UI -basic case

[pran]

Be aware that opener could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder.

Why could opener not pass? What logic would persuade him not to pass or what law or regulation would force him to bid? As far as I see, opener is free to do as he chooses.

Of course he could.

 

But he could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder because a pass by opener's LHO would then be the closing pass of the auction and responder would not have another call.

[pran]

Nigel said he'd "simplified" the original Norwegian case. I would take that to mean that he changed something. Whether that change might affect the ruling, I have no idea, since I don't know what change he made. Well, I do know one: he specified EBU rules. Since Norwegian rules and practice seem to be different from the EBU's in this area, I don't see how the Norwegian case is relevant to what we're supposed to be discussing here - an EBU case. :)

I specified EBU regulations, an expert partnership, and definite alleged damage in an attempt to create a simple alert/UI case with agreed facts in a context familiar to many of us. Thus, directors could concentrate on interpreting basic regulations that all understand, to consistently arrive at the same simple ruling. A similar case, presented by Sven Pran, produced an interesting debate in BLML.

I appreciate that.

 

The discussion on BLML seems to have gone completely off rails, and I understand from the growing discussion here that outside Norway (Scandivanavia?) the attitude on misinformation and extraneous information seems very much more lenient that how we want it in Norway.

 

We consider "undiscussed" and "no agreement" to be poor excuses when opponents have been damaged from insufficient description of in particular an artificial call.

 

Apparently I just have to accept this protection of what we designate offenders?

[bluejak]

First: We are very suspicious when somebody makes a call that apparently is artificial and then the partnership tries to convince opponents and/or directors that they have no agreement on this call.

While this is often a good principle, it should not be overdone. There are positions where a player knows because of general bridge knowledge that this partner is likely to take a call in one of two ways, and he has to make such a call, nothing else suits. Then it is perfectly reasonable he should have no agreement but makes an artificial call, guessing how his partner will take it.

 

Suppose you are playing in a club where after 1NT (Dbl) there are only two common approaches: natural, and system on. You hold a very weak hand with hearts. Your general bridge knowledge means you know that this partner will probably take 2♥ as showing hearts or 2♦ as showing hearts, but not both, and you have no agreement. What do you do?

 

In this specific case, I do not think a TD should be suspicious of a player who guesses to bid 2♦: he has to guess to do something. And, despite what some people seem to think, if you arrange a game in a club with a new partner, responses to 1NT after it is doubled is not the first thing players agree on.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law. :blink: B)

[pran]

First: We are very suspicious when somebody makes a call that apparently is artificial and then the partnership tries to convince opponents and/or directors that they have no agreement on this call.

While this is often a good principle, it should not be overdone. There are positions where a player knows because of general bridge knowledge that this partner is likely to take a call in one of two ways, and he has to make such a call, nothing else suits. Then it is perfectly reasonable he should have no agreement but makes an artificial call, guessing how his partner will take it.

 

Suppose you are playing in a club where after 1NT (Dbl) there are only two common approaches: natural, and system on. You hold a very weak hand with hearts. Your general bridge knowledge means you know that this partner will probably take 2♥ as showing hearts or 2♦ as showing hearts, but not both, and you have no agreement. What do you do?

 

In this specific case, I do not think a TD should be suspicious of a player who guesses to bid 2♦: he has to guess to do something. And, despite what some people seem to think, if you arrange a game in a club with a new partner, responses to 1NT after it is doubled is not the first thing players agree on.

A direct question deserves a direct answer:

 

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

 

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

 

I rule illegal use of UI if the player apparently changes his line of calls in the auction as the consequence of for instance an alert, a missing alert or an unexpected explanation given by partner to opponents.

 

Summary: I protect the player's opponents before the player who has taken a chance on how his partner will understand his call. I do not consider it fair to let the opponents of a player taking a chance to bear the risk.

[pran]

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law. :blink: B)

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

[MFA]

The problem boils down to a simple LA evaluation.

 

There is clearly UI that points towards bidding 2♥ - so is passing 2♦X a logical alternative? Law 16.

 

Under these conditions:

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

... I would say no. Nobody would actually pass 2♦ here without discussion.

(Assume screens so we don't know about partner's alerting or not. That's the proper reference for evaluating the LAs.)

[campboy]

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

Fair enough, but that is not the situation here. Here responder does not have an expectation that partner will understand, because he knows they haven't agreed it.

[bluejak]

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

 

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law. :blink:  :)

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

IMO, such an approach may be okay at high levels, but not in a club game (unless the club consists entirely of experts).

[peachy]

Under these conditions:

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

... I would say no. Nobody would actually pass 2♦ here without discussion.

(Assume screens so we don't know about partner's alerting or not. That's the proper reference for evaluating the LAs.)

