adjustment. Technically, I suppose that misinformation is often an active offense (the offender provides information which is incorrect) while the undisclosed case is passive - no direct information is passed.

[Cyberyeti]

Which of these bids by South do you think would be more ethical than 3H? Pass, 2S, 2N or 3D? Any other bid you can think of that is in any way plausible for S to make? Pass fillets N if he doesnt' have hearts, but he does have hearts, so I doubt ex post it could be considered more ethical to end up at a lower level in hearts, especially since 3H commits them to about the 4 level if he doesn't have hearts. The others are all below 3H and therefore arguably cater better for N not having H than 3H does, though arguably there is a greater risk of an accident that way. 3D is probably the most likely to lead to an accident, but is that the criterion we should use? And unless there is some plausibility of N using 3H for "pick a suit" I don't really think we can really insist S bids it.

 

There is something one can criticise in any plausible bid S can make, especially if it is successful. 3H does seem to be the most ethical bids among those S could plausibly make.

3♥ covers all bases because partner either has hearts, or an invite/GF which you'd accept, so only causes major problems when you wanted to be in 2♥ and that may not be a disaster.

 

However, all this would appear to be irrelevant, the bid was made assuming partner held hearts given that he didn't alert 2♥ (question should be asked of him why it wasn't alerted, I think you're supposed to alert undiscussed could well be conventional).

[aguahombre]

Has South fielded North's misbid? Would you adjust the score? EW gained 7/12 matchpoints on the board.

Not familiar with the color scheme in EBU for fielding, but I don't think we have enough information from merely "haven't discussed". Absent discussion, does South believe 2H is a gadget of some kind, but just doesn't know what gadget?

 

If, in South's mind, 2H is truly not a gadget intended by his partner, then a PASS would not be fielding anything. It doesn't matter whether 2H was a misbid or a choice to be declarer; it is to play. 3H is just a poor bid if South truly believes 2H is natural.

 

If I were South, bidding anything other than pass or 3NT over pard's 2H would be worthy of a pretty color and a penalty. 3H by me would be a hedge against a possible misbid and "undiscussed" would not be the whole truth. The opponents are entitled to the information upon which I based the 3H bid.

[RMB1]

Correcting my question, what's the difference between (1) an undisclosed partnership understanding and (2) an understanding about which the opponents have been misinformed?

 

(2) Is specifically where opponents could expect to become informed: alerts, answers to questions, reading system cards.

(1) Includes other failures to disclose: for example, where the system card is incomplete or incorrect (even if the opponents have not looked at it).

[campboy]

Correcting my question, what's the difference between (1) an undisclosed partnership understanding and (2) an understanding about which the opponents have been misinformed?

(1) isn't just failing to disclose to these opponents, but opponents in general? I agree with RMB1 about situations which are (1) but not (2).

[barmar]

(1) isn't just failing to disclose to these opponents, but opponents in general? I agree with RMB1 about situations which are (1) but not (2).

I'm not sure the distinction is important in practice.

 

Suppose you agree to use convention X, but never mark it on your convention card. But the occasion to use this convention never comes up. Are you in violation of proper disclosure rules? The law says you can't make a bid based on a CPU, and you haven't.

 

But the law also says that the RA can proscribe a system card to list your agreements, and you've failed to do this properly. But no one really expects a system card to list EVERY agreement you have -- most established partnerships have too many agreements about details and nuances to fit on the card (Meckwell supposedly have 100's of pages of notes, but AFAIK they don't normally provide these to opponents, they're just for their personal need to keep track).

[bluejak]

Also, when should EW call the director? When South's hand goes down as dummy, or at the end of the hand?

There is no reason to call the TD for judgement-type decisions which might lead to adjusted scores until the end of the hand unless the facts are not agreed. So, some time one of the non-offenders should try to establish the facts ["Do you agree there was a long pause before the 3♥ bid?" - "Yes"]. If the answer is No then the TD needs to be called then: if not, at the end of the hand. This is the reserving rights business which gets people so hot under the collar on RGB because apparently it is a meaningless phrase and therefore should not be said. Of course it is neither meaningless nor is there any reason to say it.

 

South appears to be trying to cover all bases, which is common sense but also fielding. North probably hasn't misbid, but if their method of getting to 2 of a major in this situation is agreed (and different to what he did) then possibly he has. The use of the traffic light scale in this regulation suggests it is the fielding that is the infraction. These points don't appear to point towards any particular conclusion, which is one of the reasons I find the regulation puzzling.

Of course it is fielding, but fielding what? Since they have no agreement on what 2♥ means how can it be illegal to allow for whatever it is?

 

Not familiar with the color scheme in EBU for fielding, but I don't think we have enough information from merely "haven't discussed".

An action whose only obvious reason appears to be to allow for a psyche or misbid or deviation is Red: an action that clearly doesn't allow for it is Green. If there is some doubt it is Amber.

[aguahombre]

An action whose only obvious reason appears to be to allow for a psyche or misbid or deviation is Red: an action that clearly doesn't allow for it is Green. If there is some doubt it is Amber.

Thanks. Then, if I bid 3H in the given instance, it allowed for a misbid and would have been red. Maybe someone could say it wasn't the "only obvious reason" I bid 3H; but with that hand, I would know better.

 

And, if I passed, then folks would either take my belief that absent discussion 2♥ was a choice to be declarer with two ways to play in 2H (green), or they would think I fielded (red), or they don't know whether to believe me or not (amber).

 

However, passing is commital. It doesn't merely "allow for" the possibility of a misbid (hedges do that); perhaps what you quoted isn't the whole rule.

Edited July 17, 2012 by aguahombre

[WellSpyder]

Then, if I bid 3H in the given instance, it allowed for a misbid and would have been red.

Why do you think bidding 2H was a misbid? If there is no actual agreement that bidding the suit below oppo's is a transfer into their suit then there is no evidence that 2H was a misbid. I think the TDs who have commented here are taking the very reasonable view that agreeing "systems on" does not include an agreement that 2H here is a transfer.

[aguahombre]

Why do you think bidding 2H was a misbid? If there is no actual agreement that bidding the suit below oppo's is a transfer into their suit then there is no evidence that 2H was a misbid. I think the TDs who have commented here are taking the very reasonable view that agreeing "systems on" does not include an agreement that 2H here is a transfer.

Not what I said; I said that if I bid 3H I would be allowing for a misbid. And if I passed, it would be because I truly believe 2H is to play. In the second case only I would really know whether I fielded a misbid or not.

[Cyberyeti]

Not what I said; I said that if I bid 3H I would be allowing for a misbid. And if I passed, it would be because I truly believe 2H is to play. In the second case only I would really know whether I fielded a misbid or not.

I don't think it's as simple as this. What if I alerted 2♥ and if asked, said "I haven't a clue what this means, but might not be natural". Now I can make the 3♥ bid that covers all bases freely. If my only offence is not knowing that I should alert in these circumstances, it seems a bit harsh to do me for a fielded misbid. Questions needed to be asked as to what the 3♥ bidder thought was going on and why he bid 3♥.

 

If they have no meaning for 2♥ in their system, can it ever be a misbid ? even if there's another bid they could have used.