[CSGibson]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-18, 07:24, said:

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.

2N as game forcing is not alertable as far as I know. Saying that they have a CPU seems a bit heavy when it may just be a PU.

[iviehoff]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-18, 08:47, said:

2N as game forcing is not alertable as far as I know. Saying that they have a CPU seems a bit heavy when it may just be a PU.

Most likely just total incompetence. Incompetents do sometimes end up on the right contract despite errors on the way, and this is not sufficient grounds to obtain an adjustment.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-17, 09:26, said:

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

I was presuming that double would be 5-7. And that they would generally remember that. And it seems that they play it as forcing, as East joined in again which he would not do opposite a non-forcing pass. There was an implicit agreement that it was forcing.

[barmar]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-18, 08:47, said:

2N as game forcing is not alertable as far as I know. Saying that they have a CPU seems a bit heavy when it may just be a PU.

Are you sure? I don't think the ACBL Alert Procedure mentions it specifically. But don't you think it falls into the "strong bid that sounds weak" category? Or maybe "highly unusual and unexpected", since almost everyone plays this as invitational.

We had one of these auctions at the club this week, against one of the weakest pairs. 1♣-(X)-P-(1D)-P-(1NT)-All Pass. Doubler had a 4=4=2=3 13 count, advancer had a 3=2=4=4 11 count. Neither of them understood why their bids were weird. Doubler said that everyone else doubles whenever they have an opening hand and no 5-card suit to bid. Advancer said she didn't know what to bid. Neither of them had any idea that doubler's sequence normally shows 18-19 HCP. Despite having more than half the points, it goes down 1 (even Deep Finesse can't make it), but it was only a 67% board for us because another table went down 2 (probably in 2NT from a more normal auction) and there were a couple other +50's (but not necessarily the same contract -- someone was in 3NT, and got very helpful defense that gave him one trick and eventually allowed him to squeeze for another).

[CSGibson]

I'm not sure, but I know that 2N after 1m as game forcing and natural is not alertable despite having almost everyone playing it as invitational.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2013-April-18, 10:36, said:

I'm not sure, but I know that 2N after 1m as game forcing and natural is not alertable despite having almost everyone playing it as invitational.

I think that's mostly an artifact of it being forcing in the old days, and almost everything that used to be standard isn't alertable (similar to strong jump shifts).

[mycroft]

I think my case is equivalent, vice standard vs Precision, to the OP, or at least south's complaint about 4♥. Both are either "clear fielded misbids" or "incompetence" or "concealed partnership understandings"; and the chance of it being any but the incompetence one is very low.

Having said that, I don't know what rights South is wanting to reserve; they were clearly not damaged given that they didn't bid after the MI, and West didn't do anything with the UI - at least, there's no LA to bidding game with 8 opposite a strong club, and no LA to the bid taken given the known fit. It's possible South hasn't played Precision or against it enough to know that, so no worries, but there it is. Yes, East's call could be based on West not having the hand he's shown, but she did mention the possibility, and according to the OP, there was no UI transmitted by West, so East can bid as badly as she wants.

Barring "they did something wrong, let's get the TD to check", the only case South has is that East-West is deliberately misexplaining, perhaps to induce a misdefence or competition they can penalize; or lamford's case that they have a CPU, but I wouldn't pass out 3♣ with that shape, even though I'm probably going down - let's hope it's only 1; they're making. And East did say "when we remember it"; which removes the "C". I don't like the implications of either of the latter two cases - especially against what looks like poor opposition.

[bluejak]

TylerE, on 2013-April-15, 12:51, said:

Result on the hand was 4♥-1, on less than stellar declarer play, so no ruling was sought.

Thoughts?

Cannot see any illegality.

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-15, 13:12, said:

Isn't 3♥ just offering up 800 if he's really expecting 0-4, it looks like an attempt to take into account that partner might have forgotten. I think the director call is reasonable.

Why? He disclosed his partner's memory, did he not?

TylerE, on 2013-April-15, 13:35, said:

The director call was on the basis of West waking up after hearing the explanation.

He raised to game with a 100% automatic raise to game. What on earth did he expect the TD to do?

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-15, 13:46, said:

But E seems to know his partner has previous for forgetting the system. In the UK we climb on fielded misbids more or less as if they were fielded psyches which may not be the same in the US, but climbing back in on what looks like a working 14 count opposite 0-4 is suspicious even without any possible body language at explanation time.

He told them the system: what is suspicious about it?

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

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

The rule that forbids fielding a misbid is called Law 40.

Unfortunately, and I expect the problem will continue, the term fielding in England means "allowing illegally for". In my time on RGB I have found that a small minority in England, and a large proportion elsewhere, use fielding to mean "allowing for". It would help, as I have asked before, if we could use the English version since it has been defined, and I think is the majority use world-wide, though possibly not by much.

If East allowed for West to have misbid, there are two possibilities:

• He has concealed his implicit agreement that West gets it wrong, so what he is doing is illegal, ie he has fielded a misbid.
  
• He has disclosed his implicit agreement that West gets it wrong, so what he is doing is legal, ie he has not fielded a misbid.

This is the latter case.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2013-April-18, 16:09, said:

If East allowed for West to have misbid, there are two possibilities:

• He has concealed his implicit agreement that West gets it wrong, so what he is doing is illegal, ie he has fielded a misbid.
  
• He has disclosed his implicit agreement that West gets it wrong, so what he is doing is legal, ie he has not fielded a misbid.

This is the latter case.

If you understand that partner can get a specific bid wrong, is that always an alertable agreement (below 3N), on the grounds of being sufficiently unexpected to the opponents, or is it (sometimes) for the opponents to ask? If it is only sometimes alertable, how do you know when?

Does it remain alertable if you do not intend to take account of it, or is it for the opponents to ask?

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2013-April-19, 01:25, said:

Does it remain alertable if you do not intend to take account of it, or is it for the opponents to ask?

The opponents are entitled to know what you know about your explicit agreements and implicit understandings. What you plan to do with this knowledge is irrelevant, they may want to take it into account in their bidding or defense.

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2013-April-19, 02:18, said:

The opponents are entitled to know what you know about your explicit agreements and implicit understandings. What you plan to do with this knowledge is irrelevant, they may want to take it into account in their bidding or defense.

Agreed, but there is a difference between entitlement to know (if you ask - which you won't), and an alert to draw it explicitly to your attention. That is why I asked if the fact of partner being likely to forget the meaning of a bid was a factor that would suffice to make it alertable, (presumably the plain meaning not being alertable).

[barmar]

Whether something is alertable depends on the alert regulations of the jurisdiction. If the regulations don't address this specifically, I think the default would be that if the "forget" meaning, or the implicit 2-way meaning from his tendency to forget, is alertable, I think you need to alert it.

Under the old EBU regulations, where you weren't even allowed to mention partner's tendency to forget, it obviously wouldn't have been alertable ("Alert!", "Please explain", "Sorry, I'm not allowed to").