Screens do not add anything of value to the presented case.

There is no forgetting or misunderstanding, there is no passing of UI with the 2D bid, or with alert or missing alert. Both players are of sound mind, clear head, of expert level, of ethical frame of mind, and they both know what their system is. Their system on the 2D bid is "not discussed" or "no agreement".

[jvage]

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law. :)  <_<

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

IMO, such an approach may be okay at high levels, but not in a club game (unless the club consists entirely of experts).

As a member of the Norwegian Laws Committee I feel the need to point out that Sven could sometimes benefit from writing "I" instead of "we". I will not speak for all Norwegian TD's, or even the Laws Committee, but on several of the points being discussed here opinions will differ in Norway, as among the contributors to this thread. We follow WBF/EBL practice where "convention disruption" is not an accepted principle.

 

For what it's worth, personally I agree with the majority regarding the problem in the original post. I don't know anyone who would pass a transfer with Sven's example hand (Axx, xx, AKQTx, Axx, a better example may have been a hand with less toptricks for hearts). As the case is presented a correct explanation of 2♦ was "no agreement", I don't think I would adjust based on MI either (wheter or not to alert undiscussed calls that may or may not (possibly with very different probabilities) have an alertable meaning is a discussion for another thread).

 

Generally you try to avoid undiscussed calls, here East was in a position where if he wanted to play in hearts he had to risk either 2♦ (may be taken as natural) or 2♥ (may be taken as transfer to spades). I have actually been in a similar position. I normally play "transfers off", but was playing a session with a partner who I knew belonged to the minority who play "transfers on" after 1NTX. I even knew he knew I knew, and he also knew I preferred the opposite treatment! But we had not discussed which principle to use (there were some "interesting" responses to questions and a bad contract was soon reached) :(

 

John

[pran]

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

 

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

It takes more than a self-serving statement to convince me that they have no agreement when a player has used an artificial call in an auction. What is the point of using an artificial call unless you expect partner to understand it?

 

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

[StevenG]

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

They have an agreement, but no agreement about what that agreement is?

 

Weird.

[pran]

I don't know anyone who would pass a transfer with Sven's example hand (Axx, xx, AKQT, Axx, a better example may have been a hand with less toptricks for hearts).

In the original thread on BLML Harald Skjæran commented that for instance holding AKQTx in Diamonds and just two small hearts he might very well pass the transfer after 1NT - Double - 2♦ - pass.

 

This was the post that actually removed my doubt about denying an escape to 2♥ after RHO made this possible with a double. The hand actually held by the transfer bidder was: xxx-Txxxx-Jxx-Tx

 

As it was (Drøbak 2009-12-27 board 57) the non-offenders made a clean top after reaching 4♠ making +1 so I could rule "no damage" (they would also have made a clean top in 2♦ undoubled).

[helene_t]

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

 

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

In practice, East might then have claimed that he was confident that they agreed on transfers, or at least sufficiently confident that he decided to stick to his story and therefore take pass as meaning long diamonds.

 

Even though I think it would very bad to pass 2♦ if understood as a transfer, I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

 

But an ethical East, who had made the 2♦ bid hoping that it would be taken as a transfer but with little confidence that it would, will take 2♦ back to 2♥, because that is what he would have done if he did not know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, which is what he must base his action on.

[hotShot]

Most of the posters of this forum play a lot online. They are familiar with the situation that they have only few (if they made any at all) agreements with their pickup partner.

 

Playing offline, especially at in an established long term partnership this will be completely different.

[Jeroen71]

 

..., I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

 

Unfortunately, this is very common in The Netherlands at the moment after the latest change in our regulations :blink:

[iviehoff]

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

Sure she's smiling, because it is a very good point, and demonstrates the potential absurdity of Sven (pran)'s position.

 

You make a transfer call, and your partner does not complete the transfer. Behind screens, you can peacefully decide whether partner forgot, or has a good reason for not completing the transfer. Without screens, you hear an alert, and know it is the latter. By Sven's test, you are now stuffed. According to the Sven test, you have been told by the alert that partner got it right, and deliberately broke the transfer. Since it is possible he forgot, you must assume he forgot. This is the logical corollary of what Sven says.

[iviehoff]

If you are going to beg acceptance of a principle not written in the laws, then I suggest you need to cite an authority, such as WBF minutes or local regulation.

 

What exactly do you mean "is enforced rather strictly in Norway"?

First: We are... etc

Thank you for reiterating the reasoning behind your position, but it actually didn't answer my questions. Jvage kindly suggests I interpret "we" as "I". So I take it that a Norwegian TD is in practice free to apply the plausible alternative interpretation, as jvage says he might, because there isn't actually any authority, even in Norