What would you rule?

[TylerE]

[hv=pc=n&s=st5htdqt32caqt982&w=saqj6hj63d54c7653&n=s743hq852daj76cj4&e=sk982hak974dk98ck&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1c(Precision-style)3cpp3hp4hppp]399|300|ACBL Sectional[/hv]

 

After 3♥, South asked if pass over 3♣ showed anything special, and was told "0-4, when we remember it"

 

South called the director to reserve rights after dummy hit.

 

Result on the hand was 4♥-1, on less than stellar declarer play, so no ruling was sought.

 

Thoughts?

[CSGibson]

West has a clear raise, no LA, and I don't see any damage from potential MI, either. Result stands. If South is at all experienced, he should be ashamed for feeling the need to call the director when he saw dummy, IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

West has a clear raise, no LA, and I don't see any damage from potential MI, either. Result stands. If South is at all experienced, he should be ashamed for feeling the need to call the director when he saw dummy, IMO.

Isn't 3♥ just offering up 800 if he's really expecting 0-4, it looks like an attempt to take into account that partner might have forgotten. I think the director call is reasonable.

[CSGibson]

Isn't 3♥ just offering up 800 if he's really expecting 0-4, it looks like an attempt to take into account that partner might have forgotten. I think the director call is reasonable.

 

There is no alleged break in tempo, so 3♥ doesn't appear to be an issue, its not like the partnership is acting on UI at this point, as presented. Additionally, I suspect E-W not to be a strong pair based on the butchering of the contract and the decision to bid 3♥ instead of doubling.

[TylerE]

West has a clear raise, no LA, and I don't see any damage from potential MI, either. Result stands. If South is at all experienced, he should be ashamed for feeling the need to call the director when he saw dummy, IMO.

 

The director call was on the basis of West waking up after hearing the explanation.

[Cyberyeti]

The director call was on the basis of West waking up after hearing the explanation.

I don't think that matters, the director will investigate everything once called. The raise is absolutely routine.

 

But E seems to know his partner has previous for forgetting the system. In the UK we climb on fielded misbids more or less as if they were fielded psyches which may not be the same in the US, but climbing back in on what looks like a working 14 count opposite 0-4 is suspicious even without any possible body language at explanation time.

[jeffford76]

West has a clear raise, no LA, and I don't see any damage from potential MI, either. Result stands. If South is at all experienced, he should be ashamed for feeling the need to call the director when he saw dummy, IMO.

 

I think this is a huge overstatement. When dummy has UI, and their hand doesn't match what their partner said, it's perfectly reasonable to call the director. It's the director's job to see if the raise is clear, not the player, who probably wants to get on to defending the hand, not waste energy thinking about what is and isn't a LA.

 

If 4♥ had made, I would expect the director to ask dummy what they thought their initial pass showed, and what double would have showed. If the player thought their pass showed values, for example, then there might be a problem with the raise.

 

All that said, I doubt passing would be found to be a LA.

[blackshoe]

West clearly has UI from East's explanation of the meaning of West's pass, but if he has no LA to bidding 4♥ there has been no infraction by him.

 

The question Cyberyeti raised is whether there may be a CPU (that West frequently forgets that he's supposed to double with the hand he has), but I think "when we remember it" obviates that notion, so I don't see an infraction by East either. Perhaps South should have asked for further information about East's caveat.

 

Result stands.

[Cyberyeti]

West clearly has UI from East's explanation of the meaning of West's pass, but if he has no LA to bidding 4♥ there has been no infraction by him.

 

The question Cyberyeti raised is whether there may be a CPU (that West frequently forgets that he's supposed to double with the hand he has), but I think "when we remember it" obviates that notion, so I don't see an infraction by East either. Perhaps South should have asked for further information about East's caveat.

 

Result stands.

Actually it's not really the CPU aspect, it's more the fielded misbid aspect which I suspect doesn't apply as much in the US. Are you really going to enjoy 3♥ at this vul opposite say xxx, x, Jxxxx, Jxxx ? the only reason to bid is because you think partner has misbid and may have a reasonable hand. You have to wonder if there was any change in facial expression when E said it was 0-4.

