[mr1303]

---

Please see the description of the 2NT bid as per agreements.

North had forgotten and had a flat 21 count.

The EBU uses the traffic light system.

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Generally, in ruling, the first thing I do is investigate.

[aguahombre]

The investigation would go far beyond fielding a misbid, if also game doesn't make.

[mr1303]

South tells you that East is marked with a very strong hand, and that by bidding anything (5C/D etc) they would allow them in to bid hearts, and they expect 5H to make. Given this, South prefers to go off in 50s.

Any other questions to form part of your investigation?

[mr1303]

Table result was +150, if it matters.

[aguahombre]

mr1303, on 2013-August-10, 20:14, said:

South tells you that East is marked with a very strong hand, and that by bidding anything (5C/D etc) they would allow them in to bid hearts, and they expect 5H to make. Given this, South prefers to go off in 50s.

Any other questions to form part of your investigation?

Sounds good to me. And, since they also missed game, why care about fielding colors? They had a bidding accident. Next.

South wasn't thinking clearly, but that isn't relevant. East hasn't indicated strength, and West might have an easier time with his powerhouse over 2NT than over 5m; not to mention N/S are very likely to get a Spade and two minor suit tricks on defense.

We would have some real sticky misgivings if South had used that logic to "psyche" 3NT and made it.

[blackshoe]

Skill level of N and S? Longtime partnership? How long have they been playing this two suited 2NT opening?

I suspect I'm ruling green misbid, possibly amber, but I doubt it.

[paulg]

Skill level of E and W? Did their discussion about a defence include the phrase "and we'll wait to see what suit they've got and bid on from there"?

I think you have to bid 3NT to start talk about a fielded misbid. If you are really fielding it, passing two notrump is just a matchpoint disaster.

[FrancesHinden]

I assume 2NT was correctly alerted?
I don't quite see why you think this is a fielded misbid. His logic for passing 2NT made sense, and if partner actually has a strong balanced hand, it's normal to raise to game.

p.s. technically 3NT was off single dummy (we beat it) although it made at a lot of tables.

[mr1303]

Actually I was South. Opps called the director at the end of the hand.

I alerted 2NT, but no-one asked. When I put dummy down I said "something strange has happened"

[Fluffy]

I am not familiar with the traffic lights system, but I don't see any harm done by south either.

[aguahombre]

From what I have read, the colors are not necessarily about "harm done" on a particular hand, although penalties and adjustments might be involved.

But, this hand --- if we listen to South, regardless of whether he meant East or West and regardless of whether we agree with his logic --- we have no particular reason to believe he fielded the misbid.

Passing, if he knew about the balanced 21 count is not really logical. He would have to also know something else about the board beyond the misbid, and there is no evidence of that. I think that makes it green.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-August-11, 03:39, said:

I assume 2NT was correctly alerted?
I don't quite see why you think this is a fielded misbid. His logic for passing 2NT made sense, and if partner actually has a strong balanced hand, it's normal to raise to game.

p.s. technically 3NT was off single dummy (we beat it) although it made at a lot of tables.

I agree. The fielded misbid decision conflicts with:
40A3 A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

Here the partnership understanding was correctly disclosed. It would not matter, therefore, what his reasons for passing were.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2013-August-12, 14:31, said:

I agree. The fielded misbid decision conflicts with:
40A3 A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

My understanding is that there is no conflict. The "fielded misbid decision" is to determine if there is evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding.

If the potential fielding action is not evidence then there is no undisclosed partnership understanding; otherwise (if there is evidence from the action) there may be an undisclosed partnership understanding (and Law 40A3 does not apply).

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2013-August-12, 15:10, said:

My understanding is that there is no conflict. The "fielded misbid decision" is to determine if there is evidence of an undisclosed partnership understanding.

If the potential fielding action is not evidence then there is no undisclosed partnership understanding; otherwise (if there is evidence from the action) there may be an undisclosed partnership understanding (and Law 40A3 does not apply).

Yep. The "fielding" colors seem to be an application of 40A3, not in conflict with it.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-12, 15:57, said:

Yep. The "fielding" colors seem to be an application of 40A3, not in conflict with it.

But in this example, we are told (or we would have been told otherwise) that the explanation was correct; the partnership understanding was that 2NT was "pre-empt in a minor", so it was correctly disclosed. "as per agreements" is what the OP says; we should believe that. A fielded misbid can only apply under 40A3 when there is an "undisclosed partnership understanding". If they on more than one occasion bid 2NT with a balanced 20-22 when the partnership agreement was that it showed both minors, then one could conclude that their agreement was different, but there is no evidence that this was anything other than an isolated forget. Therefore deciding it was a fielded misbid is illegal.

40C1 states: "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." Note the word "repeated". Deciding that there is an implicit understanding based on one case is incorrect.

Once you have established that there was no undisclosed partnership understanding, they can bid what they like.

[aguahombre]

I wasn't disputing your conclusion about this hand. I was disputing your contention that EBU color procedures are in conflict with the Sections you quoted.

Neither of us see any violation on that hand from the facts as stated. Nothing has been presented to counter South's statements.

[barmar]

I think the idea of the color system is that it's a replacement for actually keeping records to determine if a deviation is actually "repeated". In absense of such records, we're use partner's action as circumstantial evidence of an implicit understanding.

[barmar]

Fluffy, on 2013-August-11, 10:07, said:

I am not familiar with the traffic lights system

I'm surprised to hear you say that, since references to red, green, and amber psyches/misbids come up often here, when discussing EBU regulations. Maybe you just didn't recognize the term "traffic lights" as referring to this system.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-August-12, 22:43, said:

I think the idea of the color system is that it's a replacement for actually keeping records to determine if a deviation is actually "repeated". In absense of such records, we're use partner's action as circumstantial evidence of an implicit understanding.

If I'm not mistaken, all these "traffic light" situations, or at least the amber and red ones, in the EBU get recorded, so there is a record. I'm not sure how they make it available later, though.