Fielded misbids in the EBU

[gnasher]

In another thread, I criticised the EBU's approach to fielded psyches, fielded misbids, and undisclosed agreements on the grounds that the artificial scores produced could be unfair. Bluejak said that it's hard to rebut such theoretical arguments and he would like to discuss actual hands insterad. So, here is an actual hand:

[hv=pc=n&d=w&s=sk94ha5dkqt87c532&w=sj7hk74dj6543ck64&n=saqt8532hq62d9cj9&e=s6hjt983da2caqt87&a=p1s2s(H+D)3h(good 3-card raise)4h4sppp]399|300[/hv]

4♠ went one down after a heart lead.

 

Assume that the written agreement is hearts + diamonds, East misbid thinking that it showed hearts + clubs, and West fielded the misbid (see edit below). As I understand it, in the EBU the director would award an artificial score of 60-40 (or possibly less for the offending side), because there was a concealed implicit agreement that 2♥ showed hearts and a minor.

 

If NS had received the correct explanation, the auction, play and result would have been exactly the same. If I were king for a day, the table result would stand, and EW would receive a procedural penalty for having a CPU.

 

In the EBU, NS get an underserved 60%.

 

Edit: For the purpose of this discussion, assume that at the end of the hand West said "I would have bid 5♦, but I didn't believe he had diamonds - he often gets our two-suited agreements wrong."

Edited July 25, 2012 by gnasher

[ahydra]

I agree with your argument. But I wouldn't say W has fielded the misbid on that hand. Why play 5D when you can play 4H?

 

Are you suggesting the TD should treat fielded misbids/psyches like UI cases - analyse the hand assuming the fielder does the legally-correct thing, and then work out what result would likely occur, reserving ArtAS for when the fielded misbid/psyche messes up the bidding so much we couldn't determine how the actual auction/play would go, or the possibilities are too numerous to weight (a la L12C1d)? That seems sensible enough but it would be interesting to hear from a English TD in-the-know as to why this currently isn't the case.

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

I agree with your argument. But I wouldn't say W has fielded the misbid on that hand. Why play 5D when you can play 4H?

 

ahydra

 

Attempting to play 4H may be fair enough, but selling out to 4S on the presumed double fit is fielding.

[aguahombre]

Some people think it should matter that, if West had not fielded the misbid, N/S would have been +300, and that they "deserve" that as a logical consequence of the misbid. To them, perhaps the EBU treatment is at least a little bit better in re: convention disruption and miraculous coincidences than ACBL.

 

Why 300? Because maybe bidding 4H rather than 5D is somewhat plausible; but when 4S comes back around, West would certainly bid 5D, and would end in 5HX absent whatever might have prompted the fielding.

 

Edit: this post was in response to the original "OP", where no CPU was described.

Edited July 25, 2012 by aguahombre

[gnasher]

Are you suggesting the TD should treat fielded misbids/psyches like UI cases - analyse the hand assuming the fielder does the legally-correct thing, and then work out what result would likely occur

No. I'm suggesting that the TD should treat fielded misbids/psyches like MI/CPU cases, and also follow Law 12C1D. That is, he should:

- Analyse the hand assuming the fielder had given the legally correct explanation ("Ostensibly hearts and diamonds but in practice he also often has hearts and clubs").

- Attempt to assign a bridge score or a set of weighted bridge scores.

- If, and only if, the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, award an artificial score.

 

Some people think it should matter that, if West had not fielded the misbid, N/S would have been +300, and that they "deserve" that as a logical consequence of the misbid.

Some people may think that, but I am not one of them, and it's not supported by the Laws. This is, I think, what Bluejak was talking about in the other thread when he referred to "adjusting from after the infraction".

 

The infraction is either (a) using an implicit agreement which is concealed, or (b) concealing an implicit agreement. The adjustment should reflect what would have happened without the infraction, which is either (a) the result had EW not used a concealed agreement, or (b) the result had EW used the agreement but not concealed it.

