[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 08:34, said:

I don't think the EBU claims that misbidding creates a UPU. Where do you get that?

Repeatedly making the same misbid may create a UPU, but that's a different story.

The EBU does assert that a partnership's actions on a single board are sufficient to find that there is a CPU, but it has to be a pair of actions - a departure from system by one player, and an action that appears to cater for it by the other player.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2012-July-27, 08:14, said:

I'm not at all sure I understand this, but if I do, it's nonsense. How can one player unilaterally create an understanding out of thin air?

In the EBU, two players acting independently can create something that the EBU treates as an understanding. Even if the two partners have never met before, if one of them misbids, then the other one guesses that he has misbid and acts upon this guess, the EBU's rules say that it will be treated as a CPU.

[RMB1]

 gnasher, on 2012-July-27, 08:51, said:

.... if one of them misbids, then the other one guesses that he has misbid and acts upon this guess, the EBU's rules say that it will be treated as a CPU.

I think "will" should be "can".

If "everyone" would guess that the one had misbid (based on the auction and the other one's hand) then the other one is allowed to guess that the one had misbid, and act accordingly, without being treated as if they had a CPU.

[blackshoe]

My understanding matches Robin's

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2012-July-27, 07:57, said:

True. For these laws to make any sense at all I think we need to interpret "undisclosed knowledge" as something which the pair does not disclose at all, rather than merely something which hasn't been disclosed to this particular set of opponents (whether by oversight, error or simply because the opponents haven't asked).

Indeed. I believe failing to alert falls under the laws regarding misinformation, not undisclosed partnership agreements.

[bluejak]

 aguahombre, on 2012-July-26, 11:00, said:

Doesn't the TD, when adjusting because he judged there to be a CPU (illegal sequence), have to articulate exactly what he thinks that CPU was? Or can he/she use the process to veil his real conclusion that there must have been some extraneous information which led to the fielding?

It is normal when making a judgement ruling to describe in general terms what the judgement is, but not necessarily to go through the process of decision-making.

 iviehoff, on 2012-July-26, 11:34, said:

You can't rule on the basis that there must be some extraneous information just because you find the bidding fishy. You have to say what the offence is and if you haven't got reasonable evidence for it then it doesn't stand up.

While true, TDs make a judgement based on the available evidence. So it requires the evidence to be sufficient for this TD to make a certain judgement. It is a common fact that other people my disagree with his judgement [I am going to see the general view here of a ruling against me over the weekend: while the TD certainly did it the correct way by polling and discussion with others, I found the decision amazing].

 gnasher, on 2012-July-26, 12:11, said:

In the EBU, the director simply has to establish that West's actions appear to cater for East's holding the hand that he had. He doesn't have to be any more specific than that, and he doesn't have to show that any mechanism exists for the supposed CPU. Even if the pair had never met before and this was the first board they'd played together, the director could still find that a CPU existed. Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway.

Other jurisdictions may have a higher standard of proof.

First of all, proof is not required in any jurisdiction for a judgement ruling.

Second, if I was the EBU TD I refuse to accept that I would ignore the fact that it was the first board they had played together. Nothing in the Regulation that I am aware of says that a misbid is fielded if it certainly was not.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-30, 11:39, said:

First of all, proof is not required in any jurisdiction for a judgement ruling.

I didn't say it was, if by "proof" you mean something that implies certainty. The term "standard of proof" means the threshold for reaching a particular conclusion. That threshold might be anywhere in the spectrum from absolute certainty to being willing to accept a blind guess. For instance, one might say that in a civil trial in England, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities".

Quote

Second, if I was the EBU TD I refuse to accept that I would ignore the fact that it was the first board they had played together. Nothing in the Regulation that I am aware of says that a misbid is fielded if it certainly was not.

How about this bit:

"If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding."

I don't think that leaves any room for doubt. But I do think it's admirable that you're prepared to disregard the rules when the consequences of following them would be silly.

[bluejak]

This is not BLML. Making assumptions about the actions and competence of TDs because of particular wording is unfair on a lot of excellent EBU TDs. Sure, there are always wordings which can be turned - BLML would hardly have existed so long otherwise - but we have always tried to help people rule reasonably here, not argued about whether one word means we do not follow a commonsense approach.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-30, 16:28, said:

Making assumptions about the actions and competence of TDs because of particular wording is unfair on a lot of excellent EBU TDs.

