[tabaresort]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 15:17, said:

---

I may have got it wrong, it is, as barmar said, practically unreadable.

This is brilliant. Have tried but not able to show bidding.
Now 2C is alerted as both Majors but obviously not to south (for whatever reason). N/S go 5 off = -250 but E/W had game both in Hearts and Spades. South has MB, north has not fielded the MB so even though E/W far badly the score -250 stands.

[tabaresort]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-12, 13:18, said:

If partner made allowance for a misbid, that is evidence of an implicit and presumably undisclosed agreement. So the infraction is of the disclosure rules. If however there is no such evidence, or the implicit agreement was disclosed, there is no infraction of law, and so no adjustment. I just don't want a reader to think that the "either.. or..." premise leads directly to your "unless..." The TD must investigate and determine which of your "either...or..." applies. If there was a misexplanation, then the score should be adjusted if there was damage.

In the instant case, of course, your "unless.." is correct.

Indeed only if north had extra information could MI be implied. In the example under discussion north was just as much confused as E/W therefore it is not MI but a misbid from south and the score should stand. In this instance the misbid would have come off, however I am never that lucky and forced to plough on to a hopeless game contract.

[tabaresort]

DaveB, on 2012-January-14, 15:35, said:

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C.

If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands.

If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation
and a (probable) rectification.

Only if north knew.

MI can be 1 of 4 reasons

a) Failure to alert
b)Incomplete explanation
c)mistaken explanation
d)wrong completed convention card.

It seems that MI comes from what the partner does (or in the case of failure to alert), does not do.
South can bid whatever she likes, for whatever reason and providing she is fooling partner as much as the others then it cannot be MI. It is a misbid or psyche, which if not fielded must be allowed to stand.
As in the the example outlined where 2C was bid with 6 clubs when the system shows 2C for both majors. E/W were damaged because game was missed but the ruling was that the score, 5 off = -250 should stand.

[blackshoe]

See my post #34 in this thread.

Edit: I see the OP found my #34. :-)

When you click on the hand diagram icon you get a window with some checkboxes down the left side. They allow you to select which hands are shown, and whether the bidding is shown. If the "show bidding" box is checked, then once you get through filling in the hands the window should automatically proceed to the bidding.

In all cases of possible MI, the director has to collect as much evidence as he can, from statements from both members of the pair, from system cards, from system notes if they are available, from supplementary questions asked (for example in the instant case he should probably ask South why he bid 2C, if South doesn't volunteer that information), and from whatever else he can find. Then he decides whether the preponderance of the evidence favors misexplanation or misbid. In this case, it favors misbid. IIRC, South's reason for bidding 2C was not that he believed the agreement was "hearts and another or clubs", but that given the agreement "hearts and another" he had no systemic way to show clubs, so he had to invent one, and hope partner figured it out.

[tabaresort]

iviehoff, on 2012-January-10, 08:14, said:

To my mind South psyched - made a deliberate misbid. There is no evidence that the psyche was fielded, because South got lucky and had a partner with short hearts. Likely if his partner had had support for hearts, he would have ended up in a silly contract; or if he didn't, then we might really have evidence of a concealed agreement.

This is typical novice behaviour. The important thing is to tell them now what would constitute illegal behaviour, so that they realise they can't have play a bid 2-way without telling the opposition.

Note that although unpopular psyches are permitted under law 40A

[tabaresort]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-14, 15:44, said:

I was under the impression it is not what the bidder believes, but rather what their actual agreement is, that determines misinformation.

I would agree. MI comes from the bidder's partner. The bidder can bid whatever they like.

[aguahombre]

tabaresort, on 2012-January-15, 11:09, said:

I would agree. MI comes from the bidder's partner. The bidder can bid whatever they like.

The bidder can even misbid, and then in certain circumstances, explain what the actual agreement is without telling the opponents he misbid; and it still would not be MI. But, he also could falsely correct partner's explanation; that would be MI.

[blackshoe]

If a player bids 2♣, his partner explains it as "hearts and another", and he later explains it as "hearts and another or clubs" or just "clubs", because he honestly thought that was the agreement, he has not "falsely corrected" his partner's explanation. That construct implies that he's deliberately cheating. You do not want to go there without damn good evidence.

[aguahombre]

Does Post 48 have anything to do with post 47, before it? A correction is false, if it is not the actual agreement. The person might believe it is the agreement when he utters, but that still makes what he says MI. I did not mention cheating in reference to that. Cheating would be deliberately giving MI, much different from a false belief about the actual agreement.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-15, 19:42, said:

Does Post 48 have anything to do with post 47, before it? A correction is false, if it is not the actual agreement. The person might believe it is the agreement when he utters, but that still makes what he says MI. I did not mention cheating in reference to that. Cheating would be deliberately giving MI, much different from a false belief about the actual agreement.

#48 was a reaction to "falsely" in #47, which to me seemed to imply at least the possibility that the player is cheating. We agree, I think, that if the player is wrong in what he believes is the agreement, then stating that what he believes to be the agreement is the agreement is MI.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 19:56, said:

#48 was a reaction to "falsely" in #47, which to me seemed to imply at least the possibility that the player is cheating. We agree, I think, that if the player is wrong in what he believes is the agreement, then stating that what he believes to be the agreement is the agreement is MI.

