[Bbradley62]

I'm hoping for some clarification of some statements in another thread, but I dind't want to hijack it, so I'm starting this new one.

bluejak, on 2011-May-19, 08:53, said:

... despite the breach of Law 40A3, fielded misbids do not seem to be treated as illegal outside the British Isles.

blackshoe, on 2011-May-19, 13:11, said:

David is using "field" in the sense of "illegally accounting for the possibility". IOW, fielding occurs when there is sufficient partnership experience that a particular "misbid" of a stated agreement implicitly creates a new agreement...

My partner and I play Reverse Drury, which she occassionally forgets. It happens often enough (maybe one in 15 times that one or the other of us opens 1M in third seat) that I can't help but keep track of two auctions: the one we're having according to our agreement and the one she thinks we're having if she's forgotten. (I don't think I've ever seen her remember mid-auction about Reverse Drury.)

I wouldn't presume she's forgotten, but I when choosing from logical alternatives, I might choose the one that allows for the possibility. For example, if our auction is p-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥, I might choose to bid 3N to give her a choice of games on hands where I'd probably bid 4♠ if I were sure she remembered RD. Are you saying that I'm not allowed to do this? Am I supposed to include "but sometimes she forgets" in my explanations to opponents? (That would stink in f2f bridge.)

[CSGibson]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-19, 16:45, said:

Am I supposed to include "but sometimes she forgets" in my explanations to opponents? (That would stink in f2f bridge.)

This: Your opponents are entitled to the same information you have, if you feel like she forgets often enough that your bidding changes to accomodate that possibility, then you should definitely alert your opponents to that fact.

[mjj29]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-19, 16:45, said:

I wouldn't presume she's forgotten, but I when choosing from logical alternatives, I might choose the one that allows for the possibility. For example, if our auction is p-1♠-2♣-2♦-2♥, I might choose to bid 3N to give her a choice of games on hands where I'd probably bid 4♠ if I were sure she remembered RD. Are you saying that I'm not allowed to do this? Am I supposed to include "but sometimes she forgets" in my explanations to opponents? (That would stink in f2f bridge.)

I'd say this is definitely not allowed.

When dealing with 'she sometimes forgets', you have three options, either you treat the fact that she might have forgotten as UI, in which case you can't select an action to cater for it, or you include it in your description of the system (although that might lead to an illegal agreement), or you play something else (-:

In the EBU there is a regulation covering misbids where partner has taken an action to cater for them, as there is with psychs which have been catered for. We call these "fielded" misbids. In fact, the assesment (green/amber/red) and rectification is the same, except that a red (the category which gets an adjustment) psych also has a mandatory PP, which a red misbid does not.

The ideal situation is that your partner doesn't forget your system. If she is doing so consistently in the same fashion then you have to judge I think whether it's infrequent enough that you can just treat that knowledge as UI, or change the system (even if it's 'sometimes natural, sometimes drury' - assuming that's a legal agreement in your jurisdiction)

[Blue Uriah]

So let's say you're deep into a competitive auction and partner has bid 4♣. You have a bit of a think about it and come to the conclusion that it's a control bid making a slam try in spades. You're 100% sure about this given everything you know about the system and past partnership discussions and so on but there's a chance that partner isn't on the same wavelength and thinks it's lead-directing in case you end up on defence. You have a marginal hand that maybe should cooperate in a slam auction but you decide to play it safe and sign off in 4♠.

So have you done anything wrong? You're taking into account the possibility of partner misbidding and continuing the slam auction is definitely a logical alternative. If not, why is it different to the Drury scenario?

[campboy]

In the 4♣ case, what would you say to opponents if asked? If it would be something along the lines of "no explicit agreement, but based on agreements in other situations it's likely to be X" then I don't think there is a problem. This sort of explanation comes up all the time.

[gnasher]

Blue Uriah, on 2011-May-20, 04:20, said:

So let's say you're deep into a competitive auction and partner has bid 4♣. You have a bit of a think about it and come to the conclusion that it's a control bid making a slam try in spades. You're 100% sure about this given everything you know about the system and past partnership discussions and so on but there's a chance that partner isn't on the same wavelength and thinks it's lead-directing in case you end up on defence. You have a marginal hand that maybe should cooperate in a slam auction but you decide to play it safe and sign off in 4♠.

So have you done anything wrong? You're taking into account the possibility of partner misbidding and continuing the slam auction is definitely a logical alternative. If not, why is it different to the Drury scenario?

Notwithstanding the EBU's approach, the Laws allow you to bid whatever you want to. There are, however, two things that the partnership can't do:
- Fail to disclose its agreements properly. If 4♣ is systemically a cue-bid but possibly intended as lead-directing, you should describe it as "systemically a cue-bid but possibly intended as lead-directing". Likewise, if a 2♣ bid is systemically Drury but possibly intended as natural, opener should describe it as such.
- Play an illegal method. If it's illegal to play 4♣ as two-way - either a cue-bid or a suit - your partnership is breaking the rules, regardless of how you choose to act in reply. Similarly, if it's illegal to play 2♣ as two-way, the OP's partnership is breaking the rules, regardless of what opener chooses to bid.

