[gordontd]

Vampyr, on Oct 1 2009, 03:42 AM, said:

campboy, on Sep 28 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

In the EBU, the normal procedure for dealing with a fielded misbid is an artificial adjusted score of 40/60 (unless NOS did better on the board).

I thought it was 60/30

No - fielded psyches get 60/40 & a fine of the standard amount, which comes to 60/30 whenever the scoring method is matchpoints.

[blackshoe]

I don't think this should be described as 60/30, because that blurs the distinction between the rectification and the penalty, which is something I believe is important.

[campboy]

True, and this distinction is particularly important since the PP is given in the final method of scoring -- so in Swiss pairs it would be 60/40 with a 0.5 VP penalty.

[greenender]

Pig Trader, on Sep 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

It seems from the replies, that if we consider that North should have passed 3♥, then we don't need to look at whether South should have converted 4♦ to 4♥.

But is this always right? Let's assume a similar case where if we were to consider an adjustment for a first irregularity, we would find no damage to the NOS, but if we were to consider an adjustment instead for a second irregularity, we would find that the NOS had been damaged. Can we adjust for the second irregularity now?

Barrie

I thought it was clear that if one side commits two infractions, then you adjust on the basis of whichever infraction gives them the worst of it. I don't think you ignore the second infraction just because the player wouldn't have had a chance to commit it had he or his partner not committed the first one.

[VixTD]

Pig Trader, on Sep 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

It seems from the replies, that if we consider that North should have passed 3♥, then we don't need to look at whether South should have converted 4♦ to 4♥.

But is this always right? Let's assume a similar case where if we were to consider an adjustment for a first irregularity, we would find no damage to the NOS, but if we were to consider an adjustment instead for a second irregularity, we would find that the NOS had been damaged. Can we adjust for the second irregularity now?

This is an interesting question which was raised a year or so ago on the old forum. I remember tentatively putting forward the argument that to adjust to anything that involved North bidding on over 3♥ had shades of Reveley and so perhaps shouldn't be allowed. I think the consensus was that it was legal to include adjustments involving "use of UI" by North if it gets them into deeper trouble, on the grounds that that action had not damaged the non-offenders, but rather had benefited them.

So if you think South's pass of 4♦ amounted to fielding of a misbid, and it turns out that an adjustment to 60/40 would be better for the non-offenders than your weighted adjustment in 3♥, you should adjust to 60/40.

I can't see any grounds for adjusting to anything else on the grounds that South should regard 4♦ as some sort of forward-going move in hearts with a diamond feature, as South has no UI. (If I were considering such an adjustment I would expect South to co-operate with North's supposed slam try by cue bidding the ace of spades, so the adjustment would not include any consideration of 4♥ as a final contract.)

[jallerton]

I agree with Bluejak that we need to confirm the meaning of West's double of 3♥. If penalties (as seems likely) then surely North's pull to 4♦ exposes the fact that North has misbid or psyched; with hearts North would surely pass and play in 3♥x. Hence South's pass of 4♦ should be categorised as 'green' and there should be no adjustment to 60/40.

Of course we need consider North's bidding in the light of the UI and I like the TD's weighted ruling as outlined by Barrie.

[RMB1]

How can this be a fielded misbid? We are told that East has not misbid.

What is this putative adjustment to 60/40, are we adjusting because there is evidence that West used 4♦ to remember the partnership agreement?

Robin

[jallerton]

Opening Post said:

After lead of ♣3 north said "Sorry. I should explain that I pulled out the wrong bid."

North was claiming to have misbid. Of course this does not necessarily mean that North has misbid; the TD has to review other evidence (e.g. the convention card) and have regard to the direction given by Law 75 in determining whether there is deemed to have been a mistaken bid or mistaken explanation.

[RMB1]

Oops! Sorry, my remarks belonged to a different thread, which also featured a 4♦ bid.

Robin