[VixTD]

This occurred at the club on Monday:

Scoring: MP

Uncontested EW auction:
1♠ - 2♣
3♥ - 4♥
5♣ - P

---

3♥ was intended as a splinter agreeing clubs, but was interpreted as natural and strong, not alerted.

NS argued that East cannot possibly pass 5♣ if 3♥ was what he thought it was.

Assume you were called as TD at the end of the auction by West for a correction of the failure to alert, that you offered South a change of call, and that the hand was played out and West made eleven tricks. What would your ruling be?

[campboy]

Isn't the real issue here that without the UI West might cue-bid 4♠?

(Our opponents had an auction with exactly the same start -- 1♠ 2♣ 3♥ (no alert) 4♥ -- at the weekend, and opener did take care to bid as though partner had Axx(x) of hearts and no other cue-bid. He was surprised when 6♣ eventually got passed out -- it turned out that partner did have that holding, and had simply forgotten to alert )

[Blue Uriah]

campboy, on Oct 29 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

Isn't the real issue here that without the UI West might cue-bid 4♠?

If the 4♥ "cue bid" denies a spade or diamond control, then signing off in game seems reasonable. You can't really expect him to make a slam try with his 11 count which he's already treated as if it was strong.

East can do what he likes, unless he has UI or is making bids based on a CPU. Passing 5♣ looks weird, certainly. Raising to a mere 4♥ when partner is supposedly showing a "strong" hand looks very weird too. But making rubbish bids isn't against the law and neither is having a guess that partner (or you) got the system wrong.

It would be another matter, of course, if when East explained that 3♥ was natural, West sighed loudly and then quickly bid 5♣ in a manner that suggested it had better be passed. But we weren't told that.

[iviehoff]

Post deleted after reading Campboy's.

[campboy]

Blue Uriah, on Oct 29 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

If the 4♥ "cue bid" denies a spade or diamond control, then signing off in game seems reasonable. You can't really expect him to make a slam try with his 11 count which he's already treated as if it was strong.

If they play Italian-style cue-bids (so the 4♥ guarantees two top diamond losers), then of course you are right.

For most people who cue-bid first-round controls, however, 5♣ would deny the ace of spades. Once partner has started cue-bidding it is normal to continue below game if you can.

[jdonn]

So there are two questions. Was west's sign off influenced by the UI from east's failure to alert the splinter, and did east's pass of 5♣ suggest he wasn't divulging all the information he should have been.

It's impossible to answer this question from either side without knowing the cuebidding agreements. For example regarding west, if they only cuebid aces then it's unthinkable that west wouldn't bid 4♠ over 4♥, he has amazing controls and a fifth club. But if they were cuebidding any controls up the line then of course he can sign off lacking a diamond control.

As for east, I have to hear how he answered the question 'why did you pass 5♣'?

[VixTD]

jdonn, on Oct 29 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

As for east, I have to hear how he answered the question 'why did you pass 5♣'?

I imagine East was not really sure of their agreement, and got cold feet at this point. I tried to explain to NS that there is really no law to stop him doing this, but they wouldn't believe me. ("Mr Hackett wouldn't allow him to pass - we had a situation like this and he said we had to keep bidding!")

EW do generally cue-bid first-round controls, so I told them they would have a case if they argued that West should have cue-bid 4♠. The score was adjusted to 6♣-1, and everyone was more or less happy.

[blackshoe]

It occurs to me that maybe East originally thought that 3♥ was a natural SJS, but then at some point after West bid 5♣ he "woke up" and realized that he was wrong. If that's the case, at that point he should have called the director and then explained the failure to alert. Unfortunately, many players don't know that, so they don't do it. IAC, it might explain why he passed 5♣ (and why "East can't possibly pass 5♣" is a flawed argument).

[bluejak]

Unauthorised panic again. N/S have a perfectly good case even if they do not argue West should have bid 4♠: it hardly seems to me that N/S should have to understand the effects of the UI Laws to get a ruling.

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

[VixTD]

bluejak, on Nov 1 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that 5♣ was a misbid?

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

Yes, but how were NS damaged? There could easily have been some facial expression by West indicating that the explanation "splinter" was not correct, but that is speculation.

[campboy]

No, he's suggesting that 3♥ was (I imagine). We haven't been told what the partnership agreement was.

