Adjustments for fielding
by Jesper Dybdal, Naerum, Denmark, and David Stevenson
- In the newsgroup
rec.games.bridge, David Stevenson wrote:
- If a misbid has been fielded then we adjudge it as "Red" and adjust the
score to A+/A- (unless the NOs [non-offenders] have done better than A+ on the
board).
- In reply, Jesper Dybdal wrote:
- On which basis in Law?
It seems to me that "fielded misbid"
can be evidence of a concealed partnership understanding, which is a form of
misinformation.
I might give an assigned adjusted score (Law 12C2), but
only if the opponents were damaged by the misinformation. I might give a PP
[procedural penalty] (and/or report the case to an Ethics Committee) for
concealing a partnership understanding.
But I don't understand how the
result can become A+/A-.
- David Stevenson explained:
- The general principle is that where a result is obtained at the table then
a ruling of the sort A+/A- is unsuitable. Law 12C1 does not apply, but Law
12C2 does and a result must be assigned.
- I see a lot of cases where a TD [Tournament Director] or AC [Appeals
Committee] does not assign a score owing to idleness or ignorance. There are
reports of ACs where there was a hesitation over 4
doubled,
and partner pulled it to 4
. The AC
then gives A+/A- saying that it was too difficult to work out what would have
happened without the infraction. This is codswallop: without the infraction
they would have defended 4
*, and if
it could reasonably make 8, 9 or 10 tricks it should be ruled as 4
*= to give the balance of doubt to the NOs.
- In the more enlightened areas of the world where Law 12C3 applies it might
be ruled as 50% 4
*=, 50%
4
*-1. So there is no need for the use of A+/A- in this type of
case. Certain authorities [including the ACBL] think it is legal: I don't, but
that is not the main objection. It is unnecessary, so why do
it?
- It is considerably more difficult to assign when the auction has not
started properly. Think to yourself of any four hands you like, and here is
the auction:
-
1
Pass
2
- Suppose 1
is a psyche, and 2
fields
it. This is illegal under Law 40A, so how do you rule?
- Well, if you assign a score, the actual infraction is the psyche [read Law
40A and see why] so you have to assign a result assuming the 1
has
not happened. Really, this is too difficult. Basically you are on a total
guess with no real data.
- The EBU decided many years ago because of this that they would produce a
workable system, which is accepted and well-known in England and Wales. They
assess each psyche according to a "traffic light code", Red is fielded,
Amber is doubtful, Green is purer than the driven snow.
- The hand is played out, and if it is judged to be Red then the NOs get A+
and the psyching side get A- less a standard PP, so in effect the board is
scored as 60%-30%. If the NOs got more than 60% anyway then they keep their
score. One Amber psyche does not get adjusted, but a second makes them all
Red.
- This is a matter of regulation, and is of somewhat doubtful legality.
However, it is a practical, working, and acceptable regulation, and I commend
it to other authorities.
- Some years back it was realised that the fielding of Misbids could create
similar problems, so we have Red, Amber and Green Misbids: the only difference
is the PP is not applied, so a Red Misbid gets scored as 60%-40%.
- Where we have such a regulation, published, known about, accepted, doing
the job that is intended, and covering a situation that is difficult to apply
the Law to accurately, I believe it is acceptable to follow it.
Editor's note:
- If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to Jesper Dybdal?
- Alternatively, why not write to David
Stevenson?
- They will be pleased to hear from you!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Last article |
Laws menu |
Main index |
Top of article |
Local menu |
Next article |