Fielded Misbid (or not)?

[blackshoe]

I don't either, but you certainly seem to. :ph34r:

[barmar]

"He does so" - he ignores any regulation that says different because:

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:

[...]

f. to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

(My enhancements in both quotations.)

That means the TD can't create regulations in conflict with the Laws. But the Laws explicitly authorize RAs to create regulations that interpret the Laws, and these regulations are incorporated by reference, so the TD has to follow them.

[pran]

That means the TD can't create regulations in conflict with the Laws. But the Laws explicitly authorize RAs to create regulations that interpret the Laws, and these regulations are incorporated by reference, so the TD has to follow them.

Are you sure that you do not mix:

Law 80 which applies to The Regulating Authority and Tournament Organizer

with

Law 81 which applies to THE DIRECTOR ?

 

The authorization in Law 80 explicitly forbids creation of regulations that are in conflict with the Laws.

[pran]

I don't either, but you certainly seem to. :ph34r:

Frankly I do wonder if we have been given an incorrect or incomplete quotation of the EBU regulation in question.

However, without any easy access to the actual text I quit here. You might say that I "blew the whistle".

[campboy]

Which bit of the EBU's justification do you actually disagree with, pran? So far the only point of gnasher's post you have explicitly objected to is the first, but that is not the EBU's position, that is the AC's opinion.

 

I don't think this particular case was a fielded misbid, but the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

 

In any case, I agree with Blackshoe that agreeing to direct for an RA requires you to accept their interpretation of law. Whether a regulation is legal or not the worst possible situation is if some TDs follow it and others don't.

[gordontd]

Frankly I do wonder if we have been given an incorrect or incomplete quotation of the EBU regulation in question.

However, without any easy access to the actual text I quit here.

EBU Orange Book 6B & 6D.

[gordontd]

The ACBL doesn't have any "illegal" regulations, afaik,

Remind me, how does the ACBL tell you to score a board that's unable to be played because the players were slow?

[DaveB]

The EBU medium for publishing Regulations is the Orange Book

 

Here is the extract (sorry for the length)

 

 

6 B Fielding

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 3 A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an

unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (see 6 D). This

is classified as a Red psyche.

6 B 4 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is

not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber

psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of

at least Amber is likely to be justified.

6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green

psyche.

6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership’s actions on two or more boards to assess

a partnership’s actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of

an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces

the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two

psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red,

and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly.

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 PSYCHIC BIDDING

31

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.

6 B 9 Because of the difference between the player’s understanding of his call and any alerts

and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised

information problems to be present.

6 C Reporting and Recording

6 C 1 Psychic bids do not have to be reported but a player may request the TD to record

them if he wishes. To do so is not to accuse the opponents of malpractice. The TD may

record any hand if he thinks fit.

6 C 2 Players whose partners have taken an unusual action such as a psyche, misbid or

deviation which has been reported are given the chance to explain their actions in

writing. This is because it is that player whose subsequent bidding and play is being

looked at. Such players who do not explain their actions must realise that failure to do

so might lead to unfortunate conclusions. Notably, players who fail to raise partner in

such circumstances and do not explain their actions must expect their actions to be

adjudged as fielding.

6 D Scoring a Fielded Psyche, Misbid or Deviation

6 D 1 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Amber or Green, then there is no

adjustment, unless there are two Amber cases, see 6 B 6.

6 D 2 If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Red, then the board is completed. If

their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 imps or more, the result

stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as

Average Plus to the opponents, Average Minus to the pair. Normally this translates as

3 imps, or 60%/40%.

6 D 3 If it is a Red psyche then an additional Procedural Penalty will be applied. Normally it

will be the minimum standard though a TD may increase this. In a Victory Point event,

the normal penalty is 0.5 VP. Otherwise it is 10% or 2 imps, so the board is generally

scored as 60%/30% or 5 imps.

[gnasher]

So far the only point of gnasher's post you have explicitly objected to is the first, but that is not the EBU's position, that is the AC's opinion.

 

I don't think that's strictly true. The EBU's regulations instruct the director or AC to "judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account." This may require the AC to determine that a CPU existed even though they do not believe this to be true.

 

the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

 

It doesn't to me. In some auctions the possibilities are few or obvious, so the score should be adjusted as normal. In other cases, all the possibilities fall on the same side of average plus, so the artificial adjustment is demonstrably inequitable.

[RMB1]

I don't think this particular case was a fielded misbid, but the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

 

The plausibility of the using L12C1d is undermined a bit by the fact that the regulation is much older than L12C1d, and there was less justtification in earlier law books.

