[blackshoe]

Download the Orange Book from the EBU and look up the section on fielded misbids and fielded psyches.

[lalldonn]

There is a section on fielding psychs but not on fielding misbids. Am I just being dense? I don't believe I'm being pedantic since that same section starts off by defining psych and misbid differently. I do not see the word "misbid" anywhere in the section on fielding.

Anyway if that is the section that should apply, it seems by definition opener has "fielded" the psych (misbid) if he guesses right, but it may not require a score adjustment. As long as an adjustment isn't required that is fine and makes sense. And it seems to refute the comment that started all this, which is the claim that west has an obligation to correct to spades with equal length.

(replying to next post so I stop spamming this thread) I don't read that how I think you do. But I've started to lose interest. I'm glad I don't live somewhere where this rule, whatever it is, applies.

[gordontd]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 10:27, said:

There is a section on fielding psychs but not on fielding misbids.

Quote

6 B 7 A partnership’s actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised
understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches,
deviations may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.
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.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 40C1: A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always, provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings, which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

All the EBU regulation is doing is trying to provide some guidance to the TD how he should proceed in cases where this law may have been violated, and to provide a mechanism for recording incidents which are found not to be violations of this law, since there is the small matter of repeated incidents leading to implicit understandings. This is, I think, a better approach than is left to most of the rest of the world, since the rest of us have to muddle through with the law alone. In the ACBL in particular, it would be extremely rare for a TD to rule that this law has been violated, because of the difficulty in accumulating data on such incidents and, I think, because of a tendency to "let things slide" more than perhaps they ought to be.

[Cyberyeti]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-14, 17:35, said:

I don't understand why passing 4H is a fielded misbid. If you have equal length it's normal to just pick one. In fact there is good bridge logic to choose the QJx suit rather than the AKx suit opposite 5-5.

Because people are never 6-5 on this sequence ?

I think I'd prefer to play in the suit that might be longer, partner not great 6511 and 2 rounds of clubs might apply some pressure to 4♥.

[campboy]

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 09:50, said:

Is it part of the regulation that the director decides which misbids are allowed to be fielded and which aren't? I'm not being sarcastic, maybe it is. I tried to research fielded misbids online and couldn't really find anything, not even a definition.

When a player appears to have allowed for his partner having misbid and his partner has in fact misbid, the TD simply has to decide whether it is likely that he has done so on the basis of prior experience of similar misbids. This will depend both on how abnormal the call chosen is and on how plausible it is that this is a common misbid for his partner.

I do not think it is possible for a situation to arise where you have a choice of two calls, one being "red" if partner has misbid in one way and the other being "red" if he is misbid another way. If both options are reasonable then neither should be more than "amber", i.e. choosing between two reasonable options should never be sufficient evidence on its own to rule that fielding has occurred. (Of course if only one is reasonable then choosing that call should be "green".)

[Fluffy]

 blackshoe, on 2012-April-14, 16:24, said:

BTW, East has UI from West's announcement (and would have if West had properly alerted, whether or not he'd been asked to explain), so another question is whether East has a LA to 4♥ over West's 3♠ bid, whether bidding 4♥ could demonstrably be suggested by the UI (I think this one is obviously 'yes'), and whether the LA would have resulted in a worse score for EW. In that case the TD should probably adjust the score. I don't think there's an LA though.

IMO a LA to 4♥ is to try for slam since 3♠ should be a supper accept/cuebid. So 4♦ is the proper bid, and 6♥ could be reached on a sensible auction.

Trying for slam is a LA for many players, I dunno if the laws say that a LA for most bridge players could not be considered a LA for low level players.

[blackshoe]

The laws say that a LA is determined "among the class of players in question".

[bluejak]

Perhaps it is time that we reminded people who post queries that we always ask them to state their jurisdiction because it affects Law options, regulations, interpretations, and what systemic agreements may be considered normal.

 Vampyr, on 2012-April-14, 16:25, said:

Because passing is catering to partner's having forgotten the system. True West has no UI, so the ruling would probably be "fielded misbid" instead.

In effect, while we do not call it UI, the suggestion is the possibility that this has happened before, and the opponents not told, which makes it a Concealed Partnership Understanding [CPU]. To put it another way, the unrevealed information that partner forgets transfers is not allowed to be used, so is UI of a sort.

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-14, 17:35, said:

I don't understand why passing 4H is a fielded misbid. If you have equal length it's normal to just pick one. In fact there is good bridge logic to choose the QJx suit rather than the AKx suit opposite 5-5.

Are we attributing an agreement to this pair, that we don't know they had, to always go back to the first suit?

Or is it the case that if if responder (mistakenly) shows 5-5 in the majors but actually holds only one major, and opener is 3-3, that whichever one opener picks constitutes a 'fielded misbid' if it happens to be the one responder really has? That doesn't make any sense.

I understand the concept of a fielded misbid. But passing 4H caters to partner forgetting the 3H shows spades. Bidding 4S caters to partner forgetting that 4H shows hearts. Everything you ever do that is not 100% required by system could be fielding a misbid. Maybe I don't understand it after all...

No-one really ever forgets 4♥ shows hearts. But allowing for the possibility that he has forgotten 3♥ shows spades is only legal if it has not happened before on occasion.

Most people do not see a choice between pass and 4♠ because if partner is 6-5 spades will be better.

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 09:50, said:

Is it part of the regulation that the director decides which misbids are allowed to be fielded and which aren't? I'm not being sarcastic, maybe it is. I tried to research fielded misbids online and couldn't really find anything, not even a definition.

The definition has been shown elsewhere in this thread, as has the legal background. TDs investigate and then make judgement rulings based on what they find out. That's a general approach, but applies to fielded misbids as much as other rulings.

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 10:27, said:

Anyway if that is the section that should apply, it seems by definition opener has "fielded" the psych (misbid) if he guesses right, but it may not require a score adjustment. As long as an adjustment isn't required that is fine and makes sense. And it seems to refute the comment that started all this, which is the claim that west has an obligation to correct to spades with equal length.

The problem is that for most people 4♠ is automatic. So the first thing the TD shoud do, after telling him to alert not announce in future, is ot ask "Why did you pass 4♥?". Whether this is red or amber depends very much on the answer.

 lalldonn, on 2012-April-15, 10:27, said:

(replying to next post so I stop spamming this thread) I don't read that how I think you do. But I've started to lose interest. I'm glad I don't live somewhere where this rule, whatever it is, applies.

I am afraid you do, you know. Law 40C1 applies everywhere in the world. So while only the EBU and WBU have these regulations to help TDs, the rules apply everywhere.