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.
- If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to
- Alternatively, why not write to David
- They will be pleased to hear from you!