[mycroft]

ahydra: for it to be ruled against in the EBU, a misbid must be *fielded*. What is the limit? If you gave misbidder's partner's hand to 10 people and nobody would make the (successful given the misbid) call that was made at the table, it's a Red fielded misbid, which is EBU-speak for the legal "the chance that you came up with this one by sheer mischance, rather than having some information or experience that you failed to disclose, is so small that we're ruling CPU".

A deviation is a variation from system. Minor deviations are legal, but if specific deviations become habitual, it becomes disclosable partnership experience.
A misbid is a deviation that you wouldn't have made if you'd remembered your system. Misbids are legal unless fielded through UI or undisclosed partnership experience or understandings.
A psychic call is a "gross and deliberate" deviation from system. Psychics are also legal unless illegally fielded, or unless they become "too frequent" or "unsportsmanlike" or any of the other phrases in your country's regulations.

As for the "discuss it elsewhere" bit, the rectification the EBU has put in place for fielded (deviations/misbids/psychics) are as much penalty as the rectification for revokes. Sometimes it is just "equity" and there is no penalty, sometimes there is a penalty, and the score for that board is not physically possible without the assigned rectification. There is a reason for the potential penalty element (more than one, really)

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2012-April-03, 12:07, said:

a Red fielded misbid, which is EBU-speak for the legal "the chance that you came up with this one by sheer mischance, rather than having some information or experience that you failed to disclose, is so small that we're ruling CPU".

I always thought it was more like "you didn't illegally field a misbid, but we have to rule against you so that we can also rule against those who do have a CPU".

But that's just my opinion, and you must have a basis for your assertion, so I suppose I am wrong.

[olegru]

 mycroft, on 2012-April-03, 12:07, said:

ahydra: for it to be ruled against in the EBU, a misbid must be *fielded*. What is the limit? If you gave misbidder's partner's hand to 10 people...

any 10 people? Or people with similar level of game understanding?

I mean it can not be easy for director to find 10 people of level "I haven't the slightest clue what I'm doing" and poll them.

[StevenG]

 olegru, on 2012-April-03, 13:56, said:

I mean it can not be easy for director to find 10 people of level "I haven't the slightest clue what I'm doing" and poll them.

This is Norfolk ...

[bluejak]

 phil_20686, on 2012-April-03, 09:19, said:

Thats not really correct. Its routine to double on 4333 hands, its just not ideal. I mean everyone would double with xxx AQxx Kxx Kxx.

Not me, and that's the danger in this approach. While many people have a generally similar approach to bidding, that does not mean they would all bid the same in a specific situation.

 Vampyr, on 2012-April-03, 12:39, said:

I always thought it was more like "you didn't illegally field a misbid, but we have to rule against you so that we can also rule against those who do have a CPU".

But that's just my opinion, and you must have a basis for your assertion, so I suppose I am wrong.

That's my opinion as well.

[ahydra]

 mycroft, on 2012-April-03, 12:07, said:

What is the limit? If you gave misbidder's partner's hand to 10 people and nobody would make the (successful given the misbid) call that was made at the table, it's a Red fielded misbid...

But I thought here it is East who misbid, not West. Certainly upgrading a TOX by a couple of points is much less of a misbid than failing to bid game with a very good hand opposite a TOX.

On the other hand, if it is East who has misbid then there's no fielding going on, so I guess the TD must have ruled the TOX as suspect.

I don't like the idea of "poll 10 people" because there are bound to be cases where nobody picks it. e.g.:

You're playing a club game and LHO opens a weak 2S, partner miscounts his points and doubles on xx Qxxx Axxxx Kx and you have Kx AKx xxxx QJxx. Now this might look like an obvious 3NT bid but suppose you decide to try 4H since you're playing for a "swing" (i.e. know you're close to 1st place and trying to win). [You know partner won't double without 4 hearts.] Sure enough, you can't make 9 tricks in NT but 4H rolls in on a 3-3 heart and 2-2 diamond break.

Nobody in the club would pick 4H, but I don't think this should be a fielded misbid. The judgement should surely be closer to "does this make any bridge sense at all, taking into account the SotM, levels of players, knowledge about opps, ...". That's one of the reasons I asked if there were any (EBU) guidelines on this.

ahydra

[bluejak]

Rulings are not given solely on the hands, nor solely on polls. You seek for evidence, and then make a judgement. Evidence includes polls, reasons given by the players for their actions, and so on. Sadly, when discussing matters here, we cannot investigate further as we would like.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-April-05, 05:49, said:

Evidence includes ... reasons given by the players for their actions.

I would certainly like TDs to do that, but it it consistent with the regulations? These parts:

Orange Book said:

The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.
...
If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.
[emphasis added]

suggest to me that the TD is expected to disregard any reasons given by the player for taking an unusual action. Or, if they don't mean that, what do they mean?

[ahydra]

Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner.

ahydra

[phil_20686]

 ahydra, on 2012-April-05, 06:04, said:

Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner.

ahydra

I think the definition of a deviation is that the partner must have no more reason to expect it than the opposition. If you are playing with beginners they never know what to expect from partners bidding, and, therefore cannot field a misbid.

[gnasher]

 ahydra, on 2012-April-05, 06:04, said:

Right - but what was the evidence in the OP of a fielded misbid? If East genuinely had no idea what was going on, then he/she is probably a beginner and it feels a bit harsh to rule fielded misbid against a beginner.

The evidence comprised West's bidding, East's bidding, East's non-alert of the double, and East's explanation of the double. The regulations say "A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised* understanding."

As I understand it, the rationale (which I'm not saying I agree with) is that their actions in combination tell us that they have an agreement (explicit or implicit) to make a takeout double on that West hand. The explanation and the failure to alert make it a concealed agreement.

* I think we are supposed to interpret "unauthorised" as "undisclosed", in order to make sense of the regulations.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-05, 06:24

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2012-April-05, 06:20, said:

East's non-alert of the double

Are you certain the double, if systemic, must be alerted?

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2012-April-05, 18:57, said:

Are you certain the double, if systemic, must be alerted?

No. I did qualify my comments with "(which I'm not saying I agree with)".