Rescue from mis-bid

[Nick Whitten]

If a player “makes a call which seems to cater for a mis-bid” it seems a bit over the top to accuse him of “the gravest possible offence” - which is how a CPU is described in Law 73B2.

The West player in the "What System" thread (go back to Page 5 ) wasn't so vilified

[Ed Reppert]

<sigh> It is "the gravest possible offence" to deliberately conceal a partnership understanding. No one is accusing anyone of that here. However, the TD may judge that some knowledge existed that should have been disclosed, but was not.

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.

(Emphasis mine).

[Nick Whitten]

Sorry I’m being so thick but I still don’t get it.

Is this only an issue of disclosure?
If so would NS be in the clear if North were to announce at the start of the round “We play a system I’m not very experienced with, so there is a greater risk of a misbid on my part than would otherwise be the case”

Obviously if North gave any indication he had misbid there would be a clear UI adjustment but lets assume this was not the case.

[Ed Reppert]

In the "What System" thread you mentioned, one of the facts given was that it was the first time the pair had played together. So there could not have been prior experience to establish an understanding that one player might forget the system. Here, we don't have that, so there may well have been such prior experience. The TD has to investigate that, of course, but part of the problem here is that South's action in passing 3H is unusual enough to suggest that this situation may have come up before for this pair. So we already have some evidence of an understanding, or at least a possible understanding, arising from prior experience.

The announcement you suggest won't let South off the hook - particularly if he knows from prior experience that North might forget.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Nick Whitten

Sorry I’m being so thick but I still don’t get it.

Is this only an issue of disclosure?
If so would NS be in the clear if North were to announce at the start of the round “We play a system I’m not very experienced with, so there is a greater risk of a misbid on my part than would otherwise be the case”

Obviously if North gave any indication he had misbid there would be a clear UI adjustment but lets assume this was not the case.

Very much. If you play a bid to means either hearts or spades then, if it is legal in NZ, then you may play it if and only if you disclose that you play it.

Mind you, there are UI problems anyway. Suppose you hold a hand with three spades and five hearts, and partner bids 2NT. You bid 3H, parter alerts and bids 3S, you bid .....? 3NT or 4H so as to try to avoid 4S, I suspect.

Now suppose you hold a hand with three spades and five hearts, and partner bids 2NT. You bid 3H, parter does not alert and bids 3S, you bid .....? 4S to raise his five-card suit, maybe.

What is the difference? Your next bid is dependent on whether partner alerts or not, and that's illegal.

If a player wants to be ethical, once he has made a mistake, and he only knows because of an alert, he should not try to dig is way out.

So no, it is not just a disclosure issue. There are enormous UI ramifications, and it is possible the either/or implicit agreement is illegal anyway.

[Nick Whitten]

Sure David’s example with 3 spades and 5 hearts there is a clear-cut LA favoured by the UI which would justify an adjustment (except the 3S bid over a natural 3H could be interpreted as an “Out of the Blue Cue-bid” showing good hearts ).

But doesn’t a player with one spade and 5 or 6 hearts have AI that hearts is a better contract than spades?

And if there is no UI, nor undisclosed agreement, nor specific law which David says applies in England, where can the TD turn to if he adjusts and the offenders ask what law he applied?

[Ed Reppert]

Generally speaking, if the TD adjusts the score (or for that matter "rectifies" a table situation in any way) he ought to know what laws justify it. If he can't find a legal justification, he ought not to adjust.

[bluejak]

The Law that is breached by fielding a misbid is 40C1.

[Nick Whitten]

Does that mean the TD can adjust the score whenever a couple of palookas get a good result through compensating errors

[bluejak]

No, why?