rule

[dosxtres]

1n 2d

2n 3h

4h p

p

 

If they play 2d as transfer, no alert, 2n not defined anyway but natural.

3h is UI for p, can he bid 4H?

 

So, anything to rule?

 

When UI is envolved, if a begginer is implied, the rules would be different? About if a beginer can or cannot take advantage about something happend at the table.

[Cascade]

1n 2d

2n 3h

4h p

p

 

If they play 2d as transfer, no alert, 2n not defined anyway but natural.

3h is UI for p, can he bid 4H?

 

So, anything to rule?

 

When UI is envolved, if a begginer is implied, the rules would be different? About if a beginer can or cannot take advantage about something happend at the table.

I need more information.

 

There might be something to rule.

 

The 3♥ bidder appears to have tried to sign-off after his partner's super-accept and partner bid game anyway.

 

This is odd. Odd is not sufficient reason to make a ruling. But it could be there was some UI transmitted that would affect the bidding.

[paulg]

1n  2d

2n  3h

4h  p

p

 

If they play 2d as transfer, no alert, 2n not defined anyway but natural.

3h is UI for p, can he bid 4H?

 

So, anything to rule?

 

When UI is envolved, if a begginer is implied, the rules would be different? About if a beginer can or cannot take advantage about something happend at the table.

We need a fair bit more information.

 

Firstly, as the real directors on the forum will say, it would help if we knew where this occurred and what the alerting regulations are.

 

Did the 4♥ contract make? If not, then the opponents have probably not been damaged so the question is whether to assess a procedural penalty rather than adjust the score.

 

And, before we rule, we'd ask questions of the players.

 

On the auction in question, it appears that the only player in receipt of UI is responder as his partner failed to alert the 2♦ transfer. The opener does not appear to have any UI and so is (essentially) free to bid whatever he likes.

 

I would ask about the 2NT bid. In a regular or expert partnership this would have some meaning. If beginners, then it might just mean a maximum hand or never happened before.

 

Then I would examine the 3♥ bid. Why did responder make this call? As an eminent TD often says, players rarely lie to the Director and the answer will probably resolve the issue. You will probably hear one of:

• Partner forgot we play transfers, so I telling him I really have hearts
  
• Partner must have a good hand for hearts, but I am signing off
  
• I don't know what 2NT was, but I want to play in hearts
  

Some of these answers led to simple rulings. Others require further questions (is 3♥ forcing?).

 

In terms of handling beginners, you give them a lot more latitude when it comes to assessing logical alternatives. If they have used UI, then education rather than penalty is normally appropriate.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

I may be missing something but I fail to see the problem.

 

You write "3♥ is UI for partner". This is not true. UI is something like a sigh or nod, or the (wrong) use of the alert card.

 

Opener knows that responder bid 2♦ and then 3♥. He is allowed to interpret those facts however he fancies.

 

Responder might have some UI due to opener's failure to alert 2♦. It could be that 2N would have been a superaccept if 2♦ was understood as a transfer, but now that it was not alerted it looks more like a stubborn "I know you want to play 2♦ but I don't trust your decision and besides I want to declare". I suppose 3♥ would be a normal bid then, to wake p up. Note that if responder had no UI, it is appropriate to wake p up by bidding 3♥. Besides, although responder might have been using the UI when he decided to bid 3♥, he would probably have bid the same without the UI.

 

I can imagine if responder had an evident 4♥ over a superaccept 2N but a sign-off in 3♥ over the stubborn 2N, and 3♥ is passed by opener and makes precisely, an adjustment to 4♥-1 would be required. As it stands I cannot imagine any reason for adjustment.

[dosxtres]

Ty for your answeres.

 

Let me explain better.

I was asking if 3h could be UI when responder has 5 hearts.

 

1N 2d

 

They play 2d as transfer. Opener forgot it was transfer and did bid a natural 2n in response of diamonds. It isn't supperaccept or nothing.

 

1n 2d

2n 3h (not on the system if it is forcing or not)

4h making, with the field.

 

Other case could be,

 

1n 2d (transfer to hearts, no alert. Alert is required)

2s (He forgot the transfer, has no diamonds so he bids spades. Has 4)

.... 3h

3n 4h (responder has 6 hearts)

[helene_t]

dosxtres, it sounds to me as if you don't quite understand the concept of UI.

 

Responder is allowed to bid 3♥ for whatever reason he has, including the desire to wake p up. There is nothing wrong with bidding 3♥ in an attempt to say "p, I think you forgot that 2♦ showed hearts". If opener gets the message, it is not UI. Opener is allowed to be waken up.

 

The issue could be if some information flowed from actions other than the bidding. For example opener's failure to use the alert card. Responder is not allowed to use the information that his 2♦ bid was not alerted. But he is allowed to use the information that opener did not bid 2♥. If responder can draw the conclusion that opener must have forgotten solely on the basis of the fact that opener did not accept the transfer, he is allowed to use that information.

[dosxtres]

helen_t: "dosxtres, it sounds to me as if you don't quite understand the concept of UI."

 

It is. I'm sure I didnt get it yet. And it is because local ruling.

 

This is common topic and td's rule over this example because they say, responder is not allowed to wake up p.

This has been from I've started to study for TD i can see the things from the rules directly, but i cannot get when UI is used and have to rule and when there could be UI (correct alert but wrong bid from p, failure to alert, wrong bids and then trying to correct....) but is not used.

[helene_t]

It is quite easy to define UI: it is any information flowing from other things than the bidding and play itself. Examples:

- Use of the alert card (when p intended his call as natural)

- Failure to use the alert card (when p intended his call as conventional)

- Use of stop card without a jump

- Failure to use the stop card before a jump

- Explanations given to opps that contradict what partner intended.