[RMB1]

I do not like the EBU approach to fielded misbids and I think the automatic adjustment should only apply when there is evidence for an undislosed partnership understanding that is not a permitted agreement. (For instance a 3C overcall that coubld be clubs or the red suits).

 

The argument for the EBU approach is based on Law 40A3 and Law 12C1d). Law 40A3 can be read to say that the "misbid" (the call about which there is a concealed partnership understanding) should not be made and the adjustment should be on the basis that the call was not made. Law 12C1(d) is used to give an artificial adjustment because it is deemed that the possible outcomes on the basis that the call was not made are "numerous and not obvious". (This route to awarding an artificial score was not available before 2007 although the "fielded misbid" regulation was.)

 

In this example, if we apply Law 40A3 and Law 12C1c), we would adjust to the outcome with various possibilities for East's first call. If North-South would always reach 4♠ whatever East does, there should be no adjustment. If North-South would always reach 4♠ if East overcalls but might play in 3♠ if East passes then the adjustment should include a proportion of 3♠=.

[billw55]

Attempting to play 4H may be fair enough, but selling out to 4S on the presumed double fit is fielding.

 

Why 300? Because maybe bidding 4H rather than 5D is somewhat plausible; but when 4S comes back around, West would certainly bid 5D, and would end in 5HX absent whatever might have prompted the fielding.

Interesting. I don't see why it is so certain that EW would take a sac over 4♠. Surely there are enough values here to suspect that 4♠ may not make.

[ahydra]

Interesting. I don't see why it is so certain that EW would take a sac over 4♠. Surely there are enough values here to suspect that 4♠ may not make.

 

Those were my thoughts exactly. But then again, the point is "suppose West had fielded the misbid" - we should pretty much ignore most of the auction given, which is a probably a good idea because people will point out that N would normally open 3S... oops :P

 

ahydra

[c_corgi]

Interesting. I don't see why it is so certain that EW would take a sac over 4♠. Surely there are enough values here to suspect that 4♠ may not make.

 

You have:

1. A known 10 card diamond fit

2. A likely 10 card spade fit for the opponents

3. A known double fit with the K of parter's suit

 

5D over 4S seems automatic in these circumstances. I suspect selling out to 4S would have fewer advocates if partner had been dealt x AQJxx AKxxx xx, where at least one of 4S and 5D rates to make.

 

 

 

Those were my thoughts exactly. But then again, the point is "suppose West had fielded the misbid" - we should pretty much ignore most of the auction given, which is a probably a good idea because people will point out that N would normally open 3S... oops :P

 

ahydra

 

Why would we ignore the rest of the auction? North is entitled to open 1S if he wants to. He does not lose any right to rectification as a result.

[billw55]

You have:

1. A known 10 card diamond fit

2. A likely 10 card spade fit for the opponents

3. A known double fit with the K of parter's suit

 

5D over 4S seems automatic in these circumstances.

Really? If east and south trade the minor suit T87s, there is no misbid but 4♠ is still down.

[aguahombre]

Really? If east and south trade the minor suit T87s, there is no misbid but 4♠ is still down.

Give that example to West for his appeal. He probably would have a hard time finding one.

[billw55]

I can agree that taking the dive is a logical alternative. Just not that it is near 100%.

[bluejak]

In another thread, I criticised the EBU's approach to fielded psyches, fielded misbids, and undisclosed agreements on the grounds that the artificial scores produced could be unfair. Bluejak said that it's hard to rebut such theoretical arguments and he would like to discuss actual hands insterad. So, here is an actual hand:

[hv=pc=n&d=w&s=sk94ha5dkqt87c532&w=sj7hk74dj6543ck64&n=saqt8532hq62d9cj9&e=s6hjt983da2caqt87&a=p1s2s(H+D)3h(good 3-card raise)4h4sppp]399|300[/hv]

4♠ went one down after a heart lead.

