Fielded Misbid?

[Zelandakh]

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.

I was agreeing with you all the way to the last sentence. Take the bidding sequence 1NT - 2♣; 2N when playing normal (or Puppet) Stayman. The only defined rebids for Opener are 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠. Surely you would agree that 2NT is now a misbid? Now let us also say that the pair concerned have only just switched to regular Stayman responses and previously played a 2NT response to show both majors. And further that Opener describes the bid as "undefined" but their next bid is clearly only reasonable if Opener has both majors - perhaps they have an invitational 44(41) and jump to 4♥, or whatever. Which of these now apply: misinformation; UPU; CPU; fielded misbid; other? Or is this just bridge and reacting to the unexpected?

 

It seems to me there is a difference between situations where noone has a clue what is going on and fudges the best they can, and situations where partner has a decent chance of working out what an unusual or impossible bid should mean and does not inform the opponents of this. Similarly, if partner makes a bid and you have seen deviations often enough to expect them but unwilling to disclose this then you are walking on very thin ice. If you also make allowance for the deviations in your further bidding then you deserve to get extremely wet and cold. I suspect this is what the EBU red fielded misbid rules are there to catch.

[Cyberyeti]

I was agreeing with you all the way to the last sentence. Take the bidding sequence 1NT - 2♣; 2N when playing normal (or Puppet) Stayman. The only defined rebids for Opener are 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠. Surely you would agree that 2NT is now a misbid? Now let us also say that the pair concerned have only just switched to regular Stayman responses and previously played a 2NT response to show both majors. And further that Opener describes the bid as "undefined" but their next bid is clearly only reasonable if Opener has both majors - perhaps they have an invitational 44(41) and jump to 4♥, or whatever. Which of these now apply: misinformation; UPU; CPU; fielded misbid; other? Or is this just bridge and reacting to the unexpected?

 

It seems to me there is a difference between situations where noone has a clue what is going on and fudges the best they can, and situations where partner has a decent chance of working out what an unusual or impossible bid should mean and does not inform the opponents of this. Similarly, if partner makes a bid and you have seen deviations often enough to expect them but unwilling to disclose this then you are walking on very thin ice. If you also make allowance for the deviations in your further bidding then you deserve to get extremely wet and cold. I suspect this is what the EBU red fielded misbid rules are there to catch.

I agree with pretty much all of what you say, but in the case you give, I would say they do have system. If that sort of thing happened to me, I would alert 2N and if asked say "doesn't exist, but fyi we used to play ...".

[aguahombre]

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.

Just one more attempt to be somewhat clear :rolleyes:

 

I am not in EBU

I have just learned the colors for fielding from Bluejack

If I visit EBU I expect to be subject to their rules and disciplines.

OP did not alert, so speculation about an alert or disclosure at the time of choice is mute.

 

I either believe 2H is a convention, or I don't.

 

If I don't, I should pass and hope to be believed that I wasn't fielding anything.

 

If I believe it was a convention (whether I failed to alert or not) I would bid 3NT, because the only convention I know for xfer to Spades is an invite to game checking for a real spade stop.

 

Bidding 3H would be a hedge, allowing for a misbid by partner IF I WERE THE ONE who bid 3H. It would not matter whether I explained to the opponents that I was in doubt; I would still be allowing/fielding. (red in my mind)

 

"I" means I am speaking for me, and my sense of ethics and my understanding of the rules ---not for anyone else's.

[Zelandakh]

Agua, when your partner makes a bid that is undiscussed and can have 2 possible meanings by the partnership meta-rules, do you

 

a. pick one of the meanings and bid assuming this is correct.

b. ignore the bid and jump to the most likely contract to avoid a misunderstanding.

c. choose a bid that caters to both possibilities but may not be optimal for either.

 

There is nothing in the rules to say that option c is wrong providing that the opponents have the same information as you do. In fact we had a thread here not so long back where this was specifically asked about and the general consensus is that it is a good idea. FWiiW there are also several alternative possibilities for the use of a 2♥ bid here. Which of them make sense would depend on the rest of the NT structure.

[aguahombre]

If you can convince yourself you are not allowing for a misbid (as explained to me in the EBU rules), knock yourself out.

 

What you describe is allowing for your own misunderstanding of partner's bid by making a call which will either get you too high or confuse partner because it DNE. So, now you are the one making a misbid either way. Partner gets to field it.

 

If he has a slightly better natural 2H bid and passes 3H, then he is fielding your hedge (red). If he had an invitational hand in notrump, he can field your hedge (red) by bidding 3S. What fun.