[sfi]

Isn't 3♥ just offering up 800 if he's really expecting 0-4, it looks like an attempt to take into account that partner might have forgotten. I think the director call is reasonable.

 

But he's not really expecting 0-4 given the explanation of the pass. And given the explanation, the pass isn't even a misbid. Finally, since the explanation expressly allowed for stronger hands without a clear action, so presumably balanced with no club stopper, there's no reason to suggest a CPU.

[RMB1]

Actually it's not really the CPU aspect, it's more the fielded misbid aspect ...

 

I don't really understand, what is the basis for ruling on fielded misbids if it is not evidence of a CPU?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't really understand, what is the basis for ruling on fielded misbids if it is not evidence of a CPU?

Semantics really, I consider a CPU as more malicious/deliberate than incompetent like this one.

[mycroft]

Isn't rule 1 of Precision "an 8-count opposite a 1♣ opener is game"?

 

So West has no clue about how to make a forcing call; maybe thinks that pass *is* a forcing call at this level (and East either doesn't know that or is on a different (maybe even correct) page).

 

"I have to raise with my 8 because partner thinks I have 0-4"? No. "I have to raise because I have a fit and a GF hand"? Okay. Is there a stronger call he can make? Maybe. Will it do anything? Probably not.

 

East has no UI - she can misbid all she wants.

 

West does have UI, but pass is not an LA if you've ever played Precision before, since about say 1975. South would have a better time convincing me that West, knowing he made a passable call, should be pushing harder given that East didn't pass; at least that way I have to investigate what West thought he was doing with his pass.

[barmar]

West seems to think his pass is forcing. So ignoring the UI, he doesn't have much more than he's shown with his pass, and raising to game is the appropriate action.

 

The UI that his pass showed 0-4 suggests that East should be significantly stronger. If West were to make a stronger move, that would be taking advantage of this UI.

[Vampyr]

West clearly has UI from East's explanation of the meaning of West's pass, but if he has no LA to bidding 4♥ there has been no infraction by him.

 

The question Cyberyeti raised is whether there may be a CPU (that West frequently forgets that he's supposed to double with the hand he has), but I think "when we remember it" obviates that notion, so I don't see an infraction by East either. Perhaps South should have asked for further information about East's caveat.

 

 

What kind of further information? Something like "are you going to field it"? East has admitted that West often misbids and has fielded the misbid...perhaps the CPU is no longer C, but the behaviour (and probably the agreement) is not legal.

[gnasher]

What kind of further information? Something like "are you going to field it"? East has admitted that West often misbids and has fielded the misbid...perhaps the CPU is no longer C, but the behaviour (and probably the agreement) is not legal.

Which laws have they broken?

 

The agreement is certainly legal in the ACBL, where you're allowed to play "ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids". It's legal in England too.

 

 

[Vampyr]

Which laws have they broken?

 

The fielded misbid breaks 40C1.

 

The agreement is certainly legal in the ACBL, where you're allowed to play "ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids". It's legal in England too.

 

I don't understand these either/or agreements. Is double 0-4 or 0- ∞? Surely the agreement has to be one or the other. Or is the agreement 0-4 but you cater for a psyche/misbid? And this is somehow now allowed because you have disclosed that you were doing so? Seriously?

 

Obviously both 0-4 and 0- ∞ should be allowed just about anywhere, but I cannot tell what the regulations say about the actual agreement.

[Zelandakh]

If the agreeemnt is 0-4 but East knows that West often forgets and thinks it is 8+ then the real agreeement is effectively 0-4 or 8+. I know of no regulation forcing this pass to show a contiguous range.

[gnasher]

The fielded misbid breaks 40C1.

In your earlier post you wrote "perhaps the CPU is no longer C, but ..."

 

I was replying to the part that followed the word "but", which presupposes that their effective understanding is not concealed. If their effective understanding is not concealed, 40C1 is irrelevant.

