[Cyberyeti]

This was an odd happening from a local congress teams.

---

W produces a very odd ToX of 1♠ (explained as perfectly normal takeout, upgraded for being over the spade bidder), then E with an 0535 13 count doesn't bid game, something very strange here. We called the TD and they ruled fielded misbid (4♥ can be made, but often wasn't with S holding AQxx♦ and ♥KQ tight, but N holding ♣QJ96).

Ruling fielded misbid 3 IMPS NS.

3♠ went 2 off as unsurprisingly AQ10 in the W hand was pretty much bottom of declarer's list of where the spades were, KJ98 over the AQ10 so could have played the J, actually played the K. Correct play of the spades will make the contract with a misdefence perpetrated earlier. Team mates were 1 off in 4♥.

Interested in views on the ruling which I think is probably technically correct, but I would feel a bit disgruntled to be on the wrong end of.

[Vampyr]

How had the match gone up until then? Did West believe his team were seriously behind?

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-01, 18:31, said:

How had the match gone up until then? Did West believe his team were seriously behind?

I don't think west was capable of thinking like that, but I think they'd already collected an 800 (not 100% sure which board we started with) and he certainly didn't say anything to that effect.

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-01, 18:25, said:

Interested in views on the ruling which I think is probably technically correct, but I would feel a bit disgruntled to be on the wrong end of.

Who do you think was on the wrong end of the ruling? It seems fine to me.

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-02, 03:02, said:

Who do you think was on the wrong end of the ruling? It seems fine to me.

I'm saying as per the title, I got the ruling in my favour and was quite happy.

Had I been on the offending side of something similar, I would have felt a bit disgruntled, as the result from the other table would have meant I could not possibly have lost 3 IMPs on the board even with the most favourable likely adjustment to the opps. What if team mates had collected 1400 from opps doing something off the scale silly so anything I did couldn't stop us collecting a double figure swing ? The adjustment to -3 IMPs feels extremely draconian.

[phil_20686]

It seems a little harsh to call wests action a misbid. He intended a t/o double, he has a t/o double. Admittedly its a bit light, and not the kind of shape or honour distribution that I would like, but it clearly was intended as, and is, a t/o double.

Given that I don't think west has really misbid, I dont think east can be fielding it, nor is there any evidence that east has UI. I mean, I have made plenty of 9 and ten point t/o doubles, when I like my shape, why is this different? (except that west has terrible hand evaluation).

Surely a misbid is worse that simply shading the values for a call a little bit. This just seems like a normal deviation from west.

This post has been edited by phil_20686: 2012-April-02, 06:32

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-02, 05:13, said:

I'm saying as per the title, I got the ruling in my favour and was quite happy.

Had I been on the offending side of something similar, I would have felt a bit disgruntled, as the result from the other table would have meant I could not possibly have lost 3 IMPs on the board even with the most favourable likely adjustment to the opps. What if team mates had collected 1400 from opps doing something off the scale silly so anything I did couldn't stop us collecting a double figure swing ? The adjustment to -3 IMPs feels extremely draconian.

That's a consequence of the EBU's regulations on fielded misbids, which specify a cancelled board and a 3 IMP penalty, unless the offenders' result was already worse. You're not the only one to consider these rules misguided, but this is the wrong forum to discuss that in.

[Cyberyeti]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-02, 06:28, said:

It seems a little harsh to call wests action a misbid. He intended a t/o double, he has a t/o double. Admittedly its a bit light, and not the kind of shape or honour distribution that I would like, but it clearly was intended as, and is, a t/o double.

Given that I don't think west has really misbid, I dont think east can be fielding it, nor is there any evidence that east has UI. I mean, I have made plenty of 9 and ten point t/o doubles, when I like my shape, why is this different? (except that west has terrible hand evaluation).

Surely a misbid is worse that simply shading the values for a call a little bit. This just seems like a normal deviation from west.

If you feel a random 3343 11-12 count is a "take out double" because partner is expected to take it out, and there is no expectation from partner that you will be short in the suit opened, should you alert it ? All my partner needed to know was that this type of hand was normal for them, and would have had a fair chance to make 3♠.

To Andy: I actually agree with the principle of the EBU's approach, but feel that if the best even vaguely likely result for the NOS is less than +3 IMPs, then they should get that best likely result.

[ahydra]

I'm confused on this one as well. You're allowed to make strange bids. There was no MI or UI. Result stands, surely?

(I take it the explanation of "explained as perfectly normal takeout, upgraded for being over the spade bidder" was only given after the hand)

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2012-April-02, 10:04, said:

I'm confused on this one as well. You're allowed to make strange bids. There was no MI or UI. Result stands, surely?

(I take it the explanation of "explained as perfectly normal takeout, upgraded for being over the spade bidder" was only given after the hand)

ahydra

Yes the explanation was at the end of the hand.

Yes you are allowed to make strange bids, but if partner knows more than the opponents, then there is a problem.

