Fielded misbids in the EBU

[gnasher]

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.

 

You object to my saying that I admire you for giving sensible rulings? I won't say it again then.

[lamford]

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.

Law 40C begins "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings", so I think the EBU should require more than one instance for a CPU if they are following the Laws.

[aguahombre]

Law 40C begins "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings", so I think the EBU should require more than one instance for a CPU if they are following the Laws.

As Blackshoe stated earlier, "that is a different story." Law 40C speaks to consequences from repeated deviations. EBU goes further and speaks to a single incident where deviatations by each pair during the auction complement each other. EBU is not violating 40C; the single incident is not addressed in 40C.

[bluejak]

I am not logician, but I am sure of one thing: "Repeated deviations may create an implicit understanding" does not mean "Without knowing of a repeated deviation there cannot be an implicit understanding".

 

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

[aguahombre]

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

Don't confuse using a convention and hoping partner is on the same wavelength (because she is smart enough to know it couldn't mean anything else) with misbidding and having partner make another misbid in order to allow for the other misbid.

[bluejak]

I am not confusing anything. The Law we are involved with says [paraphrased] that you may not make a call with a concealed partnership understanding, two posts have said [paraphrased] that if a TD sees only one case then there cannot be a partnership understanding so the Law & Regulation cannot be applied legally, and I am trying to make it clear that this is nonsense.

 

If we have a partnership understanding we have one even if someone only sees one instance.

[aguahombre]

yet you referred to "the last two posts"...one of which was mine, and I said nothing of the sort.

 

I was disagreeing with Lamford...the post before mine, which you included in "the last two posts".

[barmar]

I am not logician, but I am sure of one thing: "Repeated deviations may create an implicit understanding" does not mean "Without knowing of a repeated deviation there cannot be an implicit understanding".

 

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

I assume Exclusion KCB is part of your system. So how can it be considered a "deviation"? And thus it's irrelevant whether it's repeated.

[gnasher]

To me it seems obvious that we can have an implicit agreement without any direct experience of that agreement. For example, even if I have never played with someone, I may know from playing against them that they tend to psyche in a particular situation, or that they tend to forget Ghestem.

 

When I started this thread, it was about the unfairness of assigning artifical scores when a real score could easily be assigned. It's a shame that we've drifted away from that topic, though as a serial threadjacker I suppose I can't complain.

[bluejak]

I assume Exclusion KCB is part of your system. So how can it be considered a "deviation"? And thus it's irrelevant whether it's repeated.

Exactly: just the same as a fielded misbid: if it is part of your agreements, it is irrelevant whether it is repeated.

[StevenG]

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.

[aguahombre]

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.

"On Point", IMHO, (and subject to ruling) would be maybe if we excluded the wrong suit by accident; and partner's response coincidentally excluded the suit we really intended her to exclude.

 

"On Point" might also be a perfectly legal (IMHO) deviation from prior agreements which is worked out by partner via logic. The first time this happened with exclusion, I was really jazzed:

 

Exclusion was always a jump to five of the void suit, until:

 

1S-4H (Splinter)

4S-4N

 

Partner held AXXXX V KQX AKXXX. She could have set trumps and then Wooded differently, so why did she splinter? An exclusion 5H bid and the response would have gobbled up too much room and not allowed her to find out about the club queen or doubleton ---so, she made up the splinter sequence for the heart exclusion instead.

 

Certainly others had done this before, but we hadn't --and it was fun to figure it out. It was many years ago. This isn't a boast, either, Steven :rolleyes:

[iviehoff]

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

This could be a CPU in the appropriate circumstances, the circumstances that make this a reasonable comparison to the fielded misbid.

 

Suppose the ops ask about the auction and you say nothing about the ExKCB. The ops then complain to the director when they see your hands, as they think they misplayed the defence in consequence.

 

What should the director rule if

(1) You point to it on your system card (or claim to have agreed to play it verbally). You produce some lame excuse for not explaining it, you thought they had indicated they had heard enough explanations or something.

(2) You claim that you have never discussed it, never bid it before together, but just successfully intuited the intention of the bids, maybe giving some plausibility by asserting that everyone in this room who has their head properly attached plays it, so it's obvious. You argue (perhaps implicitly) that it is therefore not disclosable as there is no agreement, it was just general bridge knowledge.

 

I think in case (1) it is fairly clear that one rules misinformation. Failing to disclose it was incompetence, not deviousness, however lame the excuse.

 

Situation (2) is like the fielded misbid. This is just what I previously called Unlawful Telepathy. You did manage to communicate and had no intention of disclosing it. It isn't general bridge knowledge that such a bid is ExKCB, it is specific bridge knowledge not necessarily available to the opponents that your partner is likely to bid like that.

[bluejak]

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.

We have an agreement to play Exclusion. Why you assume we do not tell anyone about it is beyond me. What do you want me to do, scan my System Card and show you? It has happened one time as far as a pair is concerned - in fact it may be the first time we have seen it, I am not sure, but if we have bid it before then we did not get to a grand. So we have an agreement, and the evidence seems to be one hand.

 

If a player apparently fields a misbid, the Director will see the one hand. The presumption they cannot have an agreement because the Director only sees one hand is flawed, for the same reason as our Exclusion bid: one occasion is evidence of something, and you cannot prove there is no agreement because you have not seen another case.

[barmar]

We have an agreement to play Exclusion. Why you assume we do not tell anyone about it is beyond me.

He said you "aren't boasting about using a CPU". Why do you think he assumes you do not tell anyone?