 

I don't understand these either/or agreements. Is double 0-4 or 0- ∞? Surely the agreement has to be one or the other. Or is the agreement 0-4 but you cater for a psyche/misbid? And this is somehow now allowed because you have disclosed that you were doing so? Seriously?

 

Obviously both 0-4 and 0-∞ should be allowed just about anywhere, but I cannot tell what the regulations say about the actual agreement.

The effect of West's statement is "Double is 0+, but if he's remembered our written agreement he won't have more than 4." I don't really understand why you think this ought to be disallowed, but plainly it is allowed, because any method is allowed.

Edited April 16, 2013 by gnasher

[blackshoe]

The fielded misbid breaks 40C1.

Not when the PU is not C - and East disclosed it with "when we remember".

 

As to what further question South might ask, how about "what kind of hand does he have when he forgets"?

[barmar]

As to what further question South might ask, how about "what kind of hand does he have when he forgets"?

And the answer is likely to be "more than 4 HCP" :)

 

Actually, I suspect he can refine it. If he can bid a 5-card suit naturally, it also implies a balanced hand.

[blackshoe]

And the answer is likely to be "more than 4 HCP" :)

 

Actually, I suspect he can refine it. If he can bid a 5-card suit naturally, it also implies a balanced hand.

In my experience, getting a straight and complete answer to many questions about opponents' bidding is like pulling teeth. It's not supposed to be that way. I would consider "more than 4 HCP" as either not thinking, or trying to avoid a straight and complete answer.

 

This is Precision. There is some minimum hand, probably a good 8, which would not pass. That needs to be part of the explanation.

[iviehoff]

It is worth noting that in 2009 the EBU rescinded regulation 3B10

"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon."

Does that deletion mean that it is always appropriate to disclose it and always permissible to act upon it? Or does it mean, It's A Bit More Complicated Than That and other factors need taking into account?

 

Clearly this is one of those Difficult Areas.

 

I would tend to say that the problem with disclosures such as "but he tends to forget" is that they can be inadequate. There is a question of what the wider range of things it shows might be. But I think actually in the present case it probably is reasonably adequate disclosure. It isn't really a matter of describing what kind of other hands he may pass on, rather realising that he is going to make bids that are sufficiently obvious for someone who can't remember that.

[Vampyr]

It is worth noting that in 2009 the EBU rescinded regulation 3B10

"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon."

Does that deletion mean that it is always appropriate to disclose it and always permissible to act upon it? Or does it mean, It's A Bit More Complicated Than That and other factors need taking into account?

 

It would be interesting to know this. Frances?

 

Clearly this is one of those Difficult Areas.

 

I would tend to say that the problem with disclosures such as "but he tends to forget" is that they can be inadequate. There is a question of what the wider range of things it shows might be. But I think actually in the present case it probably is reasonably adequate disclosure. It isn't really a matter of describing what kind of other hands he may pass on, rather realising that he is going to make bids that are sufficiently obvious for someone who can't remember that.

 

What is everyone smoking, and where can I get some of that sh*t?

 

It is OK to field a misbid if you tell your opponent that you are planning to field it? Can people really believe this?

[gnasher]

It is OK to field a misbid if you tell your opponent that you are planning to field it? Can people really believe this?

There isn't any rule that forbids fielding a misbid. There is a rule that forbids using a concealed partnership understanding.

 

If you disclose your understandings properly, you're allowed to bid according to those understandings*. Why shouldn't you be allowed to?

 

*Provided that the understanding is legal, of course.

 

Edit: The point is that a partnership's methods are not merely "What we agreed", but "What we agreed, modified by our experience as partners, experience with other common partners, knowledge of each other's background, etc." You're required to disclose all of that, but having disclosed your methods in their entirety so you're then free to play your methods in their entirety. There's no qualitative difference between "I know he sometimes forgets" and "I know he overbids" or "I know he thinks most doubles are for takeout".

Edited April 17, 2013 by gnasher