 

But as someone trying to finalise 'EBU White Book 2013' where these regulations now live, I would like to think they are wonderful regulations not one word of which should be changed. :)

[pran]

EBU Orange Book 6B & 6D.

Thanks for the references.

I find:

 

If the TD judges a psyche, misbid or deviation Is Red, then the board is completed. If

their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 imps or more, the result

stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as

Average Plus to the opponents, Average Minus to the pair. Normally this translates as

3 imps, or 60%/40%.

directly in conflict with the laws for the reasons I have already stated previously in this thread.

 

Now according to 6D2:

If NOS obtained a table result on the board equivalent to Ave+ or better the regulation says that this table result stands unchanged even if they show (beyond doubt) that they would have made a far better result on the board absent the irregularity. (Who would be satisfied with a 3 IMP win on a Board if they can show that they would have won 20 IMPS absent the irregularity?)

 

This is a consequence that I cannot in my wildest imagination believe was intentional.

[pran]

the EBU's justification of applying 12C1d whenever a misbid is fielded seems plausible to me.

It doesn't to me. In some auctions the possibilities are few or obvious, so the score should be adjusted as normal. In other cases, all the possibilities fall on the same side of average plus, so the artificial adjustment is demonstrably inequitable.

That is exactly the point:

 

Whenever the Director is empowered to award an adjusted score he must first of all establish "equity" and determine if NOS has been damaged.

 

He is only empowered to award an artificial adjusted score in two distinct situations:

1: If he is unable to establish equity, usually because the board has been fouled or not played at all so that there is no other result to compare with.

2: If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, but don't overlook:

In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results.

Weighted scores (where allowed) will in most cases take care of any problem with numerous or not obvious possibilities.

[blackshoe]

Remind me, how does the ACBL tell you to score a board that's unable to be played because the players were slow?

Club TDs here use "not played". They base doing so on past telephone conversations with, primarily, Butch Campbell, who no longer works for the ACBL. There is no written ACBL regulation that says to do this, as far as I know.

[jallerton]

Noted.

 

But I cannot help feeling that this is an illegal regulation because of conflict with Law 12 (see Law 80B2{f} ).

 

In addition to establishing that there was an irregularity the Director shall judge whether (in his opinion) NOS has been damaged by the irregularity. The laws do not allow him to just establish that there was an irregularity and then award an adjusted score.

 

And more important: The regulation instructs the Director to give NOS Ave+ unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+. How will the Director apply this regulation when NOS has done less than Ave+ but shows that they could well have done (much) more than Ave+ ???

 

"I give you Ave+, you must be satisfied with that!" ?

 

 

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

 

10.2 Damage in various ways

Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which does he adjust? If the non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick that one, ie the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.

Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders Ave+, and damage from unauthorised information. He should calculate what adjustment he would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is better. If so, he adjusts that way: if not, he gives them Ave+ for the fielded misbid.

[pran]

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

10.2 Damage in various ways

Suppose as in the last section there is apparently damage from both misinformation and unauthorised information, and the TD decides to adjust. Under which does he adjust? If the non-offending side would do better under one adjustment than the other, the TD should pick that one, ie the one that gives the non-offenders the better score.

Similarly, suppose there is a fielded misbid, which would give the non-offenders Ave+, and damage from unauthorised information. He should calculate what adjustment he would give from the unauthorised information, and then see whether that is better. If so, he adjusts that way: if not, he gives them Ave+ for the fielded misbid.

How does EBU WB 10.2 enter the Picture? Is there an implication that one cannot have a fielded misbid without at the same time having illegal use of UI? If that is the case (which I doubt) it should be explicitly mentioned in 6D2.

 

I am only concerned about 6D2 as such.

[jallerton]

WB 10.2 explains how to deal with two potential infractions on the same board. If there is a 'red' fielded misbid and there is also UI or MI, the TD adjusts for the UI/MI first.

 

If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders better than average plus, there is no further adjustment.

If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders worse than average plus, then assign Av+/AV- (with a standard PP if it was a psyche rather than a misbid).

[iviehoff]

Clearly partner has misbid or south has psyched. I think you're allowed to guess which.

A third possibility is that no one has misbid or psyched. We cannot say there are 17 spades in the pack on the basis of the apparent information, we can only say there are 14. Being one out is only a deviation not a complete mess-up. Who hasn't made a 6-card-suit bid with only 5 from time to time?

 

A fourth possibility is the S misbid.

 

So there are several possibilities and E has catered for the possibility that his partner has misbid.

