Fielded Misbid (or not)?

[jallerton]

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.

 

Unfortunately, Bluejak does not post to this forum very often these days, but I can report to you what I recall his view to be. The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place.

 

Thus "expectation before the infraction" would mean the expectation before the board has been started, on the assumption that the pair did not have the CPU. Winding back the auction to the beginning, we can say that now, in the general case, the possibile outcomes are numerous or not obvious.

[gnasher]

Unfortunately, Bluejak does not post to this forum very often these days, but I can report to you what I recall his view to be. The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place.

 

Thus "expectation before the infraction" would mean the expectation before the board has been started, on the assumption that the pair did not have the CPU. Winding back the auction to the beginning, we can say that now, in the general case, the possibile outcomes are numerous or not obvious.

Which Law is broken by having the CPU but not using it? Assume, for the sake of argument, that it's an understanding that wouldn't appear on a convention card.

[c_corgi]

... The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place...

 

If that is the case, does it mean that the same infraction will have been committed on every board in the session?

[jallerton]

Which Law is broken by having the CPU but not using it?

 

Law 40A1(b) would cover the most common misbids, such as forgotten two-suited overcalls and defences to 1NT.

 

Assume, for the sake of argument, that it's an understanding that wouldn't appear on a convention card.

 

I wonder why you suggested making that assumption!

 

By the way, Law 40A3 is relevant not only when a player makes a bid whose meaning has not been properly disclosed, but also when a player makes an alternative call, because then there is a CPU about the negative inferences available.

[blackshoe]

The fact that a player makes a particular call, or that the call does not conform to the stated PU, is not sufficient by itself to rule CPU.

 

It seems to me that the most common source of possible CPUs is partnership experience. Even then, you need more than one event to establish an implicit understanding.

 

What, exactly, should a system card cover? If a system card does not cover a particular agreement (because, perhaps, there's no place for it on the card), whose fault is the omission? Frankly, I'd lay it on the RA. Of course, if a pair deliberately misdescribe their agreements, or deliberately omit a particular agreement for which there is room on the card, that's on them. But if the problem is the design of the card, that's on the RA.

 

I think you're on slippery ground in your interpretation of Law 40A3.

[gnasher]

I wonder why you suggested making that assumption!

We're dealing with the general case, aren't we?

[Vampyr]

What, exactly, should a system card cover? If a system card does not cover a particular agreement (because, perhaps, there's no place for it on the card), whose fault is the omission? Frankly, I'd lay it on the RA.

 

Which RA? The ACBL card uses up a lot of space giving you check boxes for the things you don't play, but the entire back is left blank. The EBU and WBF cards give ample room to describe agreements at least as deep into the auction as in the OP case. The EBL (at least in my experience) use the WBF cards.

 

So a lot of the world is covered to my knowledge, and probably more still.

[blackshoe]

From the viewpoint of describing agreements, the EBU card is good, and the WBF card is better. The ACBL card is terrible. The ABF card is similar to the ACBL card, so probably also terrible (I haven't looked at it in a while). I"m not familiar with the cards of any other NBO, though I suspect some just use the WBF card.

 

The back of the ACBL card isn't blank - it contains a personal scorecard. If it was blank, at least you could write about your system on it. That you can't is one of the things that makes the card terrible.

 

Edit: I just took a look at the ABF card. It does have a few checkboxes on it, but it leaves room to describe meanings that don't fit the checkboxes. Also, it has a lot more room available than the ACBL card, because it uses both sides of the page. So I would upgrade it from "terrible" to "good".

Edited July 16, 2013 by blackshoe
added information

[Vampyr]

The back of the ACBL card isn't blank - it contains a personal scorecard. If it was blank, at least you could write about your system on it. That you can't is one of the things that makes the card terrible.

 

Oh, OK. I had assumed that most partnerships print out their cards rather than fill out a new one by hand every time.

 

I am working with one now, and it is terribly fiddly working with the bitmap, but at least I can remove checkboxes and names of methods I am not using. I suppose I won't bother to add anything on the back if no one ever does.

[barmar]

A CPU or illegal agreement that never actually comes up in practice seems to me like the tree that falls in the forest when there's no one to hear it. Is there any significant difference between having an agreement but never using it, and not having the agreement at all? The worst I can think of is that it might be mentioned when an opponent asks about bids available but not made, and confuse the opponents, but if it's a CPU it presumably wouldn't be mentioned.

 

But if you field a psyche or misbid, now that agreement has been exposed. The tree fell and there were some campers nearby, so it did make a sound.

[jallerton]

We're dealing with the general case, aren't we?

 

A general case could be summarised as:

 

Player A makes a call C holding hand type X.

Player B (A's partner) describes A's call C as showing hand type Y (where Y is completely different to X).

After making suitable enquiries, the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding to play call C as 2-way, showing either hand-type X or hand-type Y.

 

As I'm sure Andy will agree, two-way bids (such as a 3♣ overcall showing clubs OR spades and diamonds) are difficult to defend against.

