[jallerton]

WB 10.2 explains how to deal with two potential infractions on the same board. If there is a 'red' fielded misbid and there is also UI or MI, the TD adjusts for the UI/MI first.

If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders better than average plus, there is no further adjustment.
If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders worse than average plus, then assign Av+/AV- (with a standard PP if it was a psyche rather than a misbid).

[iviehoff]

jeffford76, on 2013-July-12, 11:41, said:

Clearly partner has misbid or south has psyched. I think you're allowed to guess which.

A third possibility is that no one has misbid or psyched. We cannot say there are 17 spades in the pack on the basis of the apparent information, we can only say there are 14. Being one out is only a deviation not a complete mess-up. Who hasn't made a 6-card-suit bid with only 5 from time to time?

A fourth possibility is the S misbid.

So there are several possibilities and E has catered for the possibility that his partner has misbid.

Under the EBU regs catering is what is illegal, and the correct ruling was made. We can argue about whether the EBU reg is quite right in terms of the adjustment, but it seems to me to be a reasonable way of working out whether, on the balance of probabilities, an adjustable situation arose. Balance of probabilities will sometimes adjust against the innocent, but I think cases like this are sufficiently smelly that we adjust and acknowledge that a few innocents get taken in on on the way. Because the other way lies undue licence to take hints.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2013-July-14, 15:20, said:

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

But the EBU's rule is still unfair (as well as being illegal). Suppose that:
- With the table result the non-offenders scored 10%
- Without the MI but with the same auction the non-offenders would have scored 50%
- If the CPU had not been used, the non-offenders would have scored 80%.

Under the EBU's rules, as I understand it, the non-offenders would get only 60%, which is less than their expectation before the infraction. And the offenders have gained by their use of a CPU.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-July-15, 01:58, said:

Under the EBU regs catering is what is illegal, and the correct ruling was made.

The EBU regulations don't say anywhere that it's illegal to cater for partner's misbid or psych. All they say is that if you are deemed to have done so the score will be adjusted.

What's illegal under the EBU regulations, is having and using a CPU. They merely use the partner's actions as a (not vey good) proxy for the existence of a CPU.

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2013-July-15, 03:01, said:

The EBU regulations don't say anywhere that it's illegal to cater for partner's misbid or psych. All they say is that if you are deemed to have done so the score will be adjusted.

What's illegal under the EBU regulations, is having and using a CPU. They merely use the partner's actions as a (not vey good) proxy for the existence of a CPU.

Sorry, I meant to change that "illegal" to "adjustable".

[c_corgi]

6 B 8 A partnership’s actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised
understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead.
As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.

I think it is clear that a fielded misbid has occurred, but 6B8 implies that there needs to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding in order to adjust. It also suggests that the standard of evidence required is higher with misbids than with psyches. If partner forgets the meaning of 2S he is likely to think it shows the other two suits: this seems like GBK, so there is no reason to suspect an unauthorised understanding without further evidence. The 14th spade (from East's perspective) provides reason to doubt partner's memory (although not clear proof that a forget has occurred) and making a call which caters for all possibilities seems like a good plan. I would think this fielded misbid would be classified as amber or green, i.e. no score adjustment without further evidence.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2013-July-15, 05:38, said:

I think it is clear that a fielded misbid has occurred, but 6B8 implies that there needs to be evidence of an unauthorised understanding in order to adjust. It also suggests that the standard of evidence required is higher with misbids than with psyches. If partner forgets the meaning of 2S he is likely to think it shows the other two suits: this seems like GBK, so there is no reason to suspect an unauthorised understanding without further evidence. The 14th spade (from East's perspective) provides reason to doubt partner's memory (although not clear proof that a forget has occurred) and making a call which caters for all possibilities seems like a good plan. I would think this fielded misbid would be classified as amber or green, i.e. no score adjustment without further evidence.

What, in your opinion, does "fielded" mean? Can a bid which does not describe the bidder's hand according to his partnership understandings be "fielded" without a CPU?

The regulation strikes me as a pretty convoluted way to provide TDs with some guidance as to how to apply the law on concealed partnership understandings. I'm not sure it does a good job at that.

[c_corgi]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-15, 05:43, said:

What, in your opinion, does "fielded" mean? Can a bid which does not describe the bidder's hand according to his partnership understandings be "fielded" without a CPU?

My opinion is guided by this extract from 6B2: "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." AFAIK the equivalent definition would apply to misbids as psyches.

The fact that a fielded misbid can be "green" implies that the fielding could happen without a CPU.

blackshoe, on 2013-July-15, 05:43, said:

The regulation strikes me as a pretty convoluted way to provide TDs with some guidance as to how to apply the law on concealed partnership understandings. I'm not sure it does a good job at that.

I am not a fan either.

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2013-July-15, 06:00, said:

My opinion is guided by this extract from 6B2: "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding." AFAIK the equivalent definition would apply to misbids as psyches.

The fact that a fielded misbid can be "green" implies that the fielding could happen without a CPU.

Yes, it does. Which makes suspect the assertion I've heard that "fielding" is illegally allowing for a possible psych, deviation, or misbid. Unless "green" means "it wasn't fielded".

[gnasher]

I think that, in the EBU, "fielding" means "acting in a way that provides sufficient evidence to infer a CPU". That means that in the regulation
The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche - and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself - may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche.
we have to interpret "If so" as "If this evidence is sufficient".