[bluejak]

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.

I did not "quote a rule". You want the rule quoted, look it up, or ask for it to be quoted. I tried to explain it which is what I understood to be asked for.

 

It is not a question of believing you or not. It is what your actions look like. Fielding, as far as rulings are concerned, is not a subjective judgement: it is objective. If your call looks like one that someone who deliberately tried to field would make and there seems no other logical reason, then it is Red. But that does not mean that you deliberately fielded it: perhaps you made a poor choice of action in a sensitive situation.

 

Compare an action after partner hesitates. He hesitates and passes: you bid: the TD rules it back because your action is suggested by the hesitation. But he does not say that you deliberately bid because of the hesitation: he just does not allow your bid, an objective decision. Similarly, the EBU rules back a fielded misbid, but does not say you deliberately fielded it, or accuse you of lying or anything like that.

 

When you fail to follow the dictates of Law 40A3, you should be ruled against anywhere in the world. You probably won't be in many places, but you should be. The EBU makes it easier for TDs in England and Wales to rule under this Law. But it does not suggest that TDs should tell players they have deliberately broken Law 40A3.

[Lanor Fow]

The EBU fielded bid regulations are designed around the CPU law. If you inform opponants of your level of discussion about a bid, and anything that coudl have led to an implicit agreements (we used to play X convention etc.), you cannot be considered to have fielded the bid, if yuor bid is consistent with what you have told them.

 

Making a call that hedges two possible options is fine, as long as the opponants are informed if asked, that either yuo have no discussion (and the two possible optinos are based on general bridge knowledge) or that it could be those options because of X and Y. It is only going to be a possible fielding if you only tell them about one of the options, whilst making a call to cater for the other one as well.

[ahydra]

Making a call that hedges two possible options is fine, as long as the opponants are informed if asked, that either yuo have no discussion (and the two possible optinos are based on general bridge knowledge) or that it could be those options because of X and Y. It is only going to be a possible fielding if you only tell them about one of the options, whilst making a call to cater for the other one as well.

 

Ah, the fun when you know partner's bid might be one of two things and you not only have to work out which it is to decide what call to make next, but whether the call you are going to make next fields the possible misbid...

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

When you fail to follow the dictates of Law 40A3, you should be ruled against anywhere in the world. You probably won't be in many places, but you should be. The EBU makes it easier for TDs in England and Wales to rule under this Law. But it does not suggest that TDs should tell players they have deliberately broken Law 40A3.

 

When you fail to follow L40A3 then L40C1 applies. It seems to me fairer to say that only the EBU enforces a literal and inappropriate interpretation of L40C1 rather than that the rest of the world doesn't enforce it properly.

[bluejak]

Yes, Law 40C1 is another way of looking at it. So if a player makes a call which is a breach of Law 40A3, and as a result Law 40C1 tells the TD what he should do, why is it inappropriate that the EBU thinks the Laws should be followed?

[c_corgi]

It would not be inappropriate for the EBU to think the laws should be followed, but I don't see how the fielded misbid regulation helps that. I think I addressed the point you are making in the recent "LA" thread: your #73, my #74.

[bluejak]

I did not understand that post when I first read it. TDs do not make ridiculous and criminally stupid rulings in the EBU just because there is a helpful regulation, and it is difficult to see any reason why they should.

 

Your view is that players should be permitted to break the Law at will: mine is they should be dealt with according to the Law. If that makes me draconian, so be it.

[c_corgi]

I did not understand that post when I first read it. TDs do not make ridiculous and criminally stupid rulings in the EBU just because there is a helpful regulation, and it is difficult to see any reason why they should.

 

It refers to debate further back in the thread, which was too lengthy to repeat. The conclusion was that L40C1 gives the director the power to rectify damage caused by non-disclosure in the form of an adjusted score. It could be interpreted very literally to mean that the director could further adjust for the effect of using the undisclosed convention. I presume that is what you consider criminally stupid, in which case we agree, although your feelings are stronger than mine. The problem is that for the fielded misbid to be based on L40C1, it is necessary to use the literal meaning of L40C1.

 

 

Your view is that players should be permitted to break the Law at will: mine is they should be dealt with according to the Law. If that makes me draconian, so be it.

