[DaveB]

---

North asked about the 2♠ bid and was told it showed a good quality 6 card spade suit in a respectable hand.

Director decision result stands
Appeal decision fielded misbid 60% N/S 40% E/W

Comments?

[ahydra]

This is an interesting one... I don't think we can assign any blame to West, who has UI but no LA to passing 4HX. And East knows something's up because there aren't 14 spades in the pack - and I doubt West would make the 2S bid on KQ10xx. Thirdly, South made a somewhat speculative double of 4H, but I don't think it's bad enough to be an SE.

Assuming the TD asked East why he bid 4H and got a sensible answer (e.g. there aren't 14 spades in the pack so partner has misbid), and checked for evidence that 2S = good suit rather than Michaels is the actual agreement (and there's no prior history of forgetting the agreement that should have been notified to NS), I think s/he got this one right.

ahydra

[jeffford76]

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

[blackshoe]

What evidence did the director or AC gather, particularly about the actual EW agreement? What legal basis did either specify for the ruling? (I suspect the answer may be 'none'.)

[pran]

DaveB, on 2013-July-12, 11:10, said:

---

North asked about the 2♠ bid and was told it showed a good quality 6 card spade suit in a respectable hand.

Director decision result stands
Appeal decision fielded misbid 60% N/S 40% E/W

Comments?

The appeal decision sounds weird to me.

1: What is a "fielded misbid"?
2: In what way has N/S been damaged?
3: Did the AC replace the obtained result on the board with an artificial adjusted score because they were unable to rule in what way - or if at all - N/S was damaged?

Remember that Law 12C1d is the only Law that permits an obtained result to be replaced by an artificial adjusted score unless the board was fouled.

Law 12C1d said:

If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-12, 12:30, said:

What evidence did the director or AC gather, particularly about the actual EW agreement? What legal basis did either specify for the ruling? (I suspect the answer may be 'none'.)

Yes, obviously the ruling may vary according to whether there was a misbid or a misexplanation.

[DaveB]

From the EBU white book 2010

"There are special regulations where an artificial adjusted score is given even though the board is completed.
These are as a result of playing an illegal agreement, or when a psyche, misbid or deviation is fielded.
The board is completed, and then an artificial adjusted score is given unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+.
The score is given is Ave+/Ave- ....."

The initial director ruling, and subsequent appeal, both appear to have been based upon a determination that the actual agreement was as described.

[campboy]

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

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

You don't even need to guess which. 4♥ caters to both possibilities, but 4♠ doesn't.

[pran]

DaveB, on 2013-July-12, 16:08, said:

From the EBU white book 2010

"There are special regulations where an artificial adjusted score is given even though the board is completed.
These are as a result of playing an illegal agreement, or when a psyche, misbid or deviation is fielded.
The board is completed, and then an artificial adjusted score is given unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+.
The score is given is Ave+/Ave- ....."

The initial director ruling, and subsequent appeal, both appear to have been based upon a determination that the actual agreement was as described.

Noted.

But I cannot help feeling that this is an illegal regulation because of conflict with Law 12 (see Law 80B2{f} ).

In addition to establishing that there was an irregularity the Director shall judge whether (in his opinion) NOS has been damaged by the irregularity. The laws do not allow him to just establish that there was an irregularity and then award an adjusted score.

And more important: The regulation instructs the Director to give NOS Ave+ unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+. How will the Director apply this regulation when NOS has done less than Ave+ but shows that they could well have done (much) more than Ave+ ???

"I give you Ave+, you must be satisfied with that!" ?

[nige1]

DaveB, on 2013-July-12, 11:10, said:

North asked about the 2♠ bid and was told it showed a good quality 6 card spade suit in a respectable hand.
Director decision result stands
Appeal decision fielded misbid 60% N/S 40% E/W

---

IMO...

• West may have psyched but East does not seem to have done so.
• If East incorrectly described his partnership agreement, then the director should consider rectification for misexplanation.
• If East correctly described his partnership agreement, East still knows that one of the spade-bidders has departed from his declared system. If East knows, from previous mutual experience, that his partner is more likely to be the culprit than South, then the director may view this second-order mutual understanding to be a declarable implicit agreement and so may still rule MI.
• Even without those understandings, there is yet another problem (common to all such cases -- but usually ignored). Here, for example, from their own spade-holdings, both North and East may deduce that West is likely to have misbid. East can often work out what the misbid was intended to mean (from previous agreements or by analogy with other agreements). This third-order mutual understanding gives East an another advantage over his opponent (who also guesses that there was a misbid -- but has fewer clues to its import).

[pran]

What is the best result for North/South absent any irregularity from opponents?

Assuming that there is no evidence of any CPU between East and West my guess is a contract 4♥ (undoubled).

So without spending more time on this case I would vote for an adjustment just removing the double (I assume EW made their contract).

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-July-12, 14:03, said:

The appeal decision sounds weird to me.

1: What is a "fielded misbid"?
2: In what way has N/S been damaged?
3: Did the AC replace the obtained result on the board with an artificial adjusted score because they were unable to rule in what way - or if at all - N/S was damaged?

Remember that Law 12C1d is the only Law that permits an obtained result to be replaced by an artificial adjusted score unless the board was fouled.

"Fielded misbid" leads me to suspect this happened in England where they have a regulation that, if I'm not mistaken, mandates an ArtAS for a red fielded misbid or psych.

[wank]

was the director a club volunteer? if the answer is yes, seek more volunteers, if the answer is no, fire him.

[DaveB]

This did indeed happen in England - my apologies for not being explicit about that.

My reading of the regulations is that there are only 2 possible outcomes - result stands or Ave+/Ave-.
Adjusting to 4H (undoubled)is not possible.
Happy to take advice on this though.

On the assumption that the explanation WAS correct (if only because that is the interesting case) then
(a) West has misbid
(b) East has taken an action that protects his side from the consequences of the misbid.
© East has some (but perhaps not overwhelming) evidence that his partner has "deviated" (too many spades in the pack - opposition vulnerable against not)

So how do you think the ruling should have gone (in England)

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-July-12, 16:35, said:

And more important: The regulation instructs the Director to give NOS Ave+ unless the non-offending side has done better than Ave+. How will the Director apply this regulation when NOS has done less than Ave+ but shows that they could well have done (much) more than Ave+ ???

"I give you Ave+, you must be satisfied with that!" ?

An interesting point. Law 12C2{a} says that "average plus" is "at least 60% at pairs (sic)" but gives no guidance on when or why to give more than 60%. Law 12C2{c} suggests that if the session average is greater than 60%, then the NOS gets their session average. I'm sure some will say that this provision is the only case in which "average plus" should be more than 60%, but the law doesn't say that. I suppose a counterargument might be "maybe so, but we don't do things that way". To my mind, that's not much of an argument.

It seems to me that in a 12C2 adjustment case (any such case) if the NOS can show that they were likely to get much more than 60% or their session average, whichever is higher, then it should be within the TD's discretion to award them that percentage. This is particularly true when a result was obtained, that result is higher than the higher of (60% or session average), and the TD is directed by regulation to award an ArtAS.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[blackshoe]

DaveB, on 2013-July-12, 17:35, said:

On the assumption that the explanation WAS correct (if only because that is the interesting case) then
(a) West has misbid
(b) East has taken an action that protects his side from the consequences of the misbid.
© East has some (but perhaps not overwhelming) evidence that his partner has "deviated" (too many spades in the pack - opposition vulnerable against not)

So how do you think the ruling should have gone (in England)

Given that the explanation was correct, and the fact that West's hand does not conform to that explanation, clearly West has done something, but it's still not evident that he misbid. Maybe he deviated on purpose.

I want to know why East bid 4♥. If he makes a convincing argument that he based it on the actual auction and the idea that there aren't, as someone pointed out, 14 spades in the deck, then I want to know if this partnership has any prior experience of similar situations. If East is not convincing, or there have been times in the past when something much like this has happened, then I will rule Red psych, deviation, or misbid. Probably misbid, but see the previous paragraph. If he is mildly convincing, I would rule it Amber. If he is very convincing (doesn't sound likely, but who knows?) I would rule it Green. In the latter two cases, I would rule result stands. If it's Red, the regulation directs a score adjustment of (normally) 60/40 and a procedural penalty of 10%. The regulation calls this a score of 60/30, but that's technically incorrect (a PP is not a score adjustment, nor part of a score adjustment, nor should it be).

Relevant laws and regulations: 40C1, 12C2, Orange Book 6B and 6D.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2013-July-12, 16:35, said:

But I cannot help feeling that this is an illegal regulation because of conflict with Law 12 (see Law 80B2{f} ).

Since the possibilities are not obvious, this regulation is consistent with L12C1d.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2013-July-13, 02:27, said:

Since the possibilities are not obvious, this regulation is consistent with L12C1d.

In what way has NS been damaged by whatever irregularity occurred here?

I cannot even identify any irregularity from what we have been told, but the only possible alternative outcome I can imagine without the irregularity if there was one is that NS would not have doubled.

On that presumtion the only legal ruling is to award the score for 4♥(undoubled) with the number of tricks made at the table. (Changing the number of tricks made is possible if North and/or South can show reasonable cause for a different play than what they did originally.)

TD can of course always say that the result absent the irregularity is not obvious, but that is not what L12C1d is there for. He is supposed to judge a likely outcome on the board had the irregularity not occurred, and only award artificial adjusted scores if this is impossible or requires an unreasonable amount of work.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-12, 19:03, said:

An interesting point. Law 12C2{a} says that "average plus" is "at least 60% at pairs (sic)" but gives no guidance on when or why to give more than 60%. Law 12C2{c} suggests that if the session average is greater than 60%, then the NOS gets their session average. I'm sure some will say that this provision is the only case in which "average plus" should be more than 60%, but the law doesn't say that. I suppose a counterargument might be "maybe so, but we don't do things that way". To my mind, that's not much of an argument.

It seems to me that in a 12C2 adjustment case (any such case) if the NOS can show that they were likely to get much more than 60% or their session average, whichever is higher, then it should be within the TD's discretion to award them that percentage. This is particularly true when a result was obtained, that result is higher than the higher of (60% or session average), and the TD is directed by regulation to award an ArtAS.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Ave+ is equal to the session average if this is greater than 60%.

But if NOS can show that they could well have done better than the table result on the actual board absent the irregularity then Ave+ is an illegal ruling, TD should adjust to the relevant result that NOS could well have made (using weighted scores if applicable).

[gnasher]

As I understand it, the EBU's rule is justified like this:
- EW appear to have a CPU that 2♠ is two-way, either spades or Michaels.
- The act of using the CPU is a breach of Law 40A3 and 40C1.
- Therefore "equity" means an auction where West doesn't bid 2♠.
- In all such auctions, the possibiities are not obvious, so an artificial adjusted score is appropriate.

I can think of several suitable words to describe this argument.