[twcho]

South

---

MP Pairs
There was no alert throughout. When 2♣ was passed to South, she asked East what was the meaning of 2♣. East told her it is natural. She decided to double. The auction proceeded without further asking until before South led. East, the declarer, asked his partner whether he had something to explain. West then said that he forgot their agreement and thought that 2♣ is showing the other 2 suits which was what he actually held. At this moment, North called director. Director, upon hearing the facts, which were undisputed, asked the players to start the play. At the mean time, he asked whether EW had CC to verify their explanation. EW did have the sequence written down in their CC showing that 2♣ is a natural bid. So no misexplanation but a misbid. The final table result was 3♥X +2 and director let the score stand.

What is your opinion about the ruling?

[nige1]

OK

[TylerE]

East 3♥ sure smells like fielding to me. Why isn't he doubling 3♣ for penalty?

[paulg]

TylerE, on 2015-May-18, 00:50, said:

East 3♥ sure smells like fielding to me. Why isn't he doubling 3♣ for penalty?

Depending on East's experience I think it's pretty clear that there are insufficient clubs in the pack for both West and North to hold five clubs and at least one of them has shown six. So I don't think East is forced to double and the question is whether East would make a confused pass, bid 3♥, or bid 3NT if they now think that 3♣ was asking for a stop.

[Trinidad]

TylerE, on 2015-May-18, 00:50, said:

East 3♥ sure smells like fielding to me. Why isn't he doubling 3♣ for penalty?

It sure is fielding.

The question is whether fielding is illegal when you field based on the cards you hold in your hand and bridge logic, rather than prior experience with partner.

The reason why "fielding" is illegal is not because it is -in itself- illegal to conclude that partner has misbid or psyched. The reason is that fielding often is based on prior partnership experience, leading to an implicit partnership understanding. This implicit partnership understanding needs to be disclosed (and it may be an illegal understanding).

So, the question is whether this is illegal fielding.

East can see that something odd is going on, there are simply not enough clubs in the deck.
East has seen that West runs from 2♣ doubled to bid 2♦. That sure doesn't sound like someone with a lot of clubs.
East knows from his general bridge experience that many people would play 2♣ in this auction as showing the red suits. The fact that West is running to 2♦ seems to confirm that.

I don't think that East needs to have any prior partnership experience to come to the oonclusion that West, despite their agreement that he has shown clubs, most likely has the reds suits. If East and West were complete strangers, I could easily see East bidding 3♥ here.

---

The other question is whether West used UI (from East's explanation) to bid 2♦. I don't think that passing is an LA with a void in clubs and a sixth diamond.

Rik

[Aardv]

The director should ask East why he bid 3♥. Evidently he thought West had the reds: it's very possible that he owed N-S some information about partnership experience.

However, unless N-S are very inexperienced, they should realise anyway that East thinks West has the reds.

[campboy]

I would also be asking why East didn't bid 3♣ on the previous round.