 

As I'm sure Andy will also agree, two-way bids such as this should be shown in the "aspects of system opponents should note" section of the EBU20A/EBU20B convention card.

 

The EBU requires players to exchange convention cards with the opponents before the start of each round.

 

So if the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding, there will normally have been a breach of Law 40A1(b).

[gnasher]

A general case could be summarised as:

 

Player A makes a call C holding hand type X.

Player B (A's partner) describes A's call C as showing hand type Y (where Y is completely different to X).

After making suitable enquiries, the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding to play call C as 2-way, showing either hand-type X or hand-type Y.

Yes.

 

As I'm sure Andy will agree, two-way bids (such as a 3♣ overcall showing clubs OR spades and diamonds) are difficult to defend against.

 

As I'm sure Andy will also agree, two-way bids such as this should be shown in the "aspects of system opponents should note" section of the EBU20A/EBU20B convention card.

We seem to have moved from the general to the specific. Yes, in this example I would expect such the two-way overcall to be described on the convention card. But if it began

 

1♣-1♥

1NT-2♦*

2♠

 

where 2♦ was an artificial game-force, 2♠ had an artificial meaning but opener intended it as natural, and responder later catered for this misbid, we wouldn't expect the putative two-way meaning to appear on the convention card, would we?

 

The EBU requires players to exchange convention cards with the opponents before the start of each round.

 

So if the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding, there will normally have been a breach of Law 40A1(b).

If by "normally" you mean "often" or "usually", I agree. But, according to your earlier posts, the EBU's rule assumes that *all* fielded misbids involve a breach of Law 40A1(b).

 

In most cases the assumed CPU should have appeared on the convention card, but in some cases it should not. Hence we cannot apply a rule to all fielded misbids where the rule's legal basis is a failure to put the CPU on the card.

[campboy]

Is it not plausible to argue that "we have concealed partnership agreements" is an aspect of system that opponents should note?

[gnasher]

Is it not plausible to argue that "we have concealed partnership agreements" is an aspect of system that opponents should note?

It would be if it were true. But in my hypothetical situation, before the start of the auction, no agreement has been concealed.

[barmar]

Is it not plausible to argue that "we have concealed partnership agreements" is an aspect of system that opponents should note?

And lying Cretans should warn you that all Cretans are liars.

[nige1]

Bridge-Law discussions are like groundhog day. Everyday you wake up, choking in the same legal miasma and witness the same arguments. Ordinary players like me don't understand the laws or the arguments and become ever more alienated. Unfortunately, daft rules create intriguing work for directors so change seems unwelcome. Anyway, rule-makers have had decades to drain the swamp but it's a daunting task and they're unlikely to start doing anything for decades to come.

 

FWIW, here is an example to illustrate my half-baked opinions on this topic. A CPU is an undisclosed partnership understanding (explicit or implicit)

e.g. 3rd in hand, with less than 4 points, you pseudo-psych 1♥ and partner is aware of your habit. We could call this (illegal) convention the Herman ♥, for want of a better term :)

1. If you never in fact do it then, although you may be guilty of a theoretical infraction, IMO, it's a bit academic.
2. If you use your convention then, IMO, you have a CPU, even if partner always bids as if you had a genuine opener. Opponents could still be damaged, and you are both guilty of an infraction; but if you never admit it or boast about it, you won't be penalized, so again it's a bit academic.
3. If you use the convention, and partner sometimes adjusts his bidding to allow for it, then you have a fielded CPU. IMO (and some here would agree) there has been an infraction. In most jurisdictions, however, you are likely to get away with it. Even if the "psych" is recorded, opportunities are so rare that a pattern will be hard to establish. Just hard luck, however, If you play under EBU regulations (with its "balance of probability" "one Swallow can make a summer" rules) derided by so many here.
4. In the mean-time, in all jurisdictions, those who abide by the rules are handicapped.

Long-term solution: legalize all such treatments, provided they are declared. Or even simpler: scrap systems-regulation altogether (but don't hold your breath waiting for that).

[gnasher]

Ordinary players like me don't understand the laws or the arguments

But in this case you do understand both the laws and the arguments, as the rest of your post demonstrates.

[iviehoff]

FWIW, here is an example to illustrate my half-baked opinions on this topic. A CPU is an undisclosed partnership understanding (explicit or implicit)

e.g. 3rd in hand, with less than 4 points, you pseudo-psych 1♥ and partner is aware of your habit. We could call this (illegal) convention the Herman ♥, for want of a better term :)

You've chosen the easy case of someone clearly deliberately departing from their announced convention. This thread is about when they do it inadvertently or mistakenly, and partner has is apparently aware of their frailties, which is OK so long has he discloses them, and the two-way treatment is a legal convention. Which, to the extent that we have convention control, is OK because the opponents shouldn't hvae to deal with a two-way treatment because two-way treatments are hard to defend against.

