fielded misbid?

[Zelandakh]

[hv=pc=n&w=sahk73dqj764caj94&e=skjt53ha52d95c853&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1dp1sp2cp2nppp]266|200|MPs[/hv]

 

East and West are a married couple who play together regularly but are generally weak players. East's 2NT rebid was supposedly 11-12 and West had no answer as to why she did not go on to game.

 

This took place in a German club but I am interested in procedures for other regions and for other circumstances too (I know the EBU have a special way of handling these sorts of things for example). What would you do if:

 

a. the hand was played behind screens;

b. the hand was played without screens and E-W are known for giving a great deal of body language signals; but nothing specific on this hand can be pointed to;

c. as per b but a similar incident occurred later in the same session;

d. East made an obvious gesture during the hand and N-S believe this to be a signal for a weak hand

 

Would you only consider an adjustment if N-S were damaged in the play of 2NT (thinking West was weaker)? In reality, N-S were not damaged in their defence of 2NT (East butchered the play to go one down) and did not call the TD. The actual scenario was either b or c (I think c but my German was not good enough to understand the other incident fully) but I have asked the question more generally since I think that is more interesting. I also think it quite likely that a variation of scenario d will be faced sometime soon.

[billw55]

a, b, c: result stands, obviously cannot give an adverse ruling if you cannot identify the infraction.

d: possible adjustment, a judgement call for the TD.

[WellSpyder]

a, b, c: result stands, obviously cannot give an adverse ruling if you cannot identify the infraction.

d: possible adjustment, a judgement call for the TD.

Hang on a minute, the penalty for using a hand gesture to tell partner you have a weak hand isn't a possible adjusted score, it is possible expulsion from the National Bridge Organisation!

 

Assuming we aren't talking about deliberate cheating, then the simplest approach is if the case can be treated as a normal UI case. Did the 2N bid take a bit longer than usual, for instance, and is that why partner (perhaps subconsciously) decided to treat is as weaker than normal? If so, it is a simple question of what are the LAs?, is one suggested over another?, and was there damage? In this case it would seem routine to adjust if a slow 2N was followed by a pass that produced a better score than 3N would have done.

 

If there is no apparent UI, it is trickier, but if it is clear that the 2N bid is not consistent with their system then it certainly looks like a case of a fielded misbid, and I would again expect an adjusted score. But I will leave it to the TDs here to try to explain more fully how these are handled...

[billw55]

Hang on a minute, the penalty for using a hand gesture to tell partner you have a weak hand isn't a possible adjusted score, it is possible expulsion from the National Bridge Organisation!

 

Assuming we aren't talking about deliberate cheating, then the simplest approach is if the case can be treated as a normal UI case. Did the 2N bid take a bit longer than usual, for instance, and is that why partner (perhaps subconsciously) decided to treat is as weaker than normal? If so, it is a simple question of what are the LAs?, is one suggested over another?, and was there damage? In this case it would seem routine to adjust if a slow 2N was followed by a pass that produced a better score than 3N would have done.

 

If there is no apparent UI, it is trickier, but if it is clear that the 2N bid is not consistent with their system then it certainly looks like a case of a fielded misbid, and I would again expect an adjusted score. But I will leave it to the TDs here to try to explain more fully how these are handled...

Obviously I was not thinking of deliberate cheating.

 

The OP says these are weak players. To me that means that UI or CPU need not be assumed to explain west's pass, and we should not automatically rule fielded misbid only because west made the wrong call. If the TD judges that actual UI occurred, then ok, which is what I was trying to say to begin with.

[barmar]

Random results happen with weak players, and sometimes you get fixed as a result. Next time, East will have the values for his 2NT call, and they'll miss a cold game. So unless you can identify some UI that helped her decide to pass, it's rub of the green and result stands.

[Zelandakh]

Random results happen with weak players, and sometimes you get fixed as a result.

Don't I know it! On another board the auction started P - 1♣ - 2♠ and now fourth hand bid a non-forcing but unlimited 3♦. Opener passed that for 15/16 MPs. No suggestion of anything improper, just one of those things. On the other hand, with this pair there is always UI. It is the same couple as in this thread. Of the last half dozen 2-board rounds against them, I cannot remember a single occasion when there was no potential issue, although some of them ended up helping us more than them.

 

In any case, looking at this in the wider sense, would I be right in thinking that outside of the EBU, no other organisation pays any attention to finding a pattern in fielded misbids or considers them a problem without any direct evidence of an infraction? For example, if you always looked at your partner (or whatever) with 11-12 you could now make an invitational bid with any weaker hand without apparently having given any UI but not be raised. And in the case where you have given UI, everything is correct so nothing to rule against you. Note: I am not saying this is what happened here in the original case - I am confident it is not - just pointing out how this sort of interpretation can easily be abused. It surprises me that no other RA seems to have spotted the potential.

[Trinidad]

Other RAs are just as aware of UI to sort out misbidding as the EBU. They just thought it smarter to deal with it in a less formalized way than assigning color codes to fielding situations.

 

Of course it happens that a club pretty much allows aunt Millie and uncle Bob to exchange UI. After all, they have been playing at this club since WW II and Millie's chocolate chip cookies are delicious, as is uncle Bob's home made deer sausage. It is highly unlikely that aunt Millie and uncle Bob will ever learn -let alone understand- the Laws about UI.

 

On the other hand, in serious competition, there are no aunt Millies or uncle Bobs. TDs are called and infractions are handled according to the Laws. If a pair has a CPU or uses UI they may get away with that a few times for lack of evidence. But TDs have good memories and they know the players... and hey talk to each other. After a while, the opponents of this pair will get the benefit of the doubt. Their reputation is gone and they will lose.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Other RAs are just as aware of UI to sort out misbidding as the EBU. They just thought it smarter to deal with it in a less formalized way than assigning color codes to fielding situations.

The EBU fielded misbid regulations have nothing to do with UI. If there is UI laws 16B and 73C apply, in the EBU as elsewhere.

 

A fielded misbid is when we suspect the reason for a player's action is that they have an undisclosed understanding that partner will often not have his bid in this situation. It's closer to an MI issue than a UI issue, with the added problem that often the actual understanding ("partner is supposed to have the red suits but sometimes he will just have clubs") would not be a legal agreement.

[jallerton]

The EBU fielded misbid regulations have nothing to do with UI. If there is UI laws 16B and 73C apply, in the EBU as elsewhere.

 

I agree with your second sentence but the first is not quite true. Some types of UI (long hesitations, alerts, lack of alerts) are easy to identify. On other occasions, UI is probably present but difficult to establish. We might end up ruling 'red fielded misbid' in the EBU on the basis of the auction implying that there is a CPU, whereas in practice what has happened is that a player has detected his partner's unhappiness from UI and has "taken a view".

[blackshoe]

It seems wrong to rule "you violated this rule", when in fact the player has violated a completely different rule.

[gnasher]

It seems wrong to rule "you violated this rule", when in fact the player has violated a completely different rule.

Not if we phrase it like this: "We know that either you received UI and used it, or you have a CPU. You tell us that you received no UI, and we believe you. Hence you must have a CPU."

[Cascade]

Bottom line.

 

If you are a good player and you want to win then you need bad players to make mistakes.

 

Corollary

 

Given that bridge is a game of luck, sometimes those mistakes will work to their advantage. That is bad luck.

 

Ruling: If there was no infraction, here most likely some sort of illegal communication including possible UI, then there is no basis on which to make any ruling other than score stands.

[Cascade]

In addition it is far from clear to me that there is a concealed partnership understanding.

 

This is certainly the case unless you think that a light 2NT here needs an alert. I would be surprised if a lot of weaker players, who do not understand preference and false preference did not bid 2NT in these auctions with significantly less than the expert standard 11 hcp or so. Further it would not surprise me if many of their partners seldom raised to game opposite such 2NT bids.

 

It looks like normal but inferior natural bidding. Why would anyone want to suggest penalising them?

[EricK]

Do you have to bid on with so-called game values even if your partner is the sort of player who often butchers the play?

[gnasher]

In addition it is far from clear to me that there is a concealed partnership understanding.

 

This is certainly the case unless you think that a light 2NT here needs an alert. I would be surprised if a lot of weaker players, who do not understand preference and false preference did not bid 2NT in these auctions with significantly less than the expert standard 11 hcp or so. Further it would not surprise me if many of their partners seldom raised to game opposite such 2NT bids.

It wouldn't surprise me either, but it would surprise me if they described the 2NT bid as "10-12" when it's not.

 

It looks like normal but inferior natural bidding. Why would anyone want to suggest penalising them?

Because they apparently misdescribed their methods.

[billw55]

Do you have to bid on with so-called game values even if your partner is the sort of player who often butchers the play?

I don't think so. Although it might make for an awkward moment when the director asks (in front of your partner) why you didn't bid on. Perhaps simply "I didn't think we could make game" would suffice.

[Zelandakh]

It is known that the 2NT bid was systemically 11-12 because South asked about it (albeit after seeing the dummy). Sadly the thread seems to have gotten stuck on the actual scenario rather than looking more broadly at it as I had hoped (hence the a, b, c and d). What I have really taken away from this is that there appears to be no defence under the current rules. it relies on the bridge community being small enough that TDs will see the same players often enough to detect a pattern. Perhaps I am being somewhat reactionary here but that makes me feel uncomfortable.

[barmar]

Perhaps I am being somewhat reactionary here but that makes me feel uncomfortable.

Do you have a better solution, for a game that depends so heavily on nebulous concepts like "agreements", "style" and "judgement"? Ideally we would record all deviations, so that we can detect trends, but this requires infrastructure, it's inconvenient, and we'd still be left with judgement calls on whether two situations are the "same" and how often something has to occur for it to be considered a trend.

[blackshoe]

Do you have to bid on with so-called game values even if your partner is the sort of player who often butchers the play?

Absent UI, you can generally bid as you like, but if you are aware that your partner frequently bids 2NT here on fewer than 11 HCP, you must disclose that as the RA's regulations (and the Laws) require. If your knowledge that partner may have few points comes from UI (mannerism, comment, whatever) then you are constrained to avoid taking advantage of that knowledge, even if you know partner will butcher the play.

[VixTD]

I first looked at this problem before anyone had commented, but I didn't have time to write a reply. My thoughts were that regardless of the situation I would ask East why they had chosen to bid 2NT and then West what they understood by 2NT and why they had not raised to game. (I would ask each of them in private, of course.) Unless I got pretty convincing answers that they both had good reason for departing from their system, or that they were hopeless beginners who didn't really have much clue what they were doing, I would treat it as a fielded misbid. The (EBU) Orange Book regulations state:

6 B 1 The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

6 B 7 A partnership’s actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches, deviations may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.

6 B 8 A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead. As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.

After reading the replies so far I haven't changed my mind. East's action is either a misbid or a (big) deviation rather than a psyche, but West's action is undoubtably one that "appears to allow for it". If East had psyched, the Orange Book says the TD "will treat it as fielding". As it's not a psyche, the TD is perhaps not obliged to do so, but if you asked the player's peers what they would do with the West hand and they all raised to game without considering any other action, that certainly casts suspicion on the action taken.

 

I think you're being too cautious in allowing this score to stand. I don't think you need to prove intent, or demonstrate that this is a common occurrence. The choice of action itself is sufficient. I would rule the same way in all the situations given, and perhaps take further action about the advertent or inadvertent signalling. This is not a matter of penalising beginners for making mistakes. I do wonder if it's an overreaction to the backlash against the "rule of coincidence".

[barmar]

I think you're being too cautious in allowing this score to stand. I don't think you need to prove intent, or demonstrate that this is a common occurrence. The choice of action itself is sufficient. I would rule the same way in all the situations given, and perhaps take further action about the advertent or inadvertent signalling. This is not a matter of penalising beginners for making mistakes. I do wonder if it's an overreaction to the backlash against the "rule of coincidence".

Isn't that the very definition of the rule of coincidence? You don't have evidence of intent, UI, or CPU. You're just treating it as illegal because both players took unusual actions on the same hand, and they happened to fit together.

[PhilKing]

Isn't that the very definition of the rule of coincidence? You don't have evidence of intent, UI, or CPU. You're just treating it as illegal because both players took unusual actions on the same hand, and they happened to fit together.

 

Does this rule exist?

[blackshoe]

There are several forms of "rule of coincidence", from several different disciplines. I think what Barry's talking about is the notion that "if two partners did unusual things that happened to compensate for each other, there was automatically an infraction". I'm quoting Steve Willner here, from a post on rec.games.bridge last March 31. He went on to say "That rule was never in effect, at least officially, though I suppose some incompetent Directors probably enforced it".

 

Steve gave another form of the rule "A weaker version of RoC is as a rule of evidence. If there is a possible infraction, decisions are made on "balance of evidence," i.e., which possible set of facts is more likely, given all the evidence available. A "Rule of Coincidence" is one possible form of evidence.

 

Suppose a player opens 1NT, announced as 15-17, with 14 HCP, and all pass. Opponents misdefend, expecting opener to have a 15th point, and claim they were misinformed. The Director will seek evidence, in particular how often responder has seen 14 HCP openings from partner. If opener and responder are a first time partnership, there's unlikely to be an infraction. Opener is entitled to deviate from his announced agreements. If instead responder knows that opener often bids 1NT with 14 points, failing to tell the opponents that is MI: the true agreement is not 15-17 but 14-whatever. If the Director sees that responder has passed with 10 or 11 HCP, he is very likely to rule that way unless responder has a very convincing alternative explanation for the pass. There might be such an alternative explanation -- perhaps RHO was fingering the double card -- but absent one, the probabilities favor the true 1NT range starting at 14 or even lower.

 

Using the RoC in this way -- one form of evidence out of many -- is good directing and has always been in effect."

[nige1]

IMO, rule of coincidence is just a short and intuitive way of arguing balance of (Bayesian) probability (Thus it can be the basis of a legal ruling and is a topic on which Steve Willner is expert).

[barmar]

Does this rule exist?

No, that's the point.