Ghestem Muddle

[VixTD]

I'm surprised you weren't more scathing about the rules here, in particular the fact that EBU seems to allow fielding in absence of proven UI.

The EBU used to apply a fixed penalty of 60%/40% for fielded misbids that got the offenders a better score than 40%. They changed this a few years ago to bring English practice into line with other jurisdictions (and more into line with the laws), so I don't think it's fair to portray the EBU as being out on a limb in their handling of fielded misbids.

[pescetom]

The EBU used to apply a fixed penalty of 60%/40% for fielded misbids that got the offenders a better score than 40%. They changed this a few years ago to bring English practice into line with other jurisdictions (and more into line with the laws), so I don't think it's fair to portray the EBU as being out on a limb in their handling of fielded misbids.

 

Fair enough. I mentioned the EBU to avoid somebody pointing out that it was their regulations in action here, not because I doubted their motivations or judgement. It's not the RA's job to improve the laws, but maybe the WBF should. I would certainly be happier with the old penalty.

[weejonnie]

The EBU have a lot to say on fielding - but in general if you alert the bid and add 'but partner has forgotton in the past' then you are OK. If you suspect from partnership knowledge that partner may forget and don't say then you could be penalised for playing an illegal convention. You can field if you can tell from your own hand that partner has misbid e.g. shows 3 Aces when you hold 2. In this case the diamonds in the North hand suggest that South has mis-bid: but if they are a regular pair then the call should have been alerted. I would hope the explanation is

 

"Systematically shows the red suits but partner has beeen known to forget. We have previously played 3♣ as a strong jump overcall (if that is what has happened in the past)."

 

Obviously the spectre of UI still lurks.