BBO Discussion Forums: Fielded misbids in the EBU - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Fielded misbids in the EBU

#61 User is offline   StevenG 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 269
  • Joined: 2009-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford, England

Posted 2012-August-07, 09:40

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.
0

#62 User is offline   aguahombre 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,758
  • Joined: 2009-February-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. George, UT

Posted 2012-August-07, 10:17

View PostStevenG, on 2012-August-07, 09:40, said:

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.

"On Point", IMHO, (and subject to ruling) would be maybe if we excluded the wrong suit by accident; and partner's response coincidentally excluded the suit we really intended her to exclude.

"On Point" might also be a perfectly legal (IMHO) deviation from prior agreements which is worked out by partner via logic. The first time this happened with exclusion, I was really jazzed:

Exclusion was always a jump to five of the void suit, until:

1S-4H (Splinter)
4S-4N

Partner held AXXXX V KQX AKXXX. She could have set trumps and then Wooded differently, so why did she splinter? An exclusion 5H bid and the response would have gobbled up too much room and not allowed her to find out about the club queen or doubleton ---so, she made up the splinter sequence for the heart exclusion instead.

Certainly others had done this before, but we hadn't --and it was fun to figure it out. It was many years ago. This isn't a boast, either, Steven :rolleyes:
"Bidding Spades to show spades can work well." (Kenberg)
0

#63 User is offline   iviehoff 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,165
  • Joined: 2009-July-15

Posted 2012-August-07, 10:34

View Postbluejak, on 2012-August-06, 10:50, said:

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

This could be a CPU in the appropriate circumstances, the circumstances that make this a reasonable comparison to the fielded misbid.

Suppose the ops ask about the auction and you say nothing about the ExKCB. The ops then complain to the director when they see your hands, as they think they misplayed the defence in consequence.

What should the director rule if
(1) You point to it on your system card (or claim to have agreed to play it verbally). You produce some lame excuse for not explaining it, you thought they had indicated they had heard enough explanations or something.
(2) You claim that you have never discussed it, never bid it before together, but just successfully intuited the intention of the bids, maybe giving some plausibility by asserting that everyone in this room who has their head properly attached plays it, so it's obvious. You argue (perhaps implicitly) that it is therefore not disclosable as there is no agreement, it was just general bridge knowledge.

I think in case (1) it is fairly clear that one rules misinformation. Failing to disclose it was incompetence, not deviousness, however lame the excuse.

Situation (2) is like the fielded misbid. This is just what I previously called Unlawful Telepathy. You did manage to communicate and had no intention of disclosing it. It isn't general bridge knowledge that such a bid is ExKCB, it is specific bridge knowledge not necessarily available to the opponents that your partner is likely to bid like that.
1

#64 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

Posted 2012-August-11, 17:48

View PostStevenG, on 2012-August-07, 09:40, said:

I must assume that Bluejak isn't boasting about having used a CPU to bid a grand slam. In which case, I don't understand his point.

We have an agreement to play Exclusion. Why you assume we do not tell anyone about it is beyond me. What do you want me to do, scan my System Card and show you? It has happened one time as far as a pair is concerned - in fact it may be the first time we have seen it, I am not sure, but if we have bid it before then we did not get to a grand. So we have an agreement, and the evidence seems to be one hand.

If a player apparently fields a misbid, the Director will see the one hand. The presumption they cannot have an agreement because the Director only sees one hand is flawed, for the same reason as our Exclusion bid: one occasion is evidence of something, and you cannot prove there is no agreement because you have not seen another case.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#65 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 11,652
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-August-11, 21:50

View Postbluejak, on 2012-August-11, 17:48, said:

We have an agreement to play Exclusion. Why you assume we do not tell anyone about it is beyond me.

He said you "aren't boasting about using a CPU". Why do you think he assumes you do not tell anyone?

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users