- Abnormally fast decisions

- Abnormally slow decisions

- Nodding

- Sighs

- Facial expressions

 

As for the more vague things like the latter 5 examples, it can be difficult to judge whether there was UI. But even when there is UI, before adjusting it must be established that

- The UI may have been used.

- The opps may have been damaged, i.e. they may have got a bad result due to the use of the UI.

[dosxtres]

Ty very much helen_t

 

About this:

 

1.- Failure to use the alert card

2.- Explanations given to opps that contradict what partner intended

 

 

 

1. pass pass 1♠ pass

2♣=drury on convention card. Failure to alert

................ 3♣(natural) pass

4♠ 5♣ (He doesnt understand 4♠ and goes on bidding on clubs)

5♠ pass (He took the message and pass)

 

The result stands even if it is a good one or a bad one, nothing to rule?

 

 

2.- Explanations.

 

a.- If the explanation is wrong, then always rule?

 

1♠ 4♥

alert: splinter

4♠ 5♥ (He has 7 hearts, no spade support)

pass

 

1♠ 4♥ is not defined on cc. One of them plays it as splinter and the other one to play.

 

 

b.- When the explanation is right but the call is wrong.

 

As you said, nothing to rule if you can wake up your partner, if nothing more is involved. Theese explamples are well?

 

 

Bergen is on cc

Responder forgets bergen and has lots of clubs

 

1♠ 3♣ alerted as spade raise

3♠ 4♣

4♠ 5♣

pass (I took the message p, you forgot bergen)

 

Nothing to rule even if the result is good.

[helene_t]

5♠ pass (He took the message and pass)

The result stands even if it is a good one or a bad one, nothing to rule?

Yes. Responder knew he was going to play in spades. He would never have accepted opener's proposal of playing in clubs. His decision to bid 5♠ was not influenced by the fact the he noticed that his 2♣ bid was not alerted. So no adjustment.

 

If opener had bid 3NT over 2♣, it might be different. Responder must assume that opener understood Drury and proposed 3NT anyway. He is not allowed to bid 4♠ because "p forgot to alert so he must be unaware that I have spades, now I tell him by bidding 4♠!". If bidding 4♠ is evident (for example if responder has 4-card support or if he has a singleton) he can still bid 4♠, but if passing 3N was a serious alternative, he must pass.

 

1♠    4♥

alert: splinter

4♠    5♥ (He has 7 hearts, no spade support)

pass

 

1♠ 4♥ is not defined on cc. One of them plays it as splinter and the other one to play.

Probably 5♥ was induced by opener's alert of 4♥. Responder thought he had described his hand by 4♥. Without the alert he would have passed 4♠. So score adjusted to 4♠. (Unless 4♠ happens to be better than 5♥).

 

Responder forgets bergen and has lots of clubs

 

1♠ 3♣ alerted as spade raise

3♠ 4♣

4♠ 5♣

pass (I took the message p, you forgot bergen)

Opener received no UI so he can bid whatever he wants. But responder might have passed 4♠ if he hadn't seen his partners alert. When p wrongfully alerts you must always bid as if you hadn't seen it. He must assume p has 7 spades. He must probably pass 4♠. So score probably adjusted to 4♠.

[Cascade]

You need to know exactly what the methods are. Ask the players if it is not on the system card.

 

1NT 2♦

 

2NT - this would normally be a super-accept

 

There is unauthorized information here if 2♦ was not alerted (assuming that is required).

 

Therefore responder needs to be very careful to make a normal bid, one that has not been suggested by the unauthorized information that partner has forgotten by not alerting. Exactly what this bid would be will be different for different partnerships.

 

Common agreements will include some way after the super-accept to get to play in 3♥ - maybe 3♥ now demanding a pass (of course if partner has forgotten the transfer he may bid on) or 3♦ a re-transfer which is very likely to get your side to the wrong contract if partner has indeed forgotten.

 

It would be wrong to bid 3♥ hoping to wake partner up with a weak hand if your agreement in this auction is that you play re-transfers.

 

With a strong hand it would also be wrong to bid 3/4♥ in this situation if you have an obvious slam try by bidding a new suit or perhaps a 3NT bid.

 

Without knowing the agreements (and the hands) it is impossible to make a judgement on the 3♥ call.

 

Additionally in this situation there is often UI that passes in the other direction. Responder looks or acts aghast at partner not alerting 2♦ and not bidding 2♥. If there is this sort of UI then it would be wrong for opener to raise 3♥ to 4♥ with only two or three trumps since partner seems to him to have diamonds and a second suit (probably only four-cards) in hearts. Again we cannot tell whether this applies without more information from the table.

[han]

You write "3♥ is UI for partner". This is not true.

Ditto.

[barmar]

You need to know exactly what the methods are. Ask the players if it is not on the system card.

 

1NT 2♦

 

2NT - this would normally be a super-accept

I disagree. Beginners would probably not be playing this type of super-accept, it's a more advanced agreement. If beginners are taught any kind of super-accept, I think it's likely to be the simple method where opener jumps to 3 of the suit being transferred into.

 

Unless they've agreed on this super-accept, 2NT is not a possible bid in the system. So in this case, the impossible bid is AI that opener forgot the system, and the UI from the failure to alert is no longer a problem.

[blackshoe]

I'll just add two things to what others have said:

 

First, law 16 begins

Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law.

 

So the question is not whether 3♥ is UI for partner, it's whether 3♥ was based on UI (from the fact that partner failed to alert 2♦). The opening bidder has no UI.

 

Second, information gained from AI does not negate the obligation to avoid taking advantage from UI, even if - especially if - "it says the same thing". It may reduce the logical alternatives to only one, but that's a different story.