I can understand that in your profession one may get into the habit of reading things selectively and ignoring their actual meaning when it suits you to do so. However, I'd prefer it if you didn't extend this approach to my forum postings.

I very pointedly didn't make any assumptions about what TDs actually do. If you look at my posts on this subject, you will see that I qualified my interpretations with words like "Or that's what the EBU rules say, anyway", "The EBU does assert", "the EBU's rules say that".

Quote

Sure, there are always wordings which can be turned - BLML would hardly have existed so long otherwise - but we have always tried to help people rule reasonably here, not argued about whether one word means we do not follow a commonsense approach.

This is the "Changing Laws and Regulations" forum. If there is a regulation that is so badly written that competent TDs just ignore the wording and use their common sense instead, it seems to me that the regulation is a candidate for change, and therefore a suitable topic for discussion.

[bluejak]

I replied to what you wrote in the previous posting, not what you are now saying, and I stand by my comments. Selective reading does not come into it: you made an unjustified comment, and I replied to it. Now you pretend oyu meant something else. Yeah, right.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2012-July-31, 17:47, said:

I replied to what you wrote in the previous posting, not what you are now saying, and I stand by my comments. Selective reading does not come into it: you made an unjustified comment, and I replied to it. Now you pretend oyu meant something else. Yeah, right.

You object to my saying that I admire you for giving sensible rulings? I won't say it again then.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-July-27, 08:51, said:

In the EBU, two players acting independently can create something that the EBU treates as an understanding. Even if the two partners have never met before, if one of them misbids, then the other one guesses that he has misbid and acts upon this guess, the EBU's rules say that it will be treated as a CPU.

Law 40C begins "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings", so I think the EBU should require more than one instance for a CPU if they are following the Laws.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2012-August-06, 02:21, said:

Law 40C begins "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings", so I think the EBU should require more than one instance for a CPU if they are following the Laws.

As Blackshoe stated earlier, "that is a different story." Law 40C speaks to consequences from repeated deviations. EBU goes further and speaks to a single incident where deviatations by each pair during the auction complement each other. EBU is not violating 40C; the single incident is not addressed in 40C.

[bluejak]

I am not logician, but I am sure of one thing: "Repeated deviations may create an implicit understanding" does not mean "Without knowing of a repeated deviation there cannot be an implicit understanding".

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

[aguahombre]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-06, 10:50, said:

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

Don't confuse using a convention and hoping partner is on the same wavelength (because she is smart enough to know it couldn't mean anything else) with misbidding and having partner make another misbid in order to allow for the other misbid.

[bluejak]

I am not confusing anything. The Law we are involved with says [paraphrased] that you may not make a call with a concealed partnership understanding, two posts have said [paraphrased] that if a TD sees only one case then there cannot be a partnership understanding so the Law & Regulation cannot be applied legally, and I am trying to make it clear that this is nonsense.

If we have a partnership understanding we have one even if someone only sees one instance.

[aguahombre]

yet you referred to "the last two posts"...one of which was mine, and I said nothing of the sort.

I was disagreeing with Lamford...the post before mine, which you included in "the last two posts".

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-August-06, 10:50, said:

I am not logician, but I am sure of one thing: "Repeated deviations may create an implicit understanding" does not mean "Without knowing of a repeated deviation there cannot be an implicit understanding".

Liz Commins and I have just used Exclusion KCB to reach a grand slam. We have never reached a grand slam before using Exclusion KCB. If we followed the logic of the last two posts then we have no understanding to play Exclusion KCB to reach grand slams.

I assume Exclusion KCB is part of your system. So how can it be considered a "deviation"? And thus it's irrelevant whether it's repeated.

[gnasher]

To me it seems obvious that we can have an implicit agreement without any direct experience of that agreement. For example, even if I have never played with someone, I may know from playing against them that they tend to psyche in a particular situation, or that they tend to forget Ghestem.

When I started this thread, it was about the unfairness of assigning artifical scores when a real score could easily be assigned. It's a shame that we've drifted away from that topic, though as a serial threadjacker I suppose I can't complain.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-August-06, 23:49, said:

I assume Exclusion KCB is part of your system. So how can it be considered a "deviation"? And thus it's irrelevant whether it's repeated.

Exactly: just the same as a fielded misbid: if it is part of your agreements, it is irrelevant whether it is repeated.