Fielded misbids in the EBU

[RMB1]

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.

 

And in previous years the EBL has held other courses and other TDs have come first (modest prevents ...) And there is whole slew of higher TDs who run the courses and set and mark the examination; I am sure the EBL thinks that those who run the courses are fit to judge those who attend.

[iviehoff]

Aguahombre, check out this thread. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/54661-la-third-event/

You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

[aguahombre]

Aguahombre, check out this thread. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/54661-la-third-event/

You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

That much I know. The question was whether a ruling that the sequence was an illegal CPU requires articulation of exactly what that CPU was. If not, it could conceivably be used to get around "something fishy" and the requirement to say what the something fishy was.

 

Edit: This is a question about how EBU practice affects these two (separate but related) issues.

Edited July 26, 2012 by aguahombre

[gnasher]

That much I know. The question was whether a ruling that the sequence was an illegal CPU requires articulation of exactly what that CPU was. If not, it could conceivably be used to get around "something fishy" and the requirement to say what the something fishy was.

In the EBU, the director simply has to establish that West's actions appear to cater for East's holding the hand that he had. He doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and he doesn't have to show that any mechanism exists for the supposed CPU. Even if the pair had never met before and this was the first board they'd played together, the director could still find that a CPU existed. Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway.

 

Other jurisdictions may have a higher standard of proof.

[gnasher]

Just to be clear, this can be used to deal with the "I don't know how he knew but he obviously did know" problem, but only when dealing with a clearcut departure from system. So it works if West caters for East's having clubs when he's supposed to have diamonds, but it doesn't work when West caters for East's being a queen short of what he promised.

[c_corgi]

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.

 

 

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

 

rather than

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".

 

 

Such an interpretation has wider implications than fielded misbids, for instance (uncontested):

 

1NT - 2C*

2H - 3NT

4S

 

*Stayman, but not disclosed (by announcement, alert, convention card or whatever was required).

 

If we use the former interpretation to justify fielded misbid, we cannot apply it selectively and must therefore also use it to disallow either 2C or 4S (maybe 2H as well) on the Stayman sequence. Does anybody actually do that?

[campboy]

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

 

rather than

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".

I don't see why rolling it back is incompatible with 40C1, since that law says "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score [...]". Well, the undisclosed knowledge that East may not have diamonds has damaged opponents since without that knowledge West would have bid 5♦.

[StevenG]

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.

 

Surely that suggests (not proves) that the UPU exists at the time of the fielding. It does not in any way prove that it existed at the time the misbid was made. We all know in practice the fielding occurs only because the fielder guesses from the sequence that something, somewhere, is wrong, not that he has any idea exactly what it is. In which case any UPU, such as it is, is created at the time of the first misgivings.

[c_corgi]

I don't see why rolling it back is incompatible with 40C1, since that law says "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score [...]". Well, the undisclosed knowledge that East may not have diamonds has damaged opponents since without that knowledge West would have bid 5♦.

 

Certainly L40C1 can also be read that way and - if it is - carries the same wider implications.

[TimG]

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

 

Isn't there often a notion of "restoring equity"? That sounds to me like deciding what score a contestant deserves.

[ahydra]

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

 

rather than

 

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".

 

 

Such an interpretation has wider implications than fielded misbids, for instance (uncontested):

 

1NT - 2C*

2H - 3NT

4S

 

*Stayman, but not disclosed (by announcement, alert, convention card or whatever was required).

 

If we use the former interpretation to justify fielded misbid, we cannot apply it selectively and must therefore also use it to disallow either 2C or 4S (maybe 2H as well) on the Stayman sequence. Does anybody actually do that?

 

You have a point, but it seems to be reasonably clear what the law is getting at. Perhaps L40A3 or its corresponding White Book entry (if any) could be reworded to exclude general bridge knowledge, but I wouldn't blame the lawmakers if they deemed that implicit/unnecessary. Plus if any opponent asked the players what your example sequence meant, I'm sure you can imagine the response would make the "UPU" clear. (See also L40A1a)

 

ahydra

[campboy]

Certainly L40C1 can also be read that way and - if it is - carries the same wider implications.

True. For these laws to make any sense at all I think we need to interpret "undisclosed knowledge" as something which the pair does not disclose at all, rather than merely something which hasn't been disclosed to this particular set of opponents (whether by oversight, error or simply because the opponents haven't asked).

[blackshoe]

Surely that suggests (not proves) that the UPU exists at the time of the fielding. It does not in any way prove that it existed at the time the misbid was made. We all know in practice the fielding occurs only because the fielder guesses from the sequence that something, somewhere, is wrong, not that he has any idea exactly what it is. In which case any UPU, such as it is, is created at the time of the first misgivings.

