[AndreSteff]

♣

---

The auction (West deals, not North), NS pass
1♦-1♥
2 ♣-2♠*
3♣-3♠
4♥ all pass

2♠ is alerted as fourth suit.
3♠ is not alerted, but South investigates and gets as explanation: Asks for half a stopper.

South now leads the Ace of spades and the contract is made (play information not available).
South complains: had he known that East held real spades, he would never have led them.
The conventions card is silent on the matter. East states that his partner explained his 3♠ call correctly, but that he misbid.

What now?

[blackshoe]

Well I'd be asking some questions, in particular why East with 5-5 in the majors bid hearts first, but on the evidence I see no reason to rule otherwise than "no infraction, score stands".

South is entitled to know the EW agreements; he's not entitled to know what's in East's hand.

[Trinidad]

Before I would rule that there was no infraction, I would like to see some evidence that the explanation was indeed correct and that East did misbid (Law 75).

In this case, there is actually some evidence that the explanation was incorrect: West didn't alert 3♠. Only when asked, West started to explain their "agreement". I seriously doubt that there was such an agreement (or for that matter, any agreement) between East and West.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Rik: Are you politely trying to say that East's statement is too convenient and self-serving?

If not, I would be happy to do so.

edit: Blackshoe's post is not in opposition to our opinion. He just didn't express his and gave what seems to be the right answer (absent more info).

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-November-19, 19:15

[AndreSteff]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-19, 19:09, said:

Rik: Are you politely trying to say that East's statement is too convenient and self-serving?

If not, I would be happy to do so.

edit: Blackshoe's post is not in opposition to our opinion. He just didn't express his and gave what seems to be the right answer (absent more info).

Well, my representation of the information was the result of some questioning of East of course. He had intended to show a strong 55 in the majors, but now realized that his partner's explanation that this sequence asks for half a stopper was correct. There is no further evidence to corroborate this.

When polling I met some raised eyebrows about this agreement. Most of the pollees thought that this sequence showed 55 majors absent any explicit other agreement.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-19, 19:09, said:

Rik: Are you politely trying to say that East's statement is too convenient and self-serving?

If not, I would be happy to do so.

edit: Blackshoe's post is not in opposition to our opinion. He just didn't express his and gave what seems to be the right answer (absent more info).

I am merely pointing out that the burden of proof lies with the side that did the misexplaining/misbidding. East's statement maybe fine and correct. But he will still need to prove it somehow.

And in these cases "proof" can be anything. A systembook would, of course, be excellent. But if another player (earlier opponent or a partner that plays with both), TD, teacher, etc. can tell that they play this as asking for half a stopper, I will believe that immediately. The same is true if they will tell me that it is in this book by so and so that they use as the basis of their system.

The self serving statement by East may well be true, but it needs to be backed up by "something".

Rik

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure there's any "burden of proof" in the laws of bridge. The TD is tasked to gather evidence, and to base his ruling on the preponderance of that evidence. It behooves both pairs involved to present whatever evidence they can to support their position, if they have one, but that's not the same thing as saying there's a burden of proof.

Law 75 says that in cases of misexplanation or misbid, the TD is to assume the former "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". What this means is that if there is any evidence at all that it was a misbid, the TD cannot assume anything; he is required to decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Yes, if the only evidence of misbid is a statement from the player, that's not much, but you have to weigh it against whatever evidence (not assumption) you have that it was a misexplanation.

How often do you query other players, TDs and teachers in your search for evidence before making a ruling?

[gordontd]

AndreSteff, on 2011-November-20, 01:29, said:

When polling I met some raised eyebrows about this agreement. Most of the pollees thought that this sequence showed 55 majors absent any explicit other agreement.

What were they on? I wouldn't put much faith in the views of players who think you show 5-5 in the majors by starting with a 1H response.

[jallerton]

If you had challenged them on this point, Gordon, I suspect the pollees would have admitted this meant at least 5-6 in the majors.

The TD has to rule based on the available facts, and I agree that the absence of an alert of 3♠ is significant.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-20, 03:46, said:

Law 75 says that in cases of misexplanation or misbid, the TD is to assume the former "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". What this means is that if there is any evidence at all that it was a misbid, the TD cannot assume anything; he is required to decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Yes, if the only evidence of misbid is a statement from the player, that's not much, but you have to weigh it against whatever evidence (not assumption) you have that it was a misexplanation.

I don't think it makes any sense to consider an unsupported statement from the player as "evidence" here, since without such a statement we would not be in the position of deciding between MI and misbid in the first place. Why do we need a law saying "if the players agree there was MI, rule as though there was MI"?

[AndreSteff]

gordontd, on 2011-November-20, 04:04, said:

What were they on? I wouldn't put much faith in the views of players who think you show 5-5 in the majors by starting with a 1H response.

I don't think this approach to be the product of a befuddled mind at all: in Holland you would have to be prepared to make your second response a jump to 3♥ to make the auction forcing, thereby only showing a 4+ card in the suit. Starting with the lower 5 card when you have game going values spares a lot of bidding space and gives the opportunity to show your distribution below 3NT.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-20, 03:46, said:

How often do you query other players, TDs and teachers in your search for evidence before making a ruling?