 

Assume that the written agreement is hearts + diamonds, East misbid thinking that it showed hearts + clubs, and West fielded the misbid (see edit below). As I understand it, in the EBU the director would award an artificial score of 60-40 (or possibly less for the offending side), because there was a concealed implicit agreement that 2♥ showed hearts and a minor.

 

If NS had received the correct explanation, the auction, play and result would have been exactly the same. If I were king for a day, the table result would stand, and EW would receive a procedural penalty for having a CPU.

That is exactly what is wrong: if there had been no fielded misbid the auction woud not have been the same. The 2♠ bid was illegal and an adjustment would have to be made from

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1s]133|100[/hv]

 

It is this totally wrong approach to fielded misbids that is so worrying. When there is a breach of Law 40A3, that makes the actual misbid the illegal bid - read the law - so the adjustment is on the presumption that the illegal call was not made.

[gnasher]

That is exactly what is wrong: if there had been no fielded misbid the auction woud not have been the same. The 2♠ bid was illegal and an adjustment would have to be made from

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1s]133|100[/hv]

 

It is this totally wrong approach to fielded misbids that is so worrying. When there is a breach of Law 40A3, that makes the actual misbid the illegal bid - read the law - so the adjustment is on the presumption that the illegal call was not made.

Supposing that we accepted this interpretation of the Laws, the EBU solution would *still* be unfair. Regardless of the auction, once North opens 1♠, it is almost certain that NS will reach 4♠ and go one down. The EBU's approach still gives NS an undeserved good score.

[blackshoe]

Are RAs supposed to be in the business of deciding what score a contestant "deserves"?

[gnasher]

Are RAs supposed to be in the business of deciding what score a contestant "deserves"?

No, but they are, or should be, in the business of making rules that treat the contestants fairly, restore equity following an infraction, and don't arbitrarily add matchpoints to a non-offenders' score.

[campboy]

Some people may think that, but I am not one of them, and it's not supported by the Laws. This is, I think, what Bluejak was talking about in the other thread when he referred to "adjusting from after the infraction".

 

The infraction is either (a) using an implicit agreement which is concealed, or (b) concealing an implicit agreement. The adjustment should reflect what would have happened without the infraction, which is either (a) the result had EW not used a concealed agreement, or (b) the result had EW used the agreement but not concealed it.

I don't think it is as clear as that. The relevant law says that you may make any call unless it is "based on an undisclosed partnership understanding". Which call is based on a UPU? I would argue that West's decision to pass out 4♠ was based on the UPU -- he passed because of the UPU (and in this hypothetical scenario, admits that). On the other hand, the basis of East's 2♠ bid was that he had forgotten.

 

As a side issue, isn't the whole point of playing the cue as a specific two suits that you know what to do with West's hand here? If West isn't going to sac here they might as well play Michaels'.

 

[edited to correct "concealed" to "undisclosed"]

[ahydra]

The 2♠ bid was illegal

 

I'm not normally one to argue with England's top TD, but I thought there was no law against misbidding? The call that is illegal is the one that fields the misbid, i.e. West's pass of 4S (if you believe it as such).

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

I'm not normally one to argue with England's top TD, but I thought there was no law against misbidding? The call that is illegal is the one that fields the misbid, i.e. West's pass of 4S (if you believe it as such).

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).

 

This can be read that the player may not make this call since it is based on an UPU. The fielding is taken to confirm that such an UPU exists. That is my understanding for the basis of the EBU regulation.

[gordontd]

I'm not normally one to argue with England's top TD

Have I missed a post from Max Bavin here? :)

[ahydra]

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).

 

This can be read that the player may not make this call since it is based on an UPU. The fielding is taken to confirm that such an UPU exists. That is my understanding for the basis of the EBU regulation.

 

The OP says East misbid thinking the 2S showed H+C. It doesn't say he bid it because he knew it shows H+D, and is written as such on the CC, but partner will allow for it having hearts and clubs.

