"Deviated from system" = "A deviation" yes/ No
In the white book there is discussion about fielding
1.4.1
"Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have** deviated from the system** this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method."
1.4.2.5 Deviations
A partnership’s actions following a deviation may provide evidence of a CPU, but they are less likely to do so than after a psyche. As with psyches, deviations may be classified as red, amber or green.
1.4.4
After the board is completed the TD may judge a psyche or deviation is red. If their opponents have a 60% score or better, or have gained 3 IMPs or more, the result stands unchanged. Otherwise, the result is cancelled, and the board re-scored as average plus to the opponents, average minus to the pair. Normally this translates as 3 IMPs, or 60%/40%.
1.4.5.1 General approach
A misbid is fielded when the actions of the partner of the player who misbid suggest a different partnership understanding than the apparent agreement. There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis. It is also possible that the partner was able to field the misbid because of unauthorised information from the player who misbid and the TD will investigate to see if there should be an unauthorised information ruling.
1.4.5.5 Legitimate action after a misbid
If a player describes partner’s bid as showing a particular hand type, and then acts as if partner had a different hand type, that player is usually attempting to field a misbid (or a psyche). Of course, it is possible that a player knows from the legal auction and from their own hand that partner has misbid – for example, partner shows three aces in response to Gerber but the player has three aces. It is also possible that a player has a hand that makes it very likely but not certain that partner has misbid – for example, partner opens a Texas 4 (showing a good pre-empt in hearts) and the player holds K10xxxx and no clubs. It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare and can be judged on their merits.
OK: Now the scenario - level 2
As a director you are called to the table and ascertain the following facts.
After a one no trump bid announced as 12-14, LHO bids 2 Diamonds which is alerted as "Shows the majors but partner has been known to forget". After answering a few questions and the NT partner having passed their partner passes the 2 diamond bid (Holding QXXXX QX XX AXXX or something similar) which becomes the final contract. This has successfully 'fielded' partner's hand (which was 5-5 in the minors but no way to show it). There is no evidence of any UI in the form of expression or otherwise of the 2 Diamond bidder on hearing the explanation.
At level 2 an agreed defence to 1NT of "Diamonds or the majors" is not permitted. Both players have a convention card showing that 2D over 1NT shows the majors.
So the questions now are
- Has the person who bid "2 Diamonds" (which is a misbid) "Deviated from the system", even though the actual bid is not a deviation?
- Can hearing the questions from RHO be mitigating factors in 'fielding' the bid. e.g. "Are you sure it shows the majors?" - not saying that this particular question was asked, but you get the idea.
- Your ruling?
(The final ruling, after discussion was to award the NOS (if they were NOS) 100% of 2 Hearts making which by a happy coincidence was 60%)
Comments
Well, to address point 1, I think the phrase "deviated from the system" is an unfortunate choice of wording that covers psyches, misbids and deviations in that context, using the general sense of deviation rather than the specific legal one.
2) All the laws I can find about drawing inferences from a players questions specifically reference their partner. I think we're in the territory of 'may draw inferrences at their own risk'. So if the player were to say in their defence that "they displayed great incredulity in their questions and then checked that pass then double was for penalties on their card" that might be legitimate. And would also make me less inclined, as below, to consider them to be playing an illegal agreement, since one of the reasons to think that is the player's willingness to pass with the hand given.
They're skirting being considered to actually be playing 2D as diamonds or majors here, which as you mention is an illegal convention at level 2. Certainly the explanation of the agreement 'majors, but sometimes partner forgets' seems accurate, I'm not sure there's any misinformation here. Reluctant though I am to punish forgetfulness, I think they're playing an illegal method. Which, point 3, takes us straight to 60/40.
Thinking about it a bit more, I'm not punishing forgetfulness so much as the partner of the 2D bidder treating it as Diamonds / both majors. If they'd made the bid of 2H, playing it as both majors, there's more leeway.
I think that you can side-step the psyche/deviation/misbid considerations. The bidder knew 2D showed the majors but bid it with diamonds, the passer knew it could be the majors or could be diamond, and passed. To me this is enough to conclude that they have the understanding that 2D could be the majors or could be bid with diamonds, This understanding is illegal at level 2, so we apply the adjustment for an illegal agreement.
I think that this sort of thing makes perfect sense in a congress or whatever, but on a standard club night with beginners and an aging population, some dementia or just general forgetfulness, it makes it impossible to actually play with someone that forgets the system a lot. Most of the time they forget and you get a bad score. Finally you get a good score and now that is evidence of an illegal agreement.
It just seems unjustly harsh to me
Especially in this case where the partner of the overcaller has gone out of their way to correctly alert and describe the 2D bid. It seems that the ops questioning may have highlighted that it may have been a forgotten system in this instance again.
Can this person that frequently forgets actually allowed to play bridge anymore?
Lets say that they agree to play 2D overcall as natural in future to keep it simple. What happens next week when he forgets that change and overcalls 2D with both majors... the following week he overcalls 2D again and what should his partner do now? Seems that they should not alert as the agreement is natural, however, when asked the question, "is that natural?" are you sure?" they should answer that D is agreed to be natural but we used to play 2D as being both majors and that change has been forgotten before, so it possibly shows both majors. Now they have an illegal agreement again.
If a player is forgetting that 2D shows both majors, and they switch to playing Natural, then I don't think that player is about to start thinking that 2D shows both majors. Players tend to forget they are playing a convention rather than forget they are playing Natural.
If it was Level 2, it was likely a novice session. The ruling is not harsh. The NOS need protection.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Well, at our club we have a number of players in their 70's, 80's and 90's... forgetting things is their norm, not the exception.
Forgetting what system they play with who is also quite common (hell, I have done that and I am in my 40's), so the scenario is, perhaps, not as unlikely as you might think?
As it happens, I once agreed with my aging partner to play CRO (which I don't particularly like) - about 3 hands in I forgot and overcalled 3C (intending it as an intermediate jump overcall). No alert but the ops asked him what that meant, he answered "long clubs and opening values" - which is what I had. We agreed to not play CRO any more.
Do you think he never made a CRO overcall in error after that??
We had one lady at one point that was too bad to really play (due to dementia), however, she had been a member of the club since its inception some 40 years earlier, so we didn't want to ban her. Had we 'played by the rules' it would have been impossible for her to continue.
As it was, we had an agreement with her partner and others at the club to just let her do whatever she wanted and we would remove the pair's results from the system at the end of the night. This gave her an additional 18 months of being able to socialise at the club she had been a member of for donkeys years and also gave her husband some much needed respite.