Sorry. I meant falsely to mean incorrectly, not deliberately false. Much the same, I believe falsely accusing someone does not imply malice; it also could be carelessness or ignorance.

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-14, 15:17, said:

---

I may have got it wrong, it is, as barmar said, practically unreadable.

Assuming this is played without screens, if 2♣ was alerted and described as indicated in the diagram, south clearly has UI in the form of a "wake-up call" as to his misbid. Passing 2♥ undoubled is a very attractive option which is demonstrably suggested by the UI, so I would adjust score to an outcome likely if south had chosen to treat 2♥ as natural and forcing.

[aguahombre]

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

[McBruce]

DaveB, on 2012-January-14, 15:35, said:

Well I believe it all depends on why South bid 2C.

If South forgot they were playing 2C is Hearts and another then result stands.

If South believes they are playing 2C is natural then there is a misexplanation
and a (probable) rectification.

But surely neither is true here: South believes that there is no good bid for this hand, and has chosen to take the chance that bidding 2C then 3C will work out better than passing, knowing that partner might well prefer the nonexistent heart suit. We may regard this as a very low percentage shot that succeeded, and South's problem may be that she has forgotten the system way to show this hand, whatever that may be. I see nothing wrong with this, as long as there is no prior partnership history of improvisation of this sequence.

It's fair to ask the partner what the proper bid on the hand is in their system, but unfair to use this strategy as a Morton's Fork: if North agrees that they have no good bid to describe the hand, aha! a concealed understanding -- and if North makes a different bid, aha! no real agreement. South has convinced me that she had a bridge reason for the deliberate misbid. It happens, and the great majority of the time it leads to a poor score. But a poor score is not a guarantee whenever someone errs.

[tabaresort]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 11:00, said:

See my post #34 in this thread.

Edit: I see the OP found my #34. :-)

When you click on the hand diagram icon you get a window with some checkboxes down the left side. They allow you to select which hands are shown, and whether the bidding is shown. If the "show bidding" box is checked, then once you get through filling in the hands the window should automatically proceed to the bidding.

In all cases of possible MI, the director has to collect as much evidence as he can, from statements from both members of the pair, from system cards, from system notes if they are available, from supplementary questions asked (for example in the instant case he should probably ask South why he bid 2C, if South doesn't volunteer that information), and from whatever else he can find. Then he decides whether the preponderance of the evidence favors misexplanation or misbid. In this case, it favors misbid. IIRC, South's reason for bidding 2C was not that he believed the agreement was "hearts and another or clubs", but that given the agreement "hearts and another" he had no systemic way to show clubs, so he had to invent one, and hope partner figured it out.

Thanks for the info re diagram. Certainly easier than my efforts.
Agree that in this case MB is correct decision not MI. However not sure about last bit, "partner fiquring it out" as this could imply that partner has UI. In the event north passes 3c as this, he believed showed the 5 card other suit.

[blackshoe]

No. North has no UI, and South's hope that North would pass 3♣ has nothing to do with UI. "Partner figuring it out" might, to a Secretary Bird, imply a CPU, and thus MI, but that's a different issue, and also not the case here. All the phrase means is that South hopes that North won't keep insisting on hearts after South shows clubs, a hope based not on UI or MI or a CPU, but pretty much on South's desperation. "I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out". I don't know how else to express it.

[mycroft]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-15, 21:21, said:

The problem with the above, Mrdct, is that natural and forcing is not possible after a natural 2c overcall of a strong NT. By that, I mean on this planet you can't make 2H forcing believable.

Ah, this looks like a "two cultures set apart by a common language" issue. The easiest way to make 2♥ forcing believable is to make the 1NT opening 12-14 (or better, 10-12). Or, if not forcing, at least encouraging. If you play "2♥ is better than 2♣" responses to a weak NT, then either you're overcalling on crap - in which case, you're going to be missing a fair share of games - or you're going to have a hard time finding the right game - in which case, you're going to be missing a fair share of games.

And since MrDct is likely in a weak NT world...

Having said that, with UI, I'm passing every day of the week; I have 2 hearts and tricks in a heart contract. Without the UI, I'm still likely passing (assuming a weak NT) - I don't have anything extra for my overcall. But give me 1-3 in the majors, and another half-trick or so...

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 10:28, said:

"I don't know how to show this hand. I'll try this, and I can only hope partner figures it out".

If partner does "figure it out" don't you now have an agreement? One that has not been disclosed?

[mycroft]

I ruled at one point that someone playing:

(dealer and vulnerability unremembered)

---

had an illegal agreement because they:

• didn't have a call to show top and bottom;
  
• bid 2NT ostensibly for the minors; knowing that
  
• if diamonds were corrected, both partners would "get it"

I ruled that given that information, their implied agreement was 2NT = "any two suits"; which was not how they described it, nor legal to the GCC. I also sympathised with their argument that "anybody" would figure that auction out; but that doesn't stop it from being illegal.

[aguahombre]

Is there going to be a correction in the bidding shown? Nevertheless I disagree that "anyone can figure it out", so it is illegal not to disclose the actual agreement.

We are the no one's who would use a bid of 3H or 3S to show a mountain in the minors.