 

Have I missed a post from Max Bavin here? :)

 

I thought David Stevenson (bluejak) was designated #1 TD in the world not so long ago? If that's still the case, then he is de facto England's top TD (but I should maybe be nice and write world's top TD).

 

Edit: I meant "top" as in "best" not "highest ranked". :)

 

ahydra

[iviehoff]

... but I thought there was no law against misbidding? The call that is illegal is the one that fields the misbid...

An easy trap to fall into. But actually there is no law (specifically) against the call that field the misbid either. The law approaches this sideways.

 

The way we handle fielding legally, whether of psyches or misbids, is to say that the sequence, be it misbid...field or psyche...field, is actually the employment of a concealed partnership understanding. Thus they are not psyches or misbids at all, but the partnership using bids in a manner that have concealed understandings related to them. With psyches we commonly say that they must be as much a surprise for partnera as for the opposition. If partner can pick up your psyches more reliably than the opponents, then there was some information you failed to disclose to the opponents. A similar situation applies misbids, if your partner can pick up your misbids more easily than the opps, then there was some information not available to the opponents that should have been disclosed. So when we rule a "misbid" or "psyche" fielded, they are no longer a misbid or a psyche.

 

There are two separate parts to the legal argument that is the origin of this tread, which there has been a tendency to confuse.

 

(1) The law treats rectification of a concealed partnership understanding differently from the rectification of misinformation. In the former case, it is illegal to employ the bids that benefited from the concealed understanding. In the latter case, the bids are legal but must be properly explained. This affects the adjustment that is made. Yet clearly the distinction between non-disclosure and concealment is a fine one.

 

(2) The adjustment for a CPU is, in the EBU, (edit: at least when manifested as a fielded misbid) automatically an artificial adjustment, when an assigned adjustment might also be possible in some cases.

 

In relation to the first, the difference between concealment and non-disclosure is a matter of deliberateness vs inadvertence/incompetence, and usually a distinction directors try to avoid making. I think the director might often have some discretion whether to call something misinformation or CPU, and rule accordingly.

 

Using an artificial adjustment will often not be as equitable as using an assigned one, that is not in dispute. The question I suppose is whether assigned adjustments will be feasible with sufficient frequency to be bothered about.

[RMB1]

I thought David Stevenson (bluejak) was designated #1 TD in the world not so long ago? If that's still the case, then he is de facto England's top TD (but I should maybe be nice and write world's top TD).

 

Edit: I meant "top" as in "best" not "highest ranked". :)

 

I hope various English/European/World TDs will charitably assume this is a wind-up.

[ahydra]

I hope various English/European/World TDs will charitably assume this is a wind-up.

 

?? It's certainly not intended as such! :unsure:

 

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what I read was that there was some TD competition or similar (in Spain or Portugal IIRC) where David Stevenson came top. Google is being most unhelpful, so perhaps someone will catch on to what I'm talking about and fill in the correct details.

 

Iviehoff - thanks for that explanation, I now see what bluejak is on about, and agree with him :)

 

ahydra

[aguahombre]

 

(1) The law treats rectification of a concealed partnership understanding differently from the rectification of misinformation. In the former case, it is illegal to employ the bids that benefited from the concealed understanding.

 

(2) The adjustment for a CPU is, in the EBU, (edit: at least when manifested as a fielded misbid) automatically an artificial adjustment, when an assigned adjustment might also be possible in some cases.

 

In relation to the first, the difference between concealment and non-disclosure is a matter of deliberateness vs inadvertence/incompetence, and usually a distinction directors try to avoid making. I think the director might often have some discretion whether to call something misinformation or CPU, and rule accordingly.

 

Using an artificial adjustment will often not be as equitable as using an assigned one, that is not in dispute.

I snipped the quote to just include the basis for my follow-up question:

 

Doesn't the TD, when adjusting because he judged there to be a CPU (illegal sequence), have to articulate exactly what he thinks that CPU was? Or can he/she use the process to veil his real conclusion that there must have been some extraneous information which led to the fielding?