UI -basic case

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sxxxhxxxxxdxxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

An interesting Sven Pran case, simplified:

1N (_X) 2♦ (_P)

_P (_X) 2♥ (_X)

AP

1N = strong.

2♦ = not alerted.

EW are top experts in an occasional partnership. They have not discussed this situation. East, who holds this hand, thinks that after 1N is doubled, transfers may still apply. West (the 1N opener) thinks the bidding should revert to natural. 2♥X goes two down on reasonable defence. 2♦X would always go four down, so NS claim damage.

Please assume that under EBU regulations, after 1N is doubled, a 2♦ transfer should be alerted.

How would you rule?[/hv]

[MFA]

EW are top experts in an occasional partnership. They have not discussed this situation.

 

Under these circumstances, I would rule that it is ok to escape to 2♥.

[duschek]

Under these circumstances, I would rule that it is ok to escape to 2♥.

I agree. It is clear from the auction itself that West interpreted 2♦ as a natural bid, though hard-hitters usually make up a hypothesis that opener could have a doubleton heart with a good five-card suit in diamonds.

 

This type of sequence comes up quite often among players of less than league standard. It is frustrating for the opponents that these players escape from their bidding misunderstanding in an auction where they are doubled.

 

Question two, however, is whether the opponents can claim damage from misinformation.

[TylerE]

How could there be MI damage? Surely after 2♥ is is 100% obvious what is going on?

[aguahombre]

hard-hitters usually make up a hypothesis that opener could have a doubleton heart with a good five-card suit in diamonds.

doesn't that make passing 2Dx with 3-card support a logical alternative?

 

Maybe I just have less sympathy for experienced players who fail to discuss a simple situation. "Do we play xfers? yes. On over double? yes/no. stolen over interference? yes/no." It even has a place on the CC in ACBL --haven't seen the EBU system card.

 

I thought that when there was a failure to alert, partner is supposed to act as if there was an alert or that there was a failure to alert the presumed agreement --not being allowed to assume a misunderstanding, which is UI.

[gnasher]

Responder has the AI that they haven't discussed the sequence. In those circumstances, by far the most likely explanation for opener's pass is that, also aware that the sequence was undiscussed, he guessed that 2♦ was natural. He may even have reasoned "If 2♦ was natural, pass is best; if 2♦ was a transfer, partner will bid 2♥ when they double him."

 

In these circumstances, there's no logical alternative to 2♥.

 

I thought that when there was a failure to alert, partner is supposed to act as if there was an alert or that there was a failure to alert the presumed agreement --not being allowed to assume a misunderstanding, which is UI.

Then you thought wrong. There isn't any need to guess what the Laws say - they're freely available on the websites of the WBF, the ACBL, most other national bridge organisations.

[pran]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

 

The Pass by North after not alerting the 2D bid tells South that North believes him to hold at least five, maybe even more cards in Diamonds (and a weak hand).

 

This information is unauthorized to South, and it demonstrably suggests that South completes his transfer on his own.

 

Had North alerted and then passed, South would be left with the choice of letting North play in Diamonds or "escape" to hearts where South's hand at least seems to have some values. (North can very well have a very strong 5-card Diamond suit with all the top honours and just a lousy doubleton in Hearts for his opening bid in 1NT)

 

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds and I shall be willing to just consider (not neccessarily accept) the 2H bid regardless of the UI.

[gnasher]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

I'm a bit surprised that you haven't addressed the arguments contained in those comments.

 

Yes, the UI demonstrably suggests bidding 2♥ rather than passing. Nobody has said that it doesn't.

 

We have two pieces of AI:

- The known absence of an agreement

- Partner's pass of a bid that would ostensibly be forcing if he interpreted it the way that we intended it.

This AI suggests bidding 2♥. My argument (and I believe also MFA's and duschek's) is that the AI means that pass is not a logical alternative.

[hotShot]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

 

The Pass by North after not alerting the 2D bid tells South that North believes him to hold at least five, maybe even more cards in Diamonds (and a weak hand).

I think you alert agreements, since there was no agreement, why should there be an alert?

 

If there was no obligation to alert, the missing alert can't create an UI.

[pran]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

 

The Pass by North after not alerting the 2D bid tells South that North believes him to hold at least five, maybe even more cards in Diamonds (and a weak hand).

I think you alert agreements, since there was no agreement, why should there be an alert?

 

If there was no obligation to alert, the missing alert can't create an UI.

The problem is not the missing alert!

 

Because North did not alert the 2D bid South has received the (unauthorized) informaton that North understood this 2D bid differently from how it was intended.

The problem is that South has used this (unauthorized) information when selecting his next call.

[pran]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

I'm a bit surprised that you haven't addressed the arguments contained in those comments.

 

Yes, the UI demonstrably suggests bidding 2♥ rather than passing. Nobody has said that it doesn't.

 

We have two pieces of AI:

- The known absence of an agreement

- Partner's pass of a bid that would ostensibly be forcing if he interpreted it the way that we intended it.

This AI suggests bidding 2♥. My argument (and I believe also MFA's and duschek's) is that the AI means that pass is not a logical alternative.