As I understand it, in both situations the EBU has decided that if you appear to cater for a misbid you will be deemed to have an agreement to play the bid as two-way. If you fail to disclose that presumed agreement, they declare the board unplayable and give you an artificial bad score. If you have disclosed that agreement and it's not illegal to have it, you can't be penalised. Somebody else may be able to explain why the EBU think this procedure is legal.

In practice there seems to be a corollary: if a partnership often forgets its agreements but never caters for the possibility, the partnership is unlikely to be penalised for failing to disclose the implicit agremeent, even though they are no less guilty than a partnership that fields the misbid.

[Blue Uriah]

campboy, on 2011-May-20, 04:36, said:

In the 4♣ case, what would you say to opponents if asked? If it would be something along the lines of "no explicit agreement, but based on agreements in other situations it's likely to be X" then I don't think there is a problem. This sort of explanation comes up all the time.

Well, in my hypothetical scenario you "know" that 4♣ is, according to the system, a slam try so you say as much. You can't say that partner is prone to forgetting this bid because it's never come up before. You could say that this is a difficult auction and partner is not quite as comfortable with such things as you are and that perhaps he thinks it's something else but is that appropriate? Is one's level of bridge skill authorised information?

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-19, 16:45, said:

Am I supposed to include "but sometimes she forgets" in my explanations to opponents?

Yes, that will do.

Bbradley62, on 2011-May-19, 16:45, said:

(That would stink in f2f bridge.)

Why? Do your opponents not like you to play an ethical game?

gnasher, on 2011-May-20, 05:18, said:

Notwithstanding the EBU's approach, the Laws allow you to bid whatever you want to.

Law 40A3 makes it quite clear this is not true: read the bit after "provided".

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 06:41, said:

Law 40A3 makes it quite clear this is not true: read the bit after "provided".

OK, I should have said that a partnership that otherwise obeys the rules can bid what it likes. It's true that a partnership that fails to disclose its agreements and then bids according to the agreements is breaking two rules, whereas a partnership that merely fails to disclose its agreements is breaking only one.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 06:41, said:

Quote

Am I supposed to include "but sometimes she forgets" in my explanations to opponents?

Yes, that will do.

But still you have to assume that partner's bid is Drury and not allow for other possibilities. Perhaps a few bad results will aid partner's memory.

I assume that it is legal to include Drury-fit when you explain your agreements to the opponents at the beginning of each round. Maybe doing this for awhile will help.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-20, 08:31, said:

Perhaps a few bad results will aid partner's memory.

Probably not. We've been playing essentially the same convention card since 1983, but partner is 80, and I'm sure that bridge conventions aren't the only things she forgets.

Vampyr, on 2011-May-20, 08:31, said:

I assume that it is legal to include Drury-fit when you explain your agreements to the opponents at the beginning of each round. Maybe doing this for awhile will help.

I like this one a lot! Hopefully the list won't get too long.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-May-20, 08:31, said:

But still you have to assume that partner's bid is Drury and not allow for other possibilities. Perhaps a few bad results will aid partner's memory.

Why? The EBU used to have a regulation saying that (orange book 3B10), but it has been removed. In the absence of such a regulation, if you disclose the implicit agreement I don't see why you can't act on it provided there is no UI from partner's manner.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2011-May-20, 05:18, said:

As I understand it, in both situations the EBU has decided that if you appear to cater for a misbid you will be deemed to have an agreement to play the bid as two-way.

You might be deemed to have such an agreement. There are auctions where the auction itself makes it clear that partner has misbid.

Quote

If you fail to disclose that presumed agreement, they declare the board unplayable and give you an artificial bad score. If you have disclosed that agreement and it's not illegal to have it, you can't be penalised. Somebody else may be able to explain why the EBU think this procedure is legal.

12c1d. If you are playing an illegal agreement it is deemed not possible to decide what the auction and results would have been without it. Please don't mention the fact that the EBU had this regulation before this law existed.

Quote

In practice there seems to be a corollary: if a partnership often forgets its agreements but never caters for the possibility, the partnership is unlikely to be penalised for failing to disclose the implicit agremeent, even though they are no less guilty than a partnership that fields the misbid.

True. It is hard to prove, of course. There have been cases where a pair have been accused of having an implicit agreement and not disclosing (or catering for) it.

[mjj29]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-20, 14:55, said:

True. It is hard to prove, of course. There have been cases where a pair have been accused of having an implicit agreement and not disclosing (or catering for) it.

I'm sure this is for much more repeat offenders, but where the 'but it might be natural' agreement is not legal, so you can't just disclose, a couple of instances of 'forgetting' puts you in an impossible position. If partner assures you they won't forget again, you don't disclose the tendency and just don't cater for the forget possibility.