[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-16, 07:57, said:

As to what further question South might ask, how about "what kind of hand does he have when he forgets"?

And the answer is likely to be "more than 4 HCP"

Actually, I suspect he can refine it. If he can bid a 5-card suit naturally, it also implies a balanced hand.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-April-16, 15:10, said:

And the answer is likely to be "more than 4 HCP"

Actually, I suspect he can refine it. If he can bid a 5-card suit naturally, it also implies a balanced hand.

In my experience, getting a straight and complete answer to many questions about opponents' bidding is like pulling teeth. It's not supposed to be that way. I would consider "more than 4 HCP" as either not thinking, or trying to avoid a straight and complete answer.

This is Precision. There is some minimum hand, probably a good 8, which would not pass. That needs to be part of the explanation.

[iviehoff]

It is worth noting that in 2009 the EBU rescinded regulation 3B10
"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon."
Does that deletion mean that it is always appropriate to disclose it and always permissible to act upon it? Or does it mean, It's A Bit More Complicated Than That and other factors need taking into account?

Clearly this is one of those Difficult Areas.

I would tend to say that the problem with disclosures such as "but he tends to forget" is that they can be inadequate. There is a question of what the wider range of things it shows might be. But I think actually in the present case it probably is reasonably adequate disclosure. It isn't really a matter of describing what kind of other hands he may pass on, rather realising that he is going to make bids that are sufficiently obvious for someone who can't remember that.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-17, 03:02, said:

It is worth noting that in 2009 the EBU rescinded regulation 3B10
"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon."
Does that deletion mean that it is always appropriate to disclose it and always permissible to act upon it? Or does it mean, It's A Bit More Complicated Than That and other factors need taking into account?

It would be interesting to know this. Frances?

Quote

Clearly this is one of those Difficult Areas.

I would tend to say that the problem with disclosures such as "but he tends to forget" is that they can be inadequate. There is a question of what the wider range of things it shows might be. But I think actually in the present case it probably is reasonably adequate disclosure. It isn't really a matter of describing what kind of other hands he may pass on, rather realising that he is going to make bids that are sufficiently obvious for someone who can't remember that.

What is everyone smoking, and where can I get some of that sh*t?

It is OK to field a misbid if you tell your opponent that you are planning to field it? Can people really believe this?

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-17, 03:32, said:

It is OK to field a misbid if you tell your opponent that you are planning to field it? Can people really believe this?

There isn't any rule that forbids fielding a misbid. There is a rule that forbids using a concealed partnership understanding.

If you disclose your understandings properly, you're allowed to bid according to those understandings*. Why shouldn't you be allowed to?

*Provided that the understanding is legal, of course.

Edit: The point is that a partnership's methods are not merely "What we agreed", but "What we agreed, modified by our experience as partners, experience with other common partners, knowledge of each other's background, etc." You're required to disclose all of that, but having disclosed your methods in their entirety so you're then free to play your methods in their entirety. There's no qualitative difference between "I know he sometimes forgets" and "I know he overbids" or "I know he thinks most doubles are for takeout".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-April-17, 04:05

[gnasher]

This thread may be of interest:

http://www.bridgebas...lding-a-misbid/

[iviehoff]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-17, 03:32, said:

It would be interesting to know this. Frances?

It is OK to field a misbid if you tell your opponent that you are planning to field it? Can people really believe this?

It isn't a misbid in relation to the understanding that has been disclosed. Once you grasp that, it becomes clear that the issue relates to whether it is an adequate description of how the bid is used.

[Vampyr]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-17, 04:41, said:

It isn't a misbid in relation to the understanding that has been disclosed. Once you grasp that, it becomes clear that the issue relates to whether it is an adequate description of how the bid is used.

And whether the two-way bid is actually legal.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-17, 06:43, said:

And whether the two-way bid is actually legal.

Which it is, in the deal in the original post.

[barmar]

The important thing about that rescinded EBU regulation is that it tied disclosure and acting together. Previously, you couldn't disclose partner's tendency to forget, but you also had to act as if he has what his bid is supposed to mean, so you and the opponents were on common ground. Now his tendency may be an implicit partnership understanding -- you can act on it, but must disclose it. Either way, acting without disclosing could presumably be ruled as having a CPU, which is illegal.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-17, 07:40, said:

Which it is, in the deal in the original post.

I am impressed with your understanding of ACBL regulations. I tried to find out if Pass showing either 0-4 or 8+ was generally allowed in the ACBL. I presume the Pass must be forcing, and is therefore a "tell me more" relay, which even in mid-chart is not allowed unless it is game-forcing. Forcing pass systems are expressly forbidden, but I presume that relates to opening passes only.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-17, 03:57, said:

There isn't any rule that forbids fielding a misbid.

There shouldn't be. But I think that most fielded misbids are deemed "evidence of an unauthorised understanding".

[barmar]

lamford, on 2013-April-17, 09:11, said:

I am impressed with your understanding of ACBL regulations. I tried to find out if Pass showing either 0-4 or 8+ was generally allowed in the ACBL. I presume the Pass must be forcing, and is therefore a "tell me more" relay, which even in mid-chart is not allowed unless it is game-forcing. Forcing pass systems are expressly forbidden, but I presume that relates to opening passes only.

GCC, Under "Responses and Rebids":

Quote

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher.