 

On the contrary, I think Law 40C1 should be applied. This allows the damage to be rectified in the form of an adjusted score against the non-disclosure and a PP to the offending side if appropriate. I hardly think assessing a PP is permitting them to break the law. What it does not do is make fielded misbid an automatic infraction. In my view that means it should not automatically be an infraction (although it may be in the case of UI etc) and a regulation that makes it so is effectively an instruction to directors to break L12B2.

[bluejak]

The infraction is breaking Law 40A3. That is the infraction that you permit despite the Law.

[c_corgi]

The infraction is breaking Law 40A3. That is the infraction that you permit despite the Law.

 

I do not see how invoking L40C1 as directed by L40A3 is "despite" the law. Since L40C1 contains scope to rectify damage and also to punish offenders the infraction is not being permitted. Surely creating a regulation to treat an infraction in a different way to that prescribed by the laws is acting despite the law.

[gnasher]

Isn't it normal to deal with the breach of the laws and the damage separately? That is, you should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 40A3, and also rectify any damage as instructed by Law 40C1, but only if there actually is damage.

 

My main objections to the EBU's approach are:

- It assumes that there is damage even when there might not be. If I used a CPU to get to a contract that we would have got to regardless of our methods, why should the opponents get 60%?

- It doesn't attempt to make the adjustment proportional to the damage. If we were heading for a zero until we used a CPU to dig ourselves out of the hole, why should the opponents get only 60%?

- It assumes that the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, even when that's untrue.

Edited July 21, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

I do not see how invoking L40C1 as directed by L40A3 is "despite" the law. Since L40C1 contains scope to rectify damage and also to punish offenders the infraction is not being permitted. Surely creating a regulation to treat an infraction in a different way to that prescribed by the laws is acting despite the law.

True, but not relevant here.

 

Isn't it normal to deal with the breach of the laws and the damage separately? That is, you should issue a procedural penalty for the breach of Law 40A3, and also rectify any damage as instructed by Law 40C1, but only if there actually is damage.

 

My main objections to the EBU's approach are:

- It assumes that there is damage even when there might not be. If I used a CPU to get to a contract that we would have got to regardless of our methods, why should the opponents get 60%?

- It doesn't attempt to make the adjustment proportional to the damage. If we were heading for a zero until we used a CPU to dig ourselves out of the hole, why should the opponents get only 60%?

- It assumes that the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, even when that's untrue.

The EBU has decided that it is too difficult to adjust in these circumstances so has produced a legal regulation based on the laws. I just think that your objections are incorrect.

 

Of course, if you try to adjust wrongly, as so many people do, by not following the law exactly, you will no doubt think it easy. But that is because people do not assume that the adjustment applies instead of the infraction: they tend to adjust from after the infraction, which is incorrect.

 

Of course, there are no doubt exceptions. But the EBU approach seems to me to get far more correct rulings than the approach other people think correct, where they adjust from the wrong point. I think practical approaches that come to correct conclusions usually are better than theoretical approaches, badly applied, leading to continuous wrong rulings.

[gnasher]

The EBU has decided that it is too difficult to adjust in these circumstances so has produced a legal regulation based on the laws. I just think that your objections are incorrect.

 

Of course, if you try to adjust wrongly, as so many people do, by not following the law exactly, you will no doubt think it easy. But that is because people do not assume that the adjustment applies instead of the infraction: they tend to adjust from after the infraction, which is incorrect.

 

Of course, there are no doubt exceptions. But the EBU approach seems to me to get far more correct rulings than the approach other people think correct, where they adjust from the wrong point. I think practical approaches that come to correct conclusions usually are better than theoretical approaches, badly applied, leading to continuous wrong rulings.

I wasn't advocating not following the law, I didn't suggest that it was easy, and so far as I know I wasn't suggesting adjusting from the wrong point.

 

I was arguing for a procedure that both follows the law and attempts to achieve equity. I gave three reasons why the EBU's approach doesn't produce a fair result. I don't think it's much of an answer to say "Well, that's how we do it, and at least it's not as bad as how some other people do it." Nor does it make much sense to say "I just think that your objections are incorrect" without giving any reasons for this belief.

[bluejak]

Most people try to adjust wrongly. The problem with theoretical discussions is it is very difficult to show how they are wrong which is why I do not like them and far prefer arguments based on actual hands. This is a very difficult subject to argue form a theoretical standpoint which is why I feel it is not possible to do. Certainly your arguments are unconvincing for that reason.

[semeai]

Come to the friendly natural bidding forum for a thread on how you'd take the 2♥ bid here if your regular partner perpetrated it opposite you. Please leave all laws discussions at the door; you may pick them back up on the way out. :)