[barmar]

sfi, on 2011-October-26, 18:21, said:

I'm just saying that everyone is jumping to the UI conclusion without actual evidence. I'm not arguing that a pass of 3♦ is a good gambit on this hand.

And I'm arguing that it seems like such a bad gambit that no reasonable player would consider it, so the only possibilities remaining involve an irregularity of some kind.

[blackshoe]

'E's bound to be guilty,
Or 'E wouldn't be here!
Shooting's too good for 'im,
Kick the louse out!
--- Royal Navy Sea chantey used to time gun salutes, ca. 17th/18th Century

[VixTD]

bluejak, on 2011-October-27, 07:36, said:

While later in the auction people may get alerts wrong, it is very very rare for people not to alert artificial openings here, apart from a Gambling 3NT opening which many people do not realise is artificial. This is especially the case for a two of a suit opening, which is always alertable or announceable.

It's fairly common for club players to announce a Benji 2♦ opener as "strong" when they should be alerting it. If that's what happened, it might explain North's explanation (though not his bidding).

[bluejak]

The legal basis for split scores is that there are several positions where you do not give each side the same adjustment. But feeling that someone who has done nothing wrong has been given too great a score is not one of them.

Quote

Law 12B2: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

So the TD is not allowed by Law to not give an adjustment based on it being too advantageous.

The main times for a split score are:

Law 12C1B: if the non-offenders commit SEWoG they lose part of their redress.

Law 12C1E: if an adjustment is given under this Law [which is really only in the ACBL] then the standards for the two sides are different so the adjustments may be different.

Law 12C2A: if an artificial adjusted score is given then the TD may give unbalanced scores, for example he will give Ave-/Ave- if he considers both sides at fault, or he may give Ave+/Ave+ if neither side is at fault - for example if another table caused the problem.

Law 82C: if a TD makes an error, and later adjusts under this Law, he treats both sides as non-offending so the adjustments will often differ.

[ggwhiz]

Still some interesting issues. Intersting to me because I don't know the answers.

Can you really enforce a 4♠ bid (and a double passed out)? That bid was not made and the transgression was of a different sort, failure to disclose and likely deliberate? Or at least "could have known" it would cause harm to the opps.

Any thought of this being a tactical maneuver doesn't wash but arriving at a conclusion is far from easy.

[FrancesHinden]

The only way you get to 4Sx NS is if you decide that (i) 3D was systemically natural (so there was MI), (ii) West would double a natural 3D and (iii) North would still believe that 3D showed the majors, and would bid 4S over a double from West.

I think this is all a bit of a stretch.

I agree with other people that I don't see how to rule unless we can ask North why he passed 3D.
I do find West's pass of a game forcing bid very odd. Surely this is close to a WoG action? Partner has promised game forcing values, why do you pass him out below game?

[Trinidad]

ggwhiz, on 2011-October-28, 22:20, said:

Can you really enforce a 4♠ bid (and a double passed out)? That bid was not made and the transgression was of a different sort, failure to disclose and likely deliberate?

You can "enforce" a 4♠ bid if you rule that North had Unauthorized Information (from South's body language when North explained). A 4♠ bid is certainly a logical alternative, as long as you believe that South has shown the majors. (In fact, I see it as the only alternative.)

If you would believe that South had shown the majors, would you run from 4♠ doubled?

Rik

[bluejak]

When I first looked at the hand I overlooked North's pass of 3♦. A great example of why TDs must always consult on judgement rulings: it is easy to overlook things.

I was not there so I cannot tell you what went through North’s mind. But the most likely thing in my view is that he either changed his mind or was not sure and did not say so. MI in both cases.

The thing I really wondered about is whether the pass in a GF auction was SEWoG.

[lamford]

Do we know what the actual N/S agreement for 3♦ was? [I see reading through we do not, but bluejak's guesses on what happened look very plausible].

And is West's pass a serious error, or wild or gambling? And how does one decide which of those it is, as it seems related to the infraction of the MI, so it is important to decide? And what is the logic of a wild or gambling bid related to the infraction being punished but a serious error related to the infraction being exempt?

[blackshoe]

I think the theory is that one would not make the serious error if one didn't have the MI.

[gnasher]

I'm puzzled by most of the opinions expressed above. It seems to me that the discussions of UI and MI are irrelevant.

On the face of it, South has misbid. This was in the EBU. The EBU regulates actions opposite a misbid in almost the same way as it regulates actions opposite a psyche. The first thing we do is to consider whether North's actions appeared to cater for a misbid. We don't have to show the existence of UI or of an implicit agreement, and we don't have to consider North's intent - the regulations tell us just to look at what North actually did. North's pass is a clearcut "Red" field of the misbid, so I award 60-40.

I may not like this regulation, but in this case it has the merit of being easy to apply.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 02:24, said:

North's pass is a clearcut "Red" field of the misbid, so I award 60-40.