There's no restriction on the meanings, so two-way calls like this are permitted.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-17, 09:11, said:

I am impressed with your understanding of ACBL regulations. I tried to find out if Pass showing either 0-4 or 8+ was generally allowed in the ACBL. I presume the Pass must be forcing, and is therefore a "tell me more" relay, which even in mid-chart is not allowed unless it is game-forcing. Forcing pass systems are expressly forbidden, but I presume that relates to opening passes only.

The ACBL regulations define a "relay system" as one where "one player tells nothing about his own hand while interrogating partner about his hand through a series of conventional calls". I don't believe that a forcing pass falls into that category.

In any case, I don't see why you assume that the implicit agreement is to play pass as forcing. "0-4, when we remember it" doesn't sound forcing to me.

And where did "0-4 or 8+" come from? So far as I can tell, it's 0-4 or 0+.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2013-April-17, 09:11, said:

I am impressed with your understanding of ACBL regulations. I tried to find out if Pass showing either 0-4 or 8+ was generally allowed in the ACBL. I presume the Pass must be forcing, and is therefore a "tell me more" relay, which even in mid-chart is not allowed unless it is game-forcing. Forcing pass systems are expressly forbidden, but I presume that relates to opening passes only.

Where did you see that the modified (by experience) agreement is as you state, rather than 0 to a bad 8 or some such? There seems to be an awful lot of presumption here.

Since "forcing pass systems" is not defined by the regulation it's kind of hard to know just what the term means - although I agree they probably mean it to refer only to initial passes showing what would ordinarily be called an opening hand, or rather to systems built around that premise.

OP did not specify whether opener considered his partner's pass to be forcing. I suspect he didn't, but that too is just a guess.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2013-April-17, 07:40, said:

Which it is, in the deal in the original post.

Yes, this one is. But not all will be.

One of the reasons that the EBU regulation about telling your opponents that partner frequently forgets is that it is not as helpful to the opponents as it may seem at first. If you tell them "the bid may be x, but then again it may be y", do they defend on the basis of its being x or y? If you just tell what your "proper" agreement is, they will at least know how to handle the auction, and if in the auction or the play they are damaged, they will be protected, since the director will rule misinformation, since the proper agreement is not always in force.

[FrancesHinden]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-17, 03:02, said:

It is worth noting that in 2009 the EBU rescinded regulation 3B10
"If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon."
Does that deletion mean that it is always appropriate to disclose it and always permissible to act upon it? Or does it mean, It's A Bit More Complicated Than That and other factors need taking into account?

Clearly this is one of those Difficult Areas.

I would tend to say that the problem with disclosures such as "but he tends to forget" is that they can be inadequate. There is a question of what the wider range of things it shows might be. But I think actually in the present case it probably is reasonably adequate disclosure. It isn't really a matter of describing what kind of other hands he may pass on, rather realising that he is going to make bids that are sufficiently obvious for someone who can't remember that.

The deletion was because the regulation was illegal. As simple as that.

[mycroft]

For those with issues of "what does 3♣ actually mean, what does East know it means even though by agreement it is 0-4,...", I present the following auction from the club last night. As far as I know, this pair doesn't realize there is not One True Bidding Style, never mind that anybody plays anything but OTBS:

---

We all understand this auction, yes? Let me add that everything after 2♥ took time. Well, when I led a trump (because it looked like ruffs were going to be an issue), North dropped a 3=5=2=3 11 count. When asked (after the hand, after it made), South had a 4=3=4=2 17 count.

A clear fielded misbid (well, at least one). What do they know that they aren't telling us? I bet we can all give the real answer in this case. Why, just because they're playing what they think is Precision, is that not at least in our minds?

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2013-April-17, 17:11, said:

A clear fielded misbid (well, at least one). What do they know that they aren't telling us?

I can't see any fielding there. 2N is bad enough to be a misbid. North has a maximum and therefore is not going to pass 2N, but we can call his choice of 3H bad enough to be a misbid, but it certainly doesn't field the 2N bid, quite the reverse. 3H is a sign-off, so you can argue that 4H must be a misbid too. But when we look at N's hand we see that 4H is automatic, since he has a hand good enough to bid game opposite a minimum, it is merely inconsistent with what he previously bid. How can we call an automatic bid fielding? I can't see it can be abuse of UI either. Even if the hesitations were meaningful, and I doubt it such is the incompetence being shown here, there is no UI that specifically alerts him to his previous misbid, so he can wake up to the fact that 11+15=26 and make the automatic bid. Maybe if you were there you would know that 3H was bid in a way that made it invitational rather than a sign-off, but I don't know that from the facts presented, and I'd still have difficulty arguing that there was any LA to 4H.

Weak partnerships make bad bid followed by bad bid, bad enough to call misbids, on many occasions. I doubt many of them are really fielding.

We see, all too often, with no meaningful hestitations or faces, 1H-2H/3C-4H and spot that the 2H looks really rather heavy and the 3C really rather light; and later from the same partnership we see pass-1H/3H-pass and 3H looks rather light and pass rather heavy. If you ask them specifically, maybe you will be told that North tends to be a bit conservative and S a bit frisky and that evens out. Or do you want to call it all fielded misbids?

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2013-April-18, 05:29

[Zelandakh]

That is one way of looking at the auction. Another is that they have a CPU that 2NT is game-forcing. We simply cannot know what was going on here without asking them.