[ahydra]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-26, 04:32, said:

40A3: 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 (see Law 40C1).

This can be read that the player may not make this call since it is based on an UPU. The fielding is taken to confirm that such an UPU exists. That is my understanding for the basis of the EBU regulation.

The OP says East misbid thinking the 2S showed H+C. It doesn't say he bid it because he knew it shows H+D, and is written as such on the CC, but partner will allow for it having hearts and clubs.

 gordontd, on 2012-July-26, 05:01, said:

Have I missed a post from Max Bavin here?

I thought David Stevenson (bluejak) was designated #1 TD in the world not so long ago? If that's still the case, then he is de facto England's top TD (but I should maybe be nice and write world's top TD).

Edit: I meant "top" as in "best" not "highest ranked".

ahydra

[iviehoff]

 ahydra, on 2012-July-26, 03:38, said:

... but I thought there was no law against misbidding? The call that is illegal is the one that fields the misbid...

An easy trap to fall into. But actually there is no law (specifically) against the call that field the misbid either. The law approaches this sideways.

The way we handle fielding legally, whether of psyches or misbids, is to say that the sequence, be it misbid...field or psyche...field, is actually the employment of a concealed partnership understanding. Thus they are not psyches or misbids at all, but the partnership using bids in a manner that have concealed understandings related to them. With psyches we commonly say that they must be as much a surprise for partnera as for the opposition. If partner can pick up your psyches more reliably than the opponents, then there was some information you failed to disclose to the opponents. A similar situation applies misbids, if your partner can pick up your misbids more easily than the opps, then there was some information not available to the opponents that should have been disclosed. So when we rule a "misbid" or "psyche" fielded, they are no longer a misbid or a psyche.

There are two separate parts to the legal argument that is the origin of this tread, which there has been a tendency to confuse.

(1) The law treats rectification of a concealed partnership understanding differently from the rectification of misinformation. In the former case, it is illegal to employ the bids that benefited from the concealed understanding. In the latter case, the bids are legal but must be properly explained. This affects the adjustment that is made. Yet clearly the distinction between non-disclosure and concealment is a fine one.

(2) The adjustment for a CPU is, in the EBU, (edit: at least when manifested as a fielded misbid) automatically an artificial adjustment, when an assigned adjustment might also be possible in some cases.

In relation to the first, the difference between concealment and non-disclosure is a matter of deliberateness vs inadvertence/incompetence, and usually a distinction directors try to avoid making. I think the director might often have some discretion whether to call something misinformation or CPU, and rule accordingly.

Using an artificial adjustment will often not be as equitable as using an assigned one, that is not in dispute. The question I suppose is whether assigned adjustments will be feasible with sufficient frequency to be bothered about.

[RMB1]

 ahydra, on 2012-July-26, 09:17, said:

I thought David Stevenson (bluejak) was designated #1 TD in the world not so long ago? If that's still the case, then he is de facto England's top TD (but I should maybe be nice and write world's top TD).

Edit: I meant "top" as in "best" not "highest ranked".

I hope various English/European/World TDs will charitably assume this is a wind-up.

[ahydra]

 RMB1, on 2012-July-26, 10:31, said:

I hope various English/European/World TDs will charitably assume this is a wind-up.

?? It's certainly not intended as such!

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what I read was that there was some TD competition or similar (in Spain or Portugal IIRC) where David Stevenson came top. Google is being most unhelpful, so perhaps someone will catch on to what I'm talking about and fill in the correct details.

Iviehoff - thanks for that explanation, I now see what bluejak is on about, and agree with him

ahydra

[aguahombre]

 iviehoff, on 2012-July-26, 09:30, said:

(1) The law treats rectification of a concealed partnership understanding differently from the rectification of misinformation. In the former case, it is illegal to employ the bids that benefited from the concealed understanding.

(2) The adjustment for a CPU is, in the EBU, (edit: at least when manifested as a fielded misbid) automatically an artificial adjustment, when an assigned adjustment might also be possible in some cases.

In relation to the first, the difference between concealment and non-disclosure is a matter of deliberateness vs inadvertence/incompetence, and usually a distinction directors try to avoid making. I think the director might often have some discretion whether to call something misinformation or CPU, and rule accordingly.

Using an artificial adjustment will often not be as equitable as using an assigned one, that is not in dispute.

I snipped the quote to just include the basis for my follow-up question:

Doesn't the TD, when adjusting because he judged there to be a CPU (illegal sequence), have to articulate exactly what he thinks that CPU was? Or can he/she use the process to veil his real conclusion that there must have been some extraneous information which led to the fielding?

[RMB1]

 ahydra, on 2012-July-26, 10:48, said:

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what I read was that there was some TD competition or similar (in Spain or Portugal IIRC) where David Stevenson came top.

And in previous years the EBL has held other courses and other TDs have come first (modest prevents ...) And there is whole slew of higher TDs who run the courses and set and mark the examination; I am sure the EBL thinks that those who run the courses are fit to judge those who attend.

[iviehoff]

Aguahombre, check out this thread. http://www.bridgebas...la-third-event/
You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

[aguahombre]

 iviehoff, on 2012-July-26, 11:34, said:

Aguahombre, check out this thread. http://www.bridgebas...la-third-event/
You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

That much I know. The question was whether a ruling that the sequence was an illegal CPU requires articulation of exactly what that CPU was. If not, it could conceivably be used to get around "something fishy" and the requirement to say what the something fishy was.