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-02, 03:28, said:

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

Yes, but red misbids are scored 60-40, according to my reading of the regulations.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-02, 03:28, said:

Aren't red psyches scored 60-30?

Yes, but in the EBU it is 60-40 for a red fielded misbid and 60-30 for a red fielded psyche. I think it very unlikely that South psyched 3D showing both majors. I also think it unlikely that 3D showed both majors, but that is a separate issue.

"WB 90.4.2: In the case of a fielded psyche there is a further penalty to the offending side of at least the standard amount."

I see gnasher has made the same point, while I was typing.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 03:44, said:

Yes, but red misbids are scored 60-40, according to my reading of the regulations.

Oh, sorry. I didn't look it up, just assumed that it would be the same as for psyches.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 02:24, said:

I'm puzzled by most of the opinions expressed above. It seems to me that the discussions of UI and MI are irrelevant.

On the face of it, South has misbid. ...

I did consider a fielded misbid when replying originally. That is why we needed to ask South why he bid 3♦ and ask North why he passed. I expected that NS did not have an agreement that 3♦ showed the majors; and that South had not misbid. In my opinion there needs to be an agreement on the meaning of a call for there to be a misbid (and a fielded misbid).

[mjj29]

lamford, on 2011-November-02, 03:45, said:

Yes, but in the EBU it is 60-40 for a red fielded misbid and 60-30 for a red fielded psyche. I think it very unlikely that South psyched 3D showing both majors. I also think it unlikely that 3D showed both majors, but that is a separate issue.

Technically it's 60-40 and a standard PP in whatever the final form of scoring is (the OP didn't say), which is only the same as 60-30 at matchpoints.

Close enough though (-:

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2011-November-02, 06:25, said:

I did consider a fielded misbid when replying originally. That is why we needed to ask South why he bid 3♦ and ask North why he passed. I expected that NS did not have an agreement that 3♦ showed the majors; and that South had not misbid. In my opinion there needs to be an agreement on the meaning of a call for there to be a misbid (and a fielded misbid).

So, as I understand it:
- If North and South both say that the agreement is "majors", you will rule that North has fielded a misbid. That is, you will rule that they have a concealed partnership agreement, in breach of Law 40.
- If North and South both say that the agreement is "natural", you will rule that North has not fielded a misbid. However, North has still concealed the partnership agreement, and is still in breach of Law 40.

North's offence, and the consequences thereof, are the same in both cases. Why, therefore, would your ruling be different?

[Edited to correct a fairly crucial typo.]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-November-02, 08:26

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 07:35, said:

- If North and South both say that the agreement is "natural", you will rule that North has not fielded a misbid. However, North has still concealed the partnership agreement, and is still in breach of Law 40.

I don't think that North on his own can have a concealed partnership agreement. If North says "majors" but the agreement is "natural" and North bids as if it is "majors" then North has concealed the agreement but South has not misbid. North has changed his mind (for a number of reasons: he had another think, looked at his hand, received UI from partner) and should have called the TD and changed his explanation. But he is (apparently) guilty of misexplanation and there is no automatic penalty for misexplanation, we just rule on the basis of damage to the non-offending side.

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 07:35, said:

North's offence, and the consequences thereof, are the same in both cases. Why, therefore, would your ruling be different?

Because the regulation talks about fielded misbids: there has to be a misbid for there to be an automatic penalty.

As I understand it, there has to be some apparent conspiracy between both members of the partnership to bid one way and explain it another way for there to be a fielded misbid ruling. If the bidder thought he was bidding according to partnership agreements (and those agreements are permitted) then it can not be "fielded". It can be deliberately misexplained and perhaps there should be an automatic penalty for that.

gnasher, on 2011-November-02, 07:35, said:

[Edited to correct a fairly crucial typo.]

Thanks. Otherwise my reply would have been longer and confused.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-November-01, 09:17, said:

And is West's pass a serious error, or wild or gambling? And how does one decide which of those it is, as it seems related to the infraction of the MI, so it is important to decide? And what is the logic of a wild or gambling bid related to the infraction being punished but a serious error related to the infraction being exempt?

I would think that a wild or gambling action is in some sense wilful, that the player knows that it is off-centre (though he might disagree with the TD over how far off-centre it is). An error, on the other hand, is committed by mistake. I am not really sure of the difference between wild and gambling. (I'm reminded of these two comics.)

So here a player knowingly passed the GF bid and I consider that wild and gambling. If the auction had been different and he had passed a GF bid because he didn't realise it was forcing then that would be an error; usually when this happens in an MI case it is related to the infraction because the player would have been on firmer ground with the correct explanation.

The logic of only the serious error needing to be unrelated, then, is presumably that it is wrong to blame a player for getting a decision wrong that he should never have had to make, but if a player chooses to gamble then he should be prepared to take the consequences if it backfires.