No UI or MI is required for this. If this is truly a normal takeout double of 1♠, nobody on this earth with a 0553 13 count is going to sell to 3♠, hence the assumption is that this hand knew something about partner's doubles that they didn't tell the opponents.

If I open 1N off a flat 8 count because I got 3 point queen disease (don't laugh, it did happen to me once a long time ago), and partner fails to bid game with his 15 count because he had an ace stuck behind another card, we'd get the same ruling of fielded misbid. You do not have to do anything maliciously, you just get ruled against as a matter of course.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-02, 06:28, said:

Admittedly its a bit light, and not the kind of shape or honour distribution that I would like, but it clearly was intended as, and is, a t/o double.

Except for the expected shape and strength, it's a perfect description of his hand.

[jallerton]

Did the TD ask East to explain the reason for the 2♥ bid and pass out of 3♠? If so, what was the reply?

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2012-April-02, 16:21, said:

Did the TD ask East to explain the reason for the 2♥ bid and pass out of 3♠? If so, what was the reply?

She did, I think it translated as "I haven't the slightest clue what I'm doing".

"Can't possibly bid 4♣ over 3♠" etc, but no reasons why not or indication that she expected anything much different for the double.

[Lanor Fow]

phil_20686, on 2012-April-02, 06:28, said:

It seems a little harsh to call wests action a misbid. He intended a t/o double, he has a t/o double. Admittedly its a bit light, and not the kind of shape or honour distribution that I would like, but it clearly was intended as, and is, a t/o double.

Given that I don't think west has really misbid, I dont think east can be fielding it, nor is there any evidence that east has UI. I mean, I have made plenty of 9 and ten point t/o doubles, when I like my shape, why is this different? (except that west has terrible hand evaluation).

Surely a misbid is worse that simply shading the values for a call a little bit. This just seems like a normal deviation from west.

The EBU also has the same adjustment for fielded deviation.

[bluejak]

Judging by the remarks made, my guess is that East/West do not know what they are doing, and it certainly was not a fielded misbid. For a start, where's the misbid?

[bluejak]

Judging by the remarks made, my guess is that East/West do not know what they are doing, and it certainly was not a fielded misbid. For a start, where's the misbid?

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-02, 09:54, said:

To Andy: I actually agree with the principle of the EBU's approach, but feel that if the best even vaguely likely result for the NOS is less than +3 IMPs, then they should get that best likely result.

If you want to discuss this, please do so in the correct forum. If this was ruled a fielded misbid in the EBU or WBU, no ruling giving the non-offending side less than 3 imps is legal.

[ahydra]

What's the "limit" for misbids (i.e. how much of a view can one take before it becomes a misbid) then? Are there any guidelines on this?

I think it odd that if you misbid badly but not using a CPU (see Cyberyeti's example), the score is adjusted anyway. In that case, it almost feels like there's no point bidding the boards - but instead just have a curtain card saying "4H by East" - because if you land in some lucky/unusual contract due to taking a view on the bidding, the opps can call the TD and have it classed a Red misbid.

ahydra

[phil_20686]

barmar, on 2012-April-02, 15:53, said:

Except for the expected shape and strength, it's a perfect description of his hand.

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. Its also routine to double on 9 and 10 counts with good shape, like x AQTx KTxxx Txx a lot of players would dble 1s. I would imagine it would be unanimous if you were a passed hand.

So you have an expected shape, and an expected point range. Sure with the actual hand I would not have touched dble, and regard it as an error, but it is surely not a misbid. It might be a deviation, but there is no evidence at all that rho expected it. I mean failing to bid 4H is such a serious misjudgement that it surely cannot be caused by "partner might sometimes double a bit light". I mean, if he was regularly doubling on fairly random 7 counts you would still bid 4H with the east hand, as you might just be hitting xxx Kxxx Qxx Qxx which makes 4H almost completely cold.

[mycroft]

Phil, it's a 3343 with three high outside opener's suit - and significantly less than "opening values (even counting the ♠AQ) counting distribution as responder" - the normal meaning of a takeout double. You're saying it's not a misbid/deviation/misexplanation because "there are 4333s that make takeout doubles (that have 13-high with at least Qxx in each unbid suit), and that there are 9-counts that make takeout doubles (with perfect shape and no wasted values)." A similar argument would be "we play standard", but opening 1♠ on K8432 T65 432 AJ8 because "it has the same shape as AKT76 KQ5 842 T86 and the same High Card values as AKT853 - JT9654 8."

- if that's a normal takeout double for this pair, calling it a "standard takeout" is misexplanation.
- if it's a normal takout double of 1♥, I'd call that a deviation from "standard" - if they had opened 1♥, but they didn't.
- if their agreement is "standard takeout" and this is clearly *not* normal, then it's a misbid (if not deliberate) or a psychic call (if it was).

I think that's the long version of "Except for the expected shape and strength, it's a perfect description of his hand."