 

Misbidding isn't illegal, but in terms of trying to decide whether the allowance for it was due to illegal undisclosed information or legal hunch, I'm OK with the idea of deciding it is the former if it looks like the former. After all, that is basically the approach of Law 23 as to whether advantageous irregularities were deliberate or inadvertent.

[barmar]

FWIW, here is an example to illustrate my half-baked opinions on this topic. A CPU is an undisclosed partnership understanding (explicit or implicit)

e.g. 3rd in hand, with less than 4 points, you pseudo-psych 1♥ and partner is aware of your habit. We could call this (illegal) convention the Herman ♥, for want of a better term :)

1. If you never in fact do it then, although you may be guilty of a theoretical infraction, IMO, it's a bit academic.

Don't you have a contradiction there. If you "never in fact do it then", how can partner be "aware of a habit"? Something you never do can hardly be considered a habit.

 

This sounds more like a case where you've discussed this possibility, and agreed that it should be part of your system (but don't disclose it to opponents), but every time a potential opportunity to use it comes up you wimp out.

[blackshoe]

Hm. So what's proper disclosure in that case Barmar? "We agreed to play it as two way, but partner never has the weaker option"? I suppose one could argue that having done this, opponents cannot have been damaged by your "illegal agreement", so the score adjustments of Law 40B4 or 40B5 do not apply. It seems to me you can still award a PP under 40B5, if the agreement is illegal. Of course, the players will argue that since they never bid 1♥ with the weaker option, they don't have an illegal agreement after all. Now what?

 

Some years ago, I had a partner who did not "get" Stayman. The first time we played together, we discussed our card, and I asked her, in discussing responses to 1NT, "Stayman?" She said yes. Then she opened 1NT, I bid 2♣, she bid 3♣. After the round, I said "2♣ was Stayman, asking if you have a four card major". She said "Oh, okay." Then she did it again. And again. Each time, I reminded her of our agreement, and she said "okay". So what actually was our agreement? To be honest, I don't think we had one. I would probably have simply stopped bidding 2♣ in response to 1NT, or agreed to play it as natural (which she would have had to alert, and who knows if she'd remember that?) but she quit playing soon after we started — she said she didn't want to put up with all the rudeness at the table.

[nige1]

Don't you have a contradiction there. If you "never in fact do it then", how can partner be "aware of a habit"? Something you never do can hardly be considered a habit.

 

This sounds more like a case where you've discussed this possibility, and agreed that it should be part of your system (but don't disclose it to opponents), but every time a potential opportunity to use it comes up you wimp out.

Yes that's what I meant. I was trying to distinguish

• you never using the CPU from
• partner never fielding it.

If you use it but partner never allows for it, then IMO there's still an infraction.

[blackshoe]

In "fielding" cases the infraction is "failure to disclose a partnership understanding" (Law 40B4) or "use of an illegal convention" (Law 40B5). "Fielding" is not in itself an infraction of law, it is evidence of an infraction of law. Actually, after just reading OB 6B again, it seems to me "fielding" only applies in cases where the violation is "use of an illegal convention".

 

Having, for example "1♥: 5+ ♥, (9)12+ HCP or 0-3 ♥, 0-8 HCP" or some such on your card is also evidence of an illegal agreement. In this case you don't need "fielding" to rule on it. But suppose that "0-3 ♥, 0-8 HCP were a legal agreement, and it were also legal to combine it with a "normal" opening. So the agreement is not illegal, but it may not have been disclosed properly. I don't see how there can be "fielding" if the agreement is legal (and the infraction is of Law 40B4).

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me very simple to construct scenarios where a pair can get an advantage by using an illegal agreement without that agreement coming up. Take for example a system that uses transfer openings. 1♦ showing hearts and 1♥ showing spades are legal for the RA but 1♠ showing clubs is not. The pair open 1♦ and proceed to have a relay auction to the top spot where the extra step is vital, or where the contract gets right-sided. Is this ok providing the 1♠ opening did not turn up in the round? in the session? in the event?

 

Similarly, perhaps my partner and I invent a system which is fully legal apart from one rare call, say a 1♠ fert. We calculate that the system gains us 0.5 IMP per board for 95% of boards so we are happy to accept a 3 IMP penalty on the 5% of times when the illegal agreement comes up. Any problems with this? It is legal providing the 1♠ bid is not made?

 

I am sure other posters could construct many other examples of the negative inferences from an illegal agreement providing an advantage without the bid itself being made.

 

Incidentally, one sometimes sees a comment about psyches on expert-level CCs. For example "Psyches: third seat openings" or the like. This one always seems a little strange, since it is not a psyche if it is an agreement but the psyches listed may potentially be illegal as agreements in some jurisdictions where the pairs play.

[Cascade]

Yes you are not entitled to deliberately infract laws because you are willing to pay a penalty

[Zelandakh]

So which law are you saying they infracted? 40A1b? 40B2A? It may be an SB argument but it says that you may not infringe a law, not that you may not infringe a regulation.