[bluejak]

It is hardly my place to teach bridge. Let me merely say that, in my opinion for whatever that is worth, not jumping will lose you a lot of points because you make life so easy for opponents. It is equivalent to not opening at the three level because you have not got opening bid values.

[jdonn]

At the very least we should be able to agree from the last few posts that south failing to jump should not be considered unusual enough to arouse suspicion, and should not be considered very strong evidence (or evidence at all?) that he didn't disclose a propensity of his partner to forget this agreement.

However, not competing to 3♥ on the following round could possibly be looked at with a more critical eye...

[McBruce]

Perhaps I have misled posters here with the title of the topic. South, a fairly good player, claimed that he did not assume a mistake, but judged not to compete to 3♥ -- it was only the West player who made that claim.

I think that ruling that someone has a CPU is a pretty serious step to take, and if there is any reason to assume otherwise, we should. Here I felt South had several reasons not to compete to 3♥, most of which he pointed out to me when I asked why he passed:

--absolute minimum values for the 15-17 1NT opener including probable wasted values in hearts, and three losers in a suit bid by one opponent but rejected by the other (so partner is unlikely to be short)

--opponents up a level to prefer first suit, which often spells trouble

--trump tricks in the opponent's suit (why risk the three level at IMPs if you have a good chance to go plus anyhow?)

As I've said before, if partner has 3=5=2=3 and four jacks, a poor hand for this action but possible, 3♥ could go for as much as 300.

You can certainly disagree with the judgment, but you can't legislate good judgment!

[campboy]

We are not ruling that there is a CPU, we are ruling that there is a sufficiently strong possibility of a CPU to justify adjusting the score.

I agree with jdonn that it is the failure to bid 3♥ at the second opportunity that is the problem. Had the player merely failed to break a transfer I would not adjust the score.

[aguahombre]

Yes, I never contended that South should jump to 3H while accepting the transfer. It is only his failure to bid 3H later that no statement of judgement by a good player can justify.

[bluejak]

If partner has four jacks, then he has bid freely with this hand - is that likely? The opponents may easily have 4♠ on, but anyway, they are making a part score. Not bidding 3♥ here in competition is a very poor bid for a good player.

As a generality, you must not start making rulings based on being scared to follow judgement. The Laws never require you to do anything more than adjust in these cases: you make no accusation. Of course you will get some people who will argue but you have to rule properly as a TD.

[jdonn]

In general I really fear that directors use their bridge judgment to make rulings against someone who may be a better player. I mean if north forgot the agreement and south really thought passing was right throughout then he has done nothing illegal and nothing wrong at all, and yet we are adjusting because a worse player thinks his bridge actions show he did something wrong. Or it could work the other way, south might be so bad that he honestly applied bad judgment but the director who is a better player thinks his judgment isn't likely to be that bad. That is a problem either way.

[aguahombre]

Josh has a valid point. I just don't think it applies to this hand with five card support for the alleged transfer suit, no matter what South says. No accusation, of course ---just fry him anyway

but I share the concern about TD's being put in a position where they substitute their bridge judgement for that of the actual contestants.

[Siegmund]

This is one of the things that scares me about EBU bridge (and I admit, maybe it's just fear of the unknown, since I've not played over there.)

To me, this looks like a completely routine, obvious-to-everyone-concerned, general-bridge-knowledge situation where transfers may or may not really be on. I am quite aghast that anywhere would have a regulation to make this an automatic penalty. Twelve or thirteen years of reading about "fielding" as defined across the pond, misbids and psychs, has not helped me grow a stomach for how it is handled.

No adjustment and a warning to West to mind his manners IMO. The agreement was correctly disclosed and a player took a view.

[hotShot]

campboy, on Jan 22 2010, 01:24 AM, said:

Only if he is using the knowledge that partner's bidding is less reliable than the opponents'. It is pretty pointless making complicated deductions about opponents' distribution from their auction while refusing to make the very simple deduction that partner has 5 hearts from the fact that he has transferred to hearts.

Sometimes when I feel that something is wrong with the bidding, I find it hard to explain it in simple reasoning.
So let me rephrase:

I trust my partner to have 5♥, so we have a 10 card fit.
The LOTT tells me that opps must have one long fit or fit in 2 suits.
West bidding showing 2 suits is consistent with that, but Easts bidding is not.
East did not raise ♣, to show a long ♣ suit.
East did not dbl the art. 2♦ to show long ♦s, which would make sense since Wests 2nd suit could be ♦.
East corrected Wests 2♠ bid to 3♣, so there is no ♠ fit.
Where is their long fit or double fit?
Something strange is going on.

[lamford]

jdonn, on Jan 22 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

In general I really fear that directors use their bridge judgment to make rulings against someone who may be a better player. I mean if north forgot the agreement and south really thought passing was right throughout then he has done nothing illegal and nothing wrong at all, and yet we are adjusting because a worse player thinks his bridge actions show he did something wrong.

Indeed there are quite a few very strong players whom I polled who regard bidding 3H on the first round as wrong. When the opponents have spades, it is foolhardy to tell West, who is looking at three small hearts that his partner has a singleton or void.

As a Bridge World poll once stated about a similar sort of problem, "the only pair who know how big a heart fit they have are the opponents, but sadly they are not on our side."

However, when the opponents subside in 3C, I would go on to 3H, but South presented reasons why he did not; now he could have been telling porkies, and in reality he suspected his partner had forgotten, but this does not seem to be the opinion of the OP, so I would not adjust for a fielded misbid.

