Rescue from mis-bid

[Nick Whitten]

This incident was described to me by someone who thought NS ought to be clobbered for a pretty serious offence.
I disagree and don’t believe either did anything wrong apart from one mis-bid (which is not an infraction of course).

The bidding went (EW passing throughout)
S; 2NT N: 3H (alerted and described as transfer to spades)
S: 3S N: 4H
At this point West called the TD and said “North shouldn’t allowed to bid that”
(if I were South I might be tempted to say “How do you know? Have you peeked at my partners hand?”)

TD (correctly IMO) said can’t investigate anything until the end.
Bidding concludes with pass from South, who now explains North’s bidding sequence shows 5 spades and 5 hearts. Dummy appears holding 4 spades and three hearts.
West pipes up again “That is illegal, you are duty bound to give preference to spades”. And again when North is seen to have a singleton spade and long hearts (yes the 3H bid was a mistake)

I see nothing wrong with North or Souths actions
North, holding one spade and five (or might have been more) hearts has authorised information that hearts will be a better contract than spades opposite a balanced hand.
South, who has no UI, is free to bid whatever he likes.
(and I might add at this point that South could well infer that West had a stack of spades from the way he first called the TD)

Am I missing something?
Let us assume the TD is satisfied transfers is their system (ie the bid was wrong and the explanation was correct).
And there was no gesture or the like from North which would indicate a mistake had been made.

[Ed Reppert]

I would tell West that he is wrong in both statements, and that when he has no clue what he's talking about, he ought to just keep his mouth shut.

[bluejak]

First, like everyone else, I would tell West to SHUT UP! Of course, I would explain that he can make any complaints he wants after the hand was over.

But I am not happy.

Four spades, three hearts, no preference, and partner happens not to have spades? What does this sound like? It sounds like a player who has seen his partner forget transfers before and is allowing for it. This means he is playing a method that he has not disclosed to the opposition, a breach of Law 40.

The problem with a fielded misbid is that, except in England and Wales which have regulations to cover it, it may be illegal, but there seems nothing around the rest of the world to be done about it. Sure, they have a concealed partnership understanding, sure, that's illegal, but how do we adjust?

In effect, this pair is playing 3H as either hearts or spades. Unless that is an illegal agreement, there is little to be done. But I do not like it: I prefer the English/Welsh approach of a regulation to cover the situation.

[Ed Reppert]

Absent something like the EBU's regulation, if the violation of Law 40 leads to damage, I would adjust the score under 40C1:

If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.

[Nick Whitten]

I’m confused
Doesn’t Law 75C say a mistaken bid is not an infraction? “Regardless of damage the TD shall allow the result to stand”. And how were the opponents in this example damaged?

Also isn’t the fact someone might make a mistaken bid part of “matters generally known to bridge players” which according to Law 40B6(a) do not need to be disclosed.
In fact if a pair never makes mistakes (with some divine assistance) that fact should be disclosed to the opponents.

[Ed Reppert]

It's not the misbid that's the problem, it's the putative concealed partnership understanding.

[Nick Whitten]

I had to check the dictionary for that one.
What’s wrong with South taking the safe option just in case partner has made a misbid? After all the 5-3 heart fit would be only marginally inferior than the 5-4 spade fit.
And what if North did have the prescribed 5-5 and West held a heart singleton, and East had Axxx in hearts and another ace. Two heart ruffs would beat 4S yet 4H would make 5.

[bluejak]

I have got a nice piece of real estate to sell you in Florida, and there is a nice bridge in Brooklyn ..

C'mon, Nick, you give preference when partner bids two suits. If you do not, why not? If you played with me, and told me that you had made a specific bid "in case I had forgotten my system and did not have what I had shown" I would hit you extremely hard on the nose!!!

No-one bids that way "in case" unless they are expecting partner to have got it wrong - and we are back to a breach of Law 40.

[Nick Whitten]

I have never played outside NZ but in my experience here failure to give preference is pretty widespread, and not just by “noobs” either. Reasons given range from having some merit to having no merit at all.
But sometimes they get lucky.

A wrong bid is not an infraction (75C)
Nor is making a bad bid.
What makes the two together an infraction?

[Ed Reppert]

If a player psychs, and his partner makes a call that seems to cater for that psych, do we not rule that there appears to be a concealed partnership understanding (CPU)? Is not a CPU an infraction?

Substitute "misbid" for "psych" in the above, and you should see what we're saying.