Edit: This is a question about how EBU practice affects these two (separate but related) issues.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-July-26, 12:06

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2012-July-26, 11:55, said:

That much I know. The question was whether a ruling that the sequence was an illegal CPU requires articulation of exactly what that CPU was. If not, it could conceivably be used to get around "something fishy" and the requirement to say what the something fishy was.

In the EBU, the director simply has to establish that West's actions appear to cater for East's holding the hand that he had. He doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and he doesn't have to show that any mechanism exists for the supposed CPU. Even if the pair had never met before and this was the first board they'd played together, the director could still find that a CPU existed. Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway.

Other jurisdictions may have a higher standard of proof.

[gnasher]

Just to be clear, this can be used to deal with the "I don't know how he knew but he obviously did know" problem, but only when dealing with a clearcut departure from system. So it works if West caters for East's having clubs when he's supposed to have diamonds, but it doesn't work when West caters for East's being a queen short of what he promised.

[c_corgi]

 campboy, on 2012-July-26, 03:17, said:

I don't think it is as clear as that. The relevant law says that you may make any call unless it is "based on an undisclosed partnership understanding". Which call is based on a UPU? I would argue that West's decision to pass out 4♠ was based on the UPU -- he passed because of the UPU (and in this hypothetical scenario, admits that). On the other hand, the basis of East's 2♠ bid was that he had forgotten.

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

rather than

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".


Such an interpretation has wider implications than fielded misbids, for instance (uncontested):

1NT - 2C*
2H - 3NT
4S

*Stayman, but not disclosed (by announcement, alert, convention card or whatever was required).

If we use the former interpretation to justify fielded misbid, we cannot apply it selectively and must therefore also use it to disallow either 2C or 4S (maybe 2H as well) on the Stayman sequence. Does anybody actually do that?

[campboy]

 c_corgi, on 2012-July-27, 06:32, said:

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

rather than

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".

I don't see why rolling it back is incompatible with 40C1, since that law says "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score [...]". Well, the undisclosed knowledge that East may not have diamonds has damaged opponents since without that knowledge West would have bid 5♦.

[StevenG]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-26, 04:32, said:

40A3: 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 (see Law 40C1).

This can be read that the player may not make this call since it is based on an UPU. The fielding is taken to confirm that such an UPU exists. That is my understanding for the basis of the EBU regulation.

Surely that suggests (not proves) that the UPU exists at the time of the fielding. It does not in any way prove that it existed at the time the misbid was made. We all know in practice the fielding occurs only because the fielder guesses from the sequence that something, somewhere, is wrong, not that he has any idea exactly what it is. In which case any UPU, such as it is, is created at the time of the first misgivings.

[c_corgi]

 campboy, on 2012-July-27, 07:31, said:

I don't see why rolling it back is incompatible with 40C1, since that law says "If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score [...]". Well, the undisclosed knowledge that East may not have diamonds has damaged opponents since without that knowledge West would have bid 5♦.

Certainly L40C1 can also be read that way and - if it is - carries the same wider implications.

[TimG]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-25, 23:29, said:

Are RAs supposed to be in the business of deciding what score a contestant "deserves"?

Isn't there often a notion of "restoring equity"? That sounds to me like deciding what score a contestant deserves.

[ahydra]

 c_corgi, on 2012-July-27, 06:32, said:

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as:

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back"

rather than

"If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1".


Such an interpretation has wider implications than fielded misbids, for instance (uncontested):

1NT - 2C*
2H - 3NT
4S

*Stayman, but not disclosed (by announcement, alert, convention card or whatever was required).

If we use the former interpretation to justify fielded misbid, we cannot apply it selectively and must therefore also use it to disallow either 2C or 4S (maybe 2H as well) on the Stayman sequence. Does anybody actually do that?

You have a point, but it seems to be reasonably clear what the law is getting at. Perhaps L40A3 or its corresponding White Book entry (if any) could be reworded to exclude general bridge knowledge, but I wouldn't blame the lawmakers if they deemed that implicit/unnecessary. Plus if any opponent asked the players what your example sequence meant, I'm sure you can imagine the response would make the "UPU" clear. (See also L40A1a)

ahydra

[campboy]

 c_corgi, on 2012-July-27, 07:38, said:

Certainly L40C1 can also be read that way and - if it is - carries the same wider implications.

True. For these laws to make any sense at all I think we need to interpret "undisclosed knowledge" as something which the pair does not disclose at all, rather than merely something which hasn't been disclosed to this particular set of opponents (whether by oversight, error or simply because the opponents haven't asked).

[blackshoe]

 StevenG, on 2012-July-27, 07:33, said:

Surely that suggests (not proves) that the UPU exists at the time of the fielding. It does not in any way prove that it existed at the time the misbid was made. We all know in practice the fielding occurs only because the fielder guesses from the sequence that something, somewhere, is wrong, not that he has any idea exactly what it is. In which case any UPU, such as it is, is created at the time of the first misgivings.

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

[StevenG]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 08:14, said:

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

How does one player misbidding create a UPU at all? Yet the EBU argument claims that he does.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the EBU claims that misbidding creates a UPU. Where do you get that?

Repeatedly making the same misbid may create a UPU, but that's a different story.