I think that's the only sensible way to read it, given that we're also told that "some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding".

It's confusing that the rules sometimes use the colour-codes, sometimes speak of "understandings", and sometimes speak of "fielding". I think that the different nomenclatures can be translated like this:
Red = Your actions imply that you have a CPU = You fielded it.
Amber = Your actions suggest that you might have a CPU= You may have fielded it but we aren't sure.
Green = Your actions provide no evidence of a CPU = You didn't field it.

Let's hope the wording is improved in the next edition.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2013-July-15, 02:57, said:

But the EBU's rule is still unfair (as well as being illegal). Suppose that:
- With the table result the non-offenders scored 10%
- Without the MI but with the same auction the non-offenders would have scored 50%
- If the CPU had not been used, the non-offenders would have scored 80%.

Under the EBU's rules, as I understand it, the non-offenders would get only 60%, which is less than their expectation before the infraction. And the offenders have gained by their use of a CPU.

Unfortunately, Bluejak does not post to this forum very often these days, but I can report to you what I recall his view to be. The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place.

Thus "expectation before the infraction" would mean the expectation before the board has been started, on the assumption that the pair did not have the CPU. Winding back the auction to the beginning, we can say that now, in the general case, the possibile outcomes are numerous or not obvious.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2013-July-15, 12:09, said:

Unfortunately, Bluejak does not post to this forum very often these days, but I can report to you what I recall his view to be. The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place.

Thus "expectation before the infraction" would mean the expectation before the board has been started, on the assumption that the pair did not have the CPU. Winding back the auction to the beginning, we can say that now, in the general case, the possibile outcomes are numerous or not obvious.

Which Law is broken by having the CPU but not using it? Assume, for the sake of argument, that it's an understanding that wouldn't appear on a convention card.

[c_corgi]

jallerton, on 2013-July-15, 12:09, said:

... The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place...

If that is the case, does it mean that the same infraction will have been committed on every board in the session?

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2013-July-15, 12:30, said:

Which Law is broken by having the CPU but not using it?

Law 40A1(b) would cover the most common misbids, such as forgotten two-suited overcalls and defences to 1NT.

Quote

Assume, for the sake of argument, that it's an understanding that wouldn't appear on a convention card.

I wonder why you suggested making that assumption!

By the way, Law 40A3 is relevant not only when a player makes a bid whose meaning has not been properly disclosed, but also when a player makes an alternative call, because then there is a CPU about the negative inferences available.

[blackshoe]

The fact that a player makes a particular call, or that the call does not conform to the stated PU, is not sufficient by itself to rule CPU.

It seems to me that the most common source of possible CPUs is partnership experience. Even then, you need more than one event to establish an implicit understanding.

What, exactly, should a system card cover? If a system card does not cover a particular agreement (because, perhaps, there's no place for it on the card), whose fault is the omission? Frankly, I'd lay it on the RA. Of course, if a pair deliberately misdescribe their agreements, or deliberately omit a particular agreement for which there is room on the card, that's on them. But if the problem is the design of the card, that's on the RA.

I think you're on slippery ground in your interpretation of Law 40A3.

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2013-July-15, 16:47, said:

I wonder why you suggested making that assumption!

We're dealing with the general case, aren't we?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-15, 21:11, said:

What, exactly, should a system card cover? If a system card does not cover a particular agreement (because, perhaps, there's no place for it on the card), whose fault is the omission? Frankly, I'd lay it on the RA.

Which RA? The ACBL card uses up a lot of space giving you check boxes for the things you don't play, but the entire back is left blank. The EBU and WBF cards give ample room to describe agreements at least as deep into the auction as in the OP case. The EBL (at least in my experience) use the WBF cards.

So a lot of the world is covered to my knowledge, and probably more still.

[blackshoe]

From the viewpoint of describing agreements, the EBU card is good, and the WBF card is better. The ACBL card is terrible. The ABF card is similar to the ACBL card, so probably also terrible (I haven't looked at it in a while). I"m not familiar with the cards of any other NBO, though I suspect some just use the WBF card.

The back of the ACBL card isn't blank - it contains a personal scorecard. If it was blank, at least you could write about your system on it. That you can't is one of the things that makes the card terrible.

Edit: I just took a look at the ABF card. It does have a few checkboxes on it, but it leaves room to describe meanings that don't fit the checkboxes. Also, it has a lot more room available than the ACBL card, because it uses both sides of the page. So I would upgrade it from "terrible" to "good".

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2013-July-16, 08:11
Reason for edit: added information

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-16, 08:01, said:

The back of the ACBL card isn't blank - it contains a personal scorecard. If it was blank, at least you could write about your system on it. That you can't is one of the things that makes the card terrible.

Oh, OK. I had assumed that most partnerships print out their cards rather than fill out a new one by hand every time.

I am working with one now, and it is terribly fiddly working with the bitmap, but at least I can remove checkboxes and names of methods I am not using. I suppose I won't bother to add anything on the back if no one ever does.

[barmar]

A CPU or illegal agreement that never actually comes up in practice seems to me like the tree that falls in the forest when there's no one to hear it. Is there any significant difference between having an agreement but never using it, and not having the agreement at all? The worst I can think of is that it might be mentioned when an opponent asks about bids available but not made, and confuse the opponents, but if it's a CPU it presumably wouldn't be mentioned.

But if you field a psyche or misbid, now that agreement has been exposed. The tree fell and there were some campers nearby, so it did make a sound.