[campboy]

HotShot - yes, you can deduce that something strange is going on. But since you "trust partner", evidently it is opponents' bidding which is strange. Perhaps East was concealing a good club fit, knowing he would get another chance to bid after the transfer was completed.

[bluejak]

It all seems strange to me. What you are saying - and all seem agreed on - is that West [or East] is more likely to bid 3♠ if you bid 3♥ immediately than to bid 2♠ if you bid 2♥.

Ok, I just do not believe it. If I had the West hand, for example, I am always bidding 2♠ over 2♥: I shall consider whether to overbid with 3♠ over 3♥. Why should I bid partner's hand for him? Can he not see his void heart?

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 23 2010, 10:58 AM, said:

It all seems strange to me.  What you are saying - and all seem agreed on - is that West [or East] is more likely to bid 3♠ if you bid 3♥ immediately than to bid 2♠ if you bid 2♥.

Ok, I just do not believe it.  If I had the West hand, for example, I am always bidding 2♠ over 2♥: I shall consider whether to overbid with 3♠ over 3♥.  Why should I bid partner's hand for him?  Can he not see his void heart?

if East were looking at a heart void, he would worry that his partner's "higher" suit referred to in the OP was hearts, as he has not heard South jump to 3♥. He may also be uncertain whether double says "pass if your higher suit is hearts; else bid it". If South jumps to 3♥, that doubt is removed from the opponents.

But the main principle should be that there is absolutely no right of the TD to decide what South should bid on this hand, and the benchmarks for fielded misbid should be similar to fielded psyche. These are not set down, but I suggest that if just bidding 2♥ is an LA, then when South selects this, it does not provide any evidence of a fielded misbid; at the very most I would consider it amber, which I believe is available for fielded misbids as well as fielded psyches in the UK.

[campboy]

Amber is certainly reasonable here.

[bluejak]

I am surprised at this approach:

lamford said:

But the main principle should be that there is absolutely no right of the TD to decide what South should bid on this hand

Ok, Paul, it's a view, but not in accord with TDs or TOs anywhere. TDs are required to make judgement decisions, whether to do with psyches, misbids, BITs, calls after MI, and so on. And what TDs do is to decide what would or might have happened, and, sorry Paul, they have an absolute right to do their job properly as they see it.

[lamford]

bluejak, on Jan 23 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

And what TDs do is to decide what would or might have happened, and, sorry Paul, they have an absolute right to do their job properly as they see it.

I totally agree with that; but that does not include imposing their view of the best bid on South in flagrant contradiction of the wording of 40A3:

<snip>. 3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.

We were told by the OP that the methods were system on after an overcall of 2C. We were told by the OP that South knew this and elected not to bid 3H. You are regularly exhorting us to stick to the facts as presented. It seems a case of "do as I say, not do as I do."

And the general view on BLML from the non-English TDs is that the EBU interpretation of the fielded misbid is at best marginal and at worst illegal. No doubt you will reply, "who cares?"

[campboy]

I was under the impression that those who think the EBU psyche/misbid regulation is illegal were not arguing that it is wrong to adjust for fielded misbids, merely that it was wrong to give an artificial adjusted score. But perhaps we are thinking of different discussions.

[RMB1]

lamford, on Jan 24 2010, 12:06 AM, said:

And the general view on BLML from the non-English TDs is that the EBU interpretation of the fielded misbid is at best marginal and at worst illegal. No doubt you will reply, "who cares?"

Out of interest: are there any EBU TDs left on BLML?

I don't think fielded misbid should apply when it is general knowledge that partner may forget (as in this case). If opener wants to weigh the risk that partner has diamonds (not hearts) against the gain from competing to 3H, then he should be free to do so.

I don't think fielded misbid should apply when the implicit partnership understanding that is being "concealed" (e.g. that partner forgets) would be a legal agreement were it explicit. In this case, it is legal to play 1NT(2C)2D = D or H, so there should be no adjustment for a fielded misbid but there may be an adjustment for misinformation.

Robin (an English TD)

[lamford]

RMB1, on Jan 23 2010, 07:44 PM, said:

Out of interest: are there any EBU TDs left on BLML?

I don't think fielded misbid should apply when it is general knowledge that partner may forget (as in this case).  If opener wants to weigh the risk that partner has diamonds (not hearts) against the gain from competing to 3H, then he should be free to do so.

I don't think fielded misbid should apply when the implicit partnership understanding that is being "concealed" (e.g. that partner forgets) would be a legal agreement were it explicit.  In this case, it is legal to play 1NT(2C)2D = D or H, so there should be no adjustment for a fielded misbid but there may be an adjustment for misinformation. 

Robin (an English TD)

On your first point, very few, as it has become more and more esoteric.

I agree with your second point, but South's replies to the TD indicated that this was not part of his thinking.

The MI question is interesting; people often answer something like "Lebensohl, but partner might have forgotten". I don't think think this can be MI. I was under the impression that the player should answer what the methods were, though I can accept that fuller description is needed.

On two occasions I have psyched with my regular partner 2D(weak) - Double - 2S (ostensibly fit, seeking a spade lead). On the third occasion this occurred (this time I had the bid), my partner referred to the previous two psyches to reveal a potential implicit understanding. If my partner had not supported spades when she should, I would expect an adjustment and PP against her (but I recall we had very few spades between us!). This is what I would regard as evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding.

But, our actual hand is different. Your post reinforces the views of many that South is absolutely entitled to guess that North has forgotten.