Rarely. I will tell the misexplainers/misbidders that in the absence of any evidence that they misbid, I will have to assume that they misexplained. I will suggest to them what kind of evidence that might be. They can then provide me with witnesses or a system book, or whatever.

If, for example, they will tell me that their bridge teacher told them to play like this, I will be happy to give him a call or send him an email.

Rik

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-20, 03:46, said:

Law 75 says that in cases of misexplanation or misbid, the TD is to assume the former "in the absence of evidence to the contrary". What this means is that if there is any evidence at all that it was a misbid, the TD cannot assume anything; he is required to decide where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Yes, if the only evidence of misbid is a statement from the player, that's not much, but you have to weigh it against whatever evidence (not assumption) you have that it was a misexplanation.

A self serving statement by one of the players is not evidence. It is a circular reasoning.

In this case, there actually is evidence (real evidence) that the explanation is incorrect: The 3♠ bid was not alerted. That is not strong evidence, but it is real evidence as opposed to the no evidence that a circular reasoning provides.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-20, 08:15, said:

A self serving statement by one of the players is not evidence. It is a circular reasoning.

In this case, there actually is evidence (real evidence) that the explanation is incorrect: The 3♠ bid was not alerted. That is not strong evidence, but it is real evidence as opposed to the no evidence that a circular reasoning provides.

Rik

"Circular reasoning"? Nonsense. We've had this discussion in other threads. Statements are evidence, self-serving or not. "Self-serving" does not mean "false".

Yes, there is evidence of MI. If you'd said "the evidence of MI outweighs the evidence of misbid, so on the preponderance of the evidence I'd rule MI" I might have agreed with you. But "no evidence" is bull.

[StevenG]

West bid 4♥ rather than 3NT. I suggest that renders meaningless any inferences from his lack of alert.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-20, 08:27, said:

"Circular reasoning"? Nonsense. We've had this discussion in other threads. Statements are evidence, self-serving or not. "Self-serving" does not mean "false".

Yes, there is evidence of MI. If you'd said "the evidence of MI outweighs the evidence of misbid, so on the preponderance of the evidence I'd rule MI" I might have agreed with you. But "no evidence" is bull.

I have read and understood your point of view that a self serving statement is evidence. It would be nice if you could support that point of view with strong arguments or reasoning rather than with strong language.

And indeed, "self-serving" is certainly not synonymous with "false". It has nothing what so ever to do with true or false. Did I write anywhere that East statement was false because it was selve-serving? As a matter of fact, I already wrote before:

Trinidad, on 2011-November-20, 02:46, said:

The self serving statement by East may well be true [].

In a sense, the self-serving statement is already weighted into the procedure. Suppose that East would have made the (not self-serving) statement: "Sorry, the explanation is wrong. Director, please!". We would have automatically ruled MI and applied the appropriate laws. East's actual statement (as self-serving as it may be) made us investigate whether this was a case of MI or misbidding.

And that is where the investigation starts. It's only logical that the first step will be to ask East if he has something to back his statement.

Rik

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2011-November-20, 08:40, said:

West bid 4♥ rather than 3NT. I suggest that renders meaningless any inferences from his lack of alert.

I think West's 4♥ bid doesn't mean much. It is the correct bid regardless of the meaning of 3♠.

-If it asks for a stop, you deny a stop and suggest to play game in the 5-2 fit.
-If it shows a fifth spade (and hence a sixth heart), you are placing the contract.

I actually think that quite a few would have bid 4♣ if 3♠ asked for a stop. Therefore, the 4♥ bid is a slight indication that West -at that time- thought that 3♠ was natural.

So, we have:
- The actual East hand, indicating that 3♠ is natural.
- The lack of alert, indicating that 3♠ is natural.
- The 4♥ bid, slightly indicating that 3♠ is natural.

(I didn't mention the fact that most players in The Netherlands will play 3♠ as natural.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-20, 09:17, said:

I have read and understood your point of view that a self serving statement is evidence. It would be nice if you could support that point of view with strong arguments or reasoning rather than with strong language.

In law, "evidence" is "information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court". So when East says something about their agreements, self-serving or not, it's evidence.

[aguahombre]

As a side note, there is another subtle indication that this pair doesn't concern itself with disclosing accurately.

"2S was alerted as 4th suit." Duh.

When we have bid three suits, and now bid the other one, I think the oppoents will know it is the 4th suit. A proper explanation would be whether it might be artificial and whether it is game forcing.

[gordontd]

AndreSteff, on 2011-November-20, 07:25, said:

I don't think this approach to be the product of a befuddled mind at all: in Holland you would have to be prepared to make your second response a jump to 3♥ to make the auction forcing, thereby only showing a 4+ card in the suit. Starting with the lower 5 card when you have game going values spares a lot of bidding space and gives the opportunity to show your distribution below 3NT.

So 1C-1S-2C-2H is non-forcing, 1C-1S-2C-3H is not a splinter bid, and 1C-1H-2C-2S doesn't show longer hearts than spades?