Pass would be a very relevant alternative with North holding something like:

Axx

xx

AKQTx

AXX

 

a hand with which I know many players both to open in 1NT and to pass a transfer 2D bid after the 1NT bid has been doubled.

 

And BTW: Do we have a "known absence of agreements"? To me it rather looks as if the partnership has an agreement but that one or both of the players is unsure whether the system is on or off in this situation.

 

Any call that can convey information beyond its "natural" meaning is alertable in Norway, so a missing alert signals that there cannot be any such "conventional meanings" attached to the call.

[hotShot]

I am very surprised about these unanimous commenets.

 

The Pass by North after not alerting the 2D bid tells South that North believes him to hold at least five, maybe even more cards in Diamonds (and a weak hand).

I think you alert agreements, since there was no agreement, why should there be an alert?

 

If there was no obligation to alert, the missing alert can't create an UI.

The problem is not the missing alert!

 

Because North did not alert the 2D bid South has received the (unauthorized) informaton that North understood this 2D bid differently from how it was intended.

The problem is that South has used this (unauthorized) information when selecting his next call.

Your logic is flawed!

If opener took the 2♦ bid as transfer, he would not alert it, because it's a guess and not an agreement.

So your assumption that North can conclude from the missing alert that South did not take the bid as intended is wrong.

South could have taken it as intended, but decided that he would rather play in 2♦ undoubled, even without a fit, than to risk a 2♥ contract that is doubled. South can risk to go down 6 undoubled in a contract that should only make 8 tricks without getting worse than 2♥X-2. South could always have had the intention to correct to 2♥, if 2♦ gets doubled.

[StevenG]

Your logic is flawed!

If opener took the 2♦ bid as transfer, he would not alert it, because it's a guess and not an agreement.

This is wrong within the EBU. The Orange Book says

5 B 10 A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as

though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have

an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that

agreement.

so Sven's inerences are, I believe, correct.

[blackshoe]

Apparently this pair have agreed to play transfers in an uncontested auction, but have not discussed whether transfers are still on when 1NT is doubled.

 

Never mind alerts for the moment. If 4th seat asks what 2♦ means, what is opener to say? That it's a transfer? That it's natural? Neither of those is certainly the case, so no. It's "undiscussed"? No, because they do have an agreement in a similar, but uncontested auction. So the correct explanation is "undiscussed, but we play transfers in uncontested auctions".

 

Because there is ambiguity in the meaning of 2♦ (opener does not know for certain whether responder intends it as natural or as a transfer), I would invoke the basic principle on alerting stated in OB 5B1

The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw the opponents’ attention to any call by partner that may have a special meaning.

2♦ in this sequence may have a special meaning – it may be a transfer. Therefore, it should be alerted, and the explanation above given. Therefore the failure to alert is UI, because responder can infer that opener thinks the agreement to transfer is definitely off in this case. It's also MI, because Law 20F5{a} says it is.

[aguahombre]

I thought that when there was a failure to alert, partner is supposed to act as if there was an alert or that there was a failure to alert the presumed agreement --not being allowed to assume a misunderstanding, which is UI.

Then you thought wrong. There isn't any need to guess what the Laws say - they're freely available on the websites of the WBF, the ACBL, most other national bridge organisations.

great, thanks. I will look for the place in those regualtions which allows me to take partner's failure to alert into account during the auction and act upon it to clarify that my bid was artificial --such as in this case, by correcting to 2H.

 

It is always good to learn these things, and to learn how I can create "AI" to over-ride any pangs of conscience about the situation.

 

I have always, when pard failed to alert, pretended that the alert had occurred, was explained, and that partner's call was appropriate under those cirumstances --even if the call was not a regular part of the follow-up plan. Here, a long, strong diamond suit and doubleton heart is the only authorized possibility for me to assume.

[LH2650]

I recognize that this in an EBU case, but it appears that Aguahombre (and I) play in the ACBL. From the ACBL Alert Procedures:

 

FAILURE TO ALERT OR ANNOUNCE

If partner fails to Alert or Announce, a player may not make any indication during the auction. Showing surprise or discomfort may awaken partner to the error and would be a violation of Law. In addition, a player may not make allowances for partner's error. The auction must continue as if partner had acted properly.

 

 

My interpretation of this is that we must act as if we heard a proper alert.

[duschek]

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds and I shall be willing to just consider (not neccessarily accept) the 2H bid regardless of the UI.

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds, and North will never pass a 2♦ transfer, regardless how good diamonds and weak hearts he has B)

[pran]

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds and I shall be willing to just consider (not neccessarily accept) the 2H bid regardless of the UI.

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds, and North will never pass a 2♦ transfer, regardless how good diamonds and weak hearts he has B)

Why?

 

How can North know that South did not have six Hearts and a void in Diamonds when he bid 2♦ here?

[jdonn]

Agree pass is not an LA here in general. It's way way more likely in the abstract that partner didn't believe we were playing transfers than that he knew we were playing transfers and wanted to play 2♦X anyway. Way.