The UI adjustment is presumably going to be better for NOS than 40/60 for fielded misbid anyway.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Nov 2 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

Yes, but how were NS damaged? There could easily have been some facial expression by West indicating that the explanation "splinter" was not correct, but that is speculation.

When a player fields his partners psyche, deviation or misbid it is a breach of Law 40. It does not need to be a UI case.

[skjaeran]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 03:17 AM, said:

Unauthorised panic again. N/S have a perfectly good case even if they do not argue West should have bid 4♠: it hardly seems to me that N/S should have to understand the effects of the UI Laws to get a ruling.

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

That depends on their agreements, doesn't it?
If 3♥ is indeed a splinter in their methods, the only "misbid" is 4♥ (if they play italian style cuebids). So we can't tell if there's any fielded misbid unless we know their methods.

[cherdanno]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 2 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

Yes, but how were NS damaged? There could easily have been some facial expression by West indicating that the explanation "splinter" was not correct, but that is speculation.

When a player fields his partners psyche, deviation or misbid it is a breach of Law 40. It does not need to be a UI case.

I don't think we should look for a CPU any time someone recovers from a misunderstanding. Maybe MI, sure, but let's say I play in a pickup-partnership. Am I not allowed to guess what 3♥ meant? And revise my guess once partner bids 5♣? Missing AK of your first suit, KJ in your second suit, but being worth driving to the 5-level after showing a strong 5-5 hand is a VERY unlikely hand. Yes this is the only possible hand for partner if he really has 5-5 in the majors.

[campboy]

If you are in a pickup partnership then there was no misbid, since you don't have an agreement about 3♥. You are permitted to guess what partner means by an undiscussed bid.

On the other hand, if you are in a partnership where you have the agreement that 3♥ is natural, then you should not be catering for partner having misbid.

Of course, it is quite likely that neither of these scenarios are correct and in fact it was East who forgot the system.

[mrdct]

Are we in a jurisdiction where bids above 3NT are non-alertable? If not, did west alert 4♥ and, if so, how was 4♥ described?

As several posters have noted, it's critical to know what style of cue bidding EW employ.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on Nov 2 2009, 02:17 AM, said:

Is not the pass of 5♣ a fielded misbid?

Normally if a player makes a bid with a certain intended meaning, and his partner succeeds in understanding it as such without UI, we don't rule misbid even if the system card clearly sets out a different meaning. L21B1b directs us to: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

Here W bid with a certain intended meaning, and, without UI, his partner eventually understood it. Then they owned up to MI. Probably E should have called the director before calling 5C, but players, being unsure of their agreements, often don't. Given that we routinely rule MI rather than misbid in these situations, it looks like special pleading to rule fielded misbid in this case. Here, the MI is innocuous, so it looks like a cheap plead. But if there had been damage from the MI, we surely would make that ruling.

As campboy points out, 4S is potentially abuse of UI, so we should focus on that as possible additional offence. If we find no abuse of UI, then we simply say that players are allowed to muck up an auction and fall on their feet, provided they don't use UI to do so, and reveal their information.

[bluejak]

Quote

Here W bid with a certain intended meaning, and, without UI, his partner eventually understood it.

Yes, but why did he eventually understand it? If based on partnership experience, it is a breach of Law 40A3, which is what a fielded misbid is all about. Someone posted something about "unless there is a CPU" which is the same thing, expressed differently. Remember that partnership understandings can be implicit rather than explicit.

If I was playing in an English club with a strange partner I would never take 3♥ as a splinter and would assume 5♣ was forcing. But with people infected by my own ideas I might guess that 3♥ was a splinter even without an explicit agreement. Thus I would be using an implicit agreement based on my knowledge that this partner follows some of my views so might follow the view that I believe 3♥ should be a splinter.

Remember we were not given much info in the original post. Yes, someone has argued what we are meant to do if we cannot decide the agreed meaning of 3♥. But suppose we can? We were not told whether this pair was experienced or pickup: whether 3♥ in their system was natural, splinter, or not explicitly agreed.

So, I still think a fielded misbid is a possibility on the information [or lack of it] available to us.

[iviehoff]

OK. That fits with Greenender's advice on how to avoid being "done" for fielded misbid here, ie own up to a possible double meaning. http://forums.bridge...showtopic=35196