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

[StevenG]

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

 

How does one player misbidding create a UPU at all? Yet the EBU argument claims that he does.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the EBU claims that misbidding creates a UPU. Where do you get that?

 

Repeatedly making the same misbid may create a UPU, but that's a different story.

[gnasher]

I don't think the EBU claims that misbidding creates a UPU. Where do you get that?

 

Repeatedly making the same misbid may create a UPU, but that's a different story.

 

The EBU does assert that a partnership's actions on a single board are sufficient to find that there is a CPU, but it has to be a pair of actions - a departure from system by one player, and an action that appears to cater for it by the other player.

[gnasher]

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

In the EBU, two players acting independently can create something that the EBU treates as an understanding. Even if the two partners have never met before, if one of them misbids, then the other one guesses that he has misbid and acts upon this guess, the EBU's rules say that it will be treated as a CPU.

[RMB1]

.... if one of them misbids, then the other one guesses that he has misbid and acts upon this guess, the EBU's rules say that it will be treated as a CPU.

I think "will" should be "can".

 

If "everyone" would guess that the one had misbid (based on the auction and the other one's hand) then the other one is allowed to guess that the one had misbid, and act accordingly, without being treated as if they had a CPU.

[blackshoe]

My understanding matches Robin's

[barmar]

True. For these laws to make any sense at all I think we need to interpret "undisclosed knowledge" as something which the pair does not disclose at all, rather than merely something which hasn't been disclosed to this particular set of opponents (whether by oversight, error or simply because the opponents haven't asked).

Indeed. I believe failing to alert falls under the laws regarding misinformation, not undisclosed partnership agreements.

[bluejak]

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?

It is normal when making a judgement ruling to describe in general terms what the judgement is, but not necessarily to go through the process of decision-making.

 

You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

While true, TDs make a judgement based on the available evidence. So it requires the evidence to be sufficient for this TD to make a certain judgement. It is a common fact that other people my disagree with his judgement [i am going to see the general view here of a ruling against me over the weekend: while the TD certainly did it the correct way by polling and discussion with others, I found the decision amazing].

 

In the EBU, the director simply has to establish that West's actions appear to cater for East's holding the hand that he had. He doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and he doesn't have to show that any mechanism exists for the supposed CPU. Even if the pair had never met before and this was the first board they'd played together, the director could still find that a CPU existed. Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway.

 

Other jurisdictions may have a higher standard of proof.

First of all, proof is not required in any jurisdiction for a judgement ruling.

 

Second, if I was the EBU TD I refuse to accept that I would ignore the fact that it was the first board they had played together. Nothing in the Regulation that I am aware of says that a misbid is fielded if it certainly was not.

[gnasher]

First of all, proof is not required in any jurisdiction for a judgement ruling.

I didn't say it was, if by "proof" you mean something that implies certainty. The term "standard of proof" means the threshold for reaching a particular conclusion. That threshold might be anywhere in the spectrum from absolute certainty to being willing to accept a blind guess. For instance, one might say that in a civil trial in England, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities".

 

Second, if I was the EBU TD I refuse to accept that I would ignore the fact that it was the first board they had played together. Nothing in the Regulation that I am aware of says that a misbid is fielded if it certainly was not.

How about this bit:

 

"If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding."

 

I don't think that leaves any room for doubt. But I do think it's admirable that you're prepared to disregard the rules when the consequences of following them would be silly.

[bluejak]

This is not BLML. Making assumptions about the actions and competence of TDs because of particular wording is unfair on a lot of excellent EBU TDs. Sure, there are always wordings which can be turned - BLML would hardly have existed so long otherwise - but we have always tried to help people rule reasonably here, not argued about whether one word means we do not follow a commonsense approach.

[gnasher]

Making assumptions about the actions and competence of TDs because of particular wording is unfair on a lot of excellent EBU TDs.

I can understand that in your profession one may get into the habit of reading things selectively and ignoring their actual meaning when it suits you to do so. However, I'd prefer it if you didn't extend this approach to my forum postings.

 

I very pointedly didn't make any assumptions about what TDs actually do. If you look at my posts on this subject, you will see that I qualified my interpretations with words like "Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway", "The EBU does assert", "the EBU's rules say that".

 

Sure, there are always wordings which can be turned - BLML would hardly have existed so long otherwise - but we have always tried to help people rule reasonably here, not argued about whether one word means we do not follow a commonsense approach.

This is the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum. If there is a regulation that is so badly written that competent TDs just ignore the wording and use their common sense instead, it seems to me that the regulation is a candidate for change, and therefore a suitable topic for discussion.

[bluejak]

I replied to what you wrote in the previous posting, not what you are now saying, and I stand by my comments. Selective reading does not come into it: you made an unjustified comment, and I replied to it. Now you pretend oyu meant something else. Yeah, right.