[pran]

This thread has taken a curious direction.

 

From now on I beg acceptance of the following principle which is enforced rather strictly in Norway, and that further comments are made in recognition of this principle:

 

When a player has UI in the form of a missing alert (or other misinformation) from his partner he is required to continue his auction just as he would have done had the alert (or correct information) been given, i.e. he must assume that partner just forgot to alert and did not really misunderstand his call. He is specifically forbidden to base any of his further calls on the possibility, however high, that partner misunderstood his call except when the auction itself makes it clear that there are no other possibility.

 

In the given situation there exists (at least the way 1NT opening bids are often possible in Norway) hands consistent both with the opening bid of 1NT and with passing a 2♦ transfer bid from partner.

 

Without UI the responder is free to decide whether he will pass or correct 2♦X to 2♥.

 

With UI that could demonstrably suggest a misunderstandig he is no longer free to correct to 2♥ if pass is a logical alternative had the transfer bid of 2♦ been duly alerted before opener passed this bid.

[gnasher]

From now on I beg acceptance of the following principle which is enforced rather strictly in Norway, and that further comments are made in recognition of this principle:

 

When a player has UI in the form of a missing alert (or other misinformation) from his partner he is required to continue his auction just as he would have done had the alert (or correct information) been given, i.e. he must assume that partner just forgot to alert and did not really misunderstand his call. He is specifically forbidden to base any of his further calls on the possibility, however high, that partner misunderstood his call except when the auction itself makes it clear that there are no other possibility.

Is this part of the Norwegian regulations?

[campboy]

I agree with the majority view.

 

Firstly, all this stuff about acting as though partner had alerted is nonsense. What is important is what you would do without UI -- and this is not the same as having UI in the opposite direction. Partner's alert would be UI just as a lack of alert would be.

 

So you do not consider what would happen if partner had alerted, rather you consider what would have happened if they were playing online, or with screens, or in some other format where one cannot see partner's alert. In such a situation, with no clear agreement about what 2♦ means, everyone would bid 2♥ on the assumption that partner was not on the same wavelength.

 

On the other hand, of course, if they had agreed transfers after a double then it would be obvious to adjust.

[peachy]

There is no MI. There is no UI. Both partners know that they DO NOT have an agreement and information about the system the pair has agreed to pay is of course AI to them. Under these circumstances, it would be wrong to alert (unless both of 2D= natural and 2D=xfr happened to be alertable bids - which is not true anywhere) because guesses are not alertable.

Steven G posted some EBU regulations, but not relevant to this case because opener was not going to act as if the call was alertable, he was going to Pass like a sane person and let responder do what responder wanted to do. There is no logical alternative to responder's correction to 2H.

[peachy]

Apparently this pair have agreed to play transfers in an uncontested auction, but have not discussed whether transfers are still on when 1NT is doubled.

 

Never mind alerts for the moment. If 4th seat asks what 2♦ means, what is opener to say? That it's a transfer? That it's natural? Neither of those is certainly the case, so no. It's "undiscussed"? No, because they do have an agreement in a similar, but uncontested auction. So the correct explanation is "undiscussed, but we play transfers in uncontested auctions".

 

Because there is ambiguity in the meaning of 2♦ (opener does not know for certain whether responder intends it as natural or as a transfer), I would invoke the basic principle on alerting stated in OB 5B1

The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw the opponents’ attention to any call by partner that may have a special meaning.

2♦ in this sequence may have a special meaning – it may be a transfer. Therefore, it should be alerted, and the explanation above given. Therefore the failure to alert is UI, because responder can infer that opener thinks the agreement to transfer is definitely off in this case. It's also MI, because Law 20F5{a} says it is.

If opponent asks about the 2D call, I agree the proper answer is as you suggested. But if failure to alert is UI and MI, then alerting is also UI and MI. Alert and "I am assuming this could be a transfer" or not alert and "I am assuming this could be natural". I understand that opponents getting full disclosure of the AGREEMENTS trumps everything else so from that perspective I understand alerting EVEN IF OPENER WAS NEVER GOING TO ACT AS IF THE CALL WAS TRANSFER (and he wouldn't, he would always Pass). I think alert would be causing damage if responder had diamonds and opponents do not ask. Not alerting cannot possibly cause damage to the opponents because a) responder will bid 2H (if he had hearts) or b ) opponents never double so they get to profitably defend a silly 2D contract. I also understand that we must follow whatever the regulation says but if the regulation INDEED says the 2D in the posted case requires alert, then it is a bad regulation that promotes damage to the NOS.

 

High level bridge has CoC requiring agreements, club games and pick-up partnerships don't operate under those conditions. Regardless of what UI or MI could be construed or even clearly demonstrated by Law to exist, the 2H by responder in the end remains the only LA, IMO.

[Pict]

It seems reasonable that responder can choose his escape from 1NT doubled -planning to play in 2D undoubled or convert to 2H if doubled.

 

I would poll peers, to be sure. It would also be good to confirm what peers would do if opener alerted, explained transfer and then passed. But it would be hard to ask that in a non-obvious way.