 

Under the EBU regs catering is what is illegal, and the correct ruling was made. We can argue about whether the EBU reg is quite right in terms of the adjustment, but it seems to me to be a reasonable way of working out whether, on the balance of probabilities, an adjustable situation arose. Balance of probabilities will sometimes adjust against the innocent, but I think cases like this are sufficiently smelly that we adjust and acknowledge that a few innocents get taken in on on the way. Because the other way lies undue licence to take hints.

[gnasher]

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

 

But the EBU's rule is still unfair (as well as being illegal). Suppose that:

- With the table result the non-offenders scored 10%

- Without the MI but with the same auction the non-offenders would have scored 50%

- If the CPU had not been used, the non-offenders would have scored 80%.

 

Under the EBU's rules, as I understand it, the non-offenders would get only 60%, which is less than their expectation before the infraction. And the offenders have gained by their use of a CPU.

[gnasher]

Under the EBU regs catering is what is illegal, and the correct ruling was made.

 

The EBU regulations don't say anywhere that it's illegal to cater for partner's misbid or psych. All they say is that if you are deemed to have done so the score will be adjusted.

 

What's illegal under the EBU regulations, is having and using a CPU. They merely use the partner's actions as a (not vey good) proxy for the existence of a CPU.

[iviehoff]

The EBU regulations don't say anywhere that it's illegal to cater for partner's misbid or psych. All they say is that if you are deemed to have done so the score will be adjusted.

 

What's illegal under the EBU regulations, is having and using a CPU. They merely use the partner's actions as a (not vey good) proxy for the existence of a CPU.

Sorry, I meant to change that "illegal" to "adjustable".

[c_corgi]

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.

 

I think it is clear that a fielded misbid has occurred, but 6B8 implies that there needs to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding in order to adjust. It also suggests that the standard of evidence required is higher with misbids than with psyches. If partner forgets the meaning of 2S he is likely to think it shows the other two suits: this seems like GBK, so there is no reason to suspect an unauthorised understanding without further evidence. The 14th spade (from East's perspective) provides reason to doubt partner's memory (although not clear proof that a forget has occurred) and making a call which caters for all possibilities seems like a good plan. I would think this fielded misbid would be classified as amber or green, i.e. no score adjustment without further evidence.

[blackshoe]

I think it is clear that a fielded misbid has occurred, but 6B8 implies that there needs to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding in order to adjust. It also suggests that the standard of evidence required is higher with misbids than with psyches. If partner forgets the meaning of 2S he is likely to think it shows the other two suits: this seems like GBK, so there is no reason to suspect an unauthorised understanding without further evidence. The 14th spade (from East's perspective) provides reason to doubt partner's memory (although not clear proof that a forget has occurred) and making a call which caters for all possibilities seems like a good plan. I would think this fielded misbid would be classified as amber or green, i.e. no score adjustment without further evidence.

What, in your opinion, does "fielded" mean? Can a bid which does not describe the bidder's hand according to his partnership understandings be "fielded" without a CPU?

 

The regulation strikes me as a pretty convoluted way to provide TDs with some guidance as to how to apply the law on concealed partnership understandings. I'm not sure it does a good job at that.

[c_corgi]

What, in your opinion, does "fielded" mean? Can a bid which does not describe the bidder's hand according to his partnership understandings be "fielded" without a CPU?

 

My opinion is guided by this extract from 6B2: "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." AFAIK the equivalent definition would apply to misbids as psyches.

 

The fact that a fielded misbid can be "green" implies that the fielding could happen without a CPU.

 

 

The regulation strikes me as a pretty convoluted way to provide TDs with some guidance as to how to apply the law on concealed partnership understandings. I'm not sure it does a good job at that.

 

I am not a fan either.

[blackshoe]

My opinion is guided by this extract from 6B2: "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." AFAIK the equivalent definition would apply to misbids as psyches.

 

The fact that a fielded misbid can be "green" implies that the fielding could happen without a CPU.

Yes, it does. Which makes suspect the assertion I've heard that "fielding" is illegally allowing for a possible psych, deviation, or misbid. Unless "green" means "it wasn't fielded".

[gnasher]

I think that, in the EBU, "fielding" means "acting in a way that provides sufficient evidence to infer a CPU". That means that in the regulation

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.

we have to interpret "If so" as "If this evidence is sufficient".

 

I think that's the only sensible way to read it, given that we're also told that "some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding".

 

It's confusing that the rules sometimes use the colour-codes, sometimes speak of "understandings", and sometimes speak of "fielding". I think that the different nomenclatures can be translated like this:

Red = Your actions imply that you have a CPU = You fielded it.

Amber = Your actions suggest that you might have a CPU= You may have fielded it but we aren't sure.

Green = Your actions provide no evidence of a CPU = You didn't field it.

 

Let's hope the wording is improved in the next edition.