fielded misbid?

[PhilKing]

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).

 

I think this is utterly wrong.

 

It's 100% percent certain that dubious pairs will have boards where the actions of player B suggests that their knowledge of the hand held by player A was other than stated, but entirely honest pairs will have these boards as well, but less frequently.

 

As long as the former pairs are rare, the number of false positives will exceed the real ones, so a ruling with no other evidence would be shocking.

[VixTD]

The way I was taught to check for fielding (going back to my EBU club directors' training 25 years ago) was to ask: "Has offender's partner taken unexplained action that could protect the partnership from the effects of the psyche?"

 

(I don't think that phrase is written in any official guidelines, it's just what I remember the late Ian Spoors saying on the course.)

 

If partner has opened 1♠, or responded 1♠ after 1♣ (X), then failing to raise spades when holding 3+ and suitable values is indicative of not believing that partner has the spades they have shown.

 

In the original problem, holding ♠A ♥K73 ♦QJ764 ♣AJ94 after the auction P - 1♦; 1♠ - 2♣; 2NT - P

 

the only things that could persuade me this is not a case of fielding are: (1) If West could come up with a convincing explanation for failing to raise to game. (2) If I thought that, if East didn't have their bid, they were at least as likely to be overstrength as understrength.

 

For (1) West might try to argue that partner has passed so can't have much, the hands could misfit quite badly, they desperately need a swing, etc., but I don't think it will work. I just don't believe (2) applies, and wouldn't apply even if East hadn't originally passed. A beginner might bid 2NT with 13+ because they have a balanced hand and so they have to bid no trumps, not realising that they have just made a bid partner can pass, but below-average players won't do this. They might bid no trumps on a weak hand in an attempt to get out of a misfit, but not knowing how.

 

I can understand the argument that some of you are putting forward that there needs to be more evidence than just coincidence, and that what the TD should do here is sort out any implicit agreements EW might have here and make sure they disclose them in future, or rule under UI if the offending bid were slow or there were some other telling mannerism. I think there's sufficient likelihood that East was weaker than shown and that West's action could have allowed for this.

 

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Are you ruling red psych or amber?

[VixTD]

Are you ruling red psych or amber?

Red misbid.

[blackshoe]

Why red? It seems to me that it's at best amber.

[VixTD]

If partner has their bid (10-12 pts) you clearly want to be in game. This is a clear case of fielding. If West had taken a conservative action where they might well have been a little more bold I would agree with you (say if they had ♠A ♥K73 ♦Q8764 ♣AJ64).

[blackshoe]

Hm. Maybe. Although I daresay if it was all that clear I wouldn't have been asking questions. B-)