Fielding -- I don't get it
#1
Posted 2011-December-05, 18:07
My example, against an ACBL big regional Bracket II or III pair:
P-1D-1N-P
2H*-P-2S-P
3H**-P-P-P
* = announced "transfer"
** = delay, hitch in tempo nothing approaching histrionics
Duummy comes down with
AKJx
xx
AQxx
Qxx
Upon inquiry, responder apparently forgot that they were playing transfers in this position, but O was clear that they were playing them. Based on O's understanding, R's sequence was an inv 5-5 in the majors. ATD was on first name basis with the responder; ruling was to the effect of 'as long as he didn't outwardly tip off the goof, no problem.' Isn't this wrong?
Regards and Happy Trails,
Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA
#2
Posted 2011-December-05, 18:21
-gwnn
#3
Posted 2011-December-05, 18:28
Additionally there's the problem of what overcaller's 2S means to advancer, who has UI from the announcement of the transfer.
Looks like a normal UI case though to me.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#4
Posted 2011-December-05, 18:37
wyman, on 2011-December-05, 18:28, said:
Flem72, on 2011-December-05, 18:07, said:
The facts seem to leave little room for this particular bit of enlightenment by overcaller. So clearly, IMO, that a PP warning is warranted, if this is an experienced player; and an actual PP, if this is a player with a known prior incident.
-gwnn
#5
Posted 2011-December-05, 19:54
I ♦ bidding the suit below the suit I'm actually showing not to be described as a "transfer" for the benefit of people unfamiliar with the concept of a transfer
#7
Posted 2011-December-05, 21:15
Bbradley62, on 2011-December-05, 20:11, said:
I don't see how there is a practical difference between a psyche and misbid or forget with regard to fielding. The difference is the intent of the bidder. The affect is that partner bid (or showed) something that they do not have in both cases. In both cases one can field the actual meaning rather than the meaning shown just by the bids in isolation.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#8
Posted 2011-December-05, 21:27
2. A slow 3♥ may give unauthorized information.
3. However it is not clear to me from the opening post that the slow bid in this case by itself necessarily met the requirement of demonstrably suggesting pass which is what is required for the overcaller to be constrained from passing.
4. In these situations in experienced partnerships I am convinced often that what might not be suggested to me or another outside observer is plain to the partner.
5. I would be interested if this sort of mistake has ever happened before.
6. I would be interested if this auction has ever occurred before.
7. I would be interested if this auction has ever occurred before and overcaller passed and partner did in fact have both majors. Or indeed more generally if this player had ever suspected a misbid from partner and allowed for it and was wrong. A player who takes a legal flies at asystemic actions like the pass here (see 1 above) would be expected at times to guess horribly wrong.
I don't think you can rule anything is wrong here unless you get some answers to these questions. In particular the slow 3♥ in and of itself does not suggest to me that partner should pass. It could be that he has a marginal game try or game force or only four hearts and forgot to Stayman rather than he forgot to transfer.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#9
Posted 2011-December-06, 00:27
#10
Posted 2011-December-06, 02:59
But other authorities do not see it this way and allow what seems to me to be a breach of Law 40 without worrying.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#11
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:03
This isn't a case of "partner was deciding between two calls, so you have logical alternatives to consider, one or more of which may be suggested by UI."
This is:
- overcaller botches system
- advancer creates a BIT during the auction period
- sometime before his call following the BIT, overcaller remembers that he has botched the system (evidently)
I thought in these cases it was near universal that a bidder cannot "wake-up" to his side's bidding misunderstanding after an irregularity such as a BIT unless it's clear from bridge knowledge that something funny is going on.
Add to that: overcaller never alerted the other side to the possibility that advancer may just have hearts. If all he said was "5-5 inv" and then passed, there's a problem.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#12
Posted 2011-December-06, 08:13
Flem72, on 2011-December-05, 18:07, said:
wyman, on 2011-December-06, 08:03, said:
- overcaller botches system
I think we were told at the beginning that Responder botched, not Overcaller; Overcaller rescued Responder with his pass.
#13
Posted 2011-December-06, 09:14
Bbradley62, on 2011-December-06, 08:13, said:
Even worse. Thanks for the correction.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#14
Posted 2011-December-06, 14:02
wyman, on 2011-December-06, 09:14, said:
It maybe worse. It may be no infraction at all.
Firstly the laws allow the player to pass. A play may make any call ...
On the other hand the pass may be based on a concealed partnership agreement. The 'any call' must not be based on an undisclosed partnership agreement.
It is hard for us to tell from one instance whether or not this pass is reasonable. Not reasonable as a bridge decision it clearly is not given the information conveyed superficially by the auction but reasonable from a lawful point of view. I have played against and (sadly for me) with players who might pass unsuccessfully on an auction like this. The difference is that they usually end in a poor contract. However occasionally their partner has also done something weird and they are not damaged by their poor choice.
For an adverse ruling against the pass the director needs to establish that there is an undisclosed partnership understanding or establish that there was unauthorized information that could demonstrably have suggested pass over the more normal looking 3♠. Absent the establishment of either of those two facts the laws clearly allow a player to make an otherwise inferior bid even when it happens to work out.
There is no evidence in the opening post that the players have an undisclosed partnership understanding.
There is no evidence in the opening post that there was any unauthorized information that demonstrably suggested pass.
This evidence may exist it needs to be investigated before lynching ("even worse") the players.
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#15
Posted 2011-December-06, 20:40
Cascade, on 2011-December-06, 14:02, said:
There is no evidence in the opening post that there was any unauthorized information that demonstrably suggested pass.
This evidence may exist it needs to be investigated before lynching ("even worse") the players.
I am curious as to what inference might be drawn when responder hitched prior to rebidding 3H?
I would believe that 3H ought to promise invitational honors, 5+S, 4+H shape with a NT problem..
And under those conditions, I can believe that such a hitch could give the impetus to prefer a poor 4-2 heart contract to a magnificent 5-4 spade contract at the same level.
#16
Posted 2011-December-08, 20:02
#17
Posted 2011-December-09, 03:53
barmar, on 2011-December-08, 20:02, said:
I suppose a TD is not allowed to ask: "What is it you don't know? Don't you know how to play bridge or don't you know how to play bridge by the rules?"
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#18
Posted 2011-December-09, 13:54
On the other hand, he could answer: "Since my hearts are short and spades are long, I guessed that it's more likely partner forgot about transfers than that we have a 9-card fit in spades." I think I'd have to accept this explanation.
#19
Posted 2011-December-09, 16:58
barmar, on 2011-December-09, 13:54, said:
Maybe there are even some players who would tell the truth knowing that it was incriminating?
#20
Posted 2011-December-10, 06:12
gnasher, on 2011-December-09, 16:58, said:
So they would cheat and then decide to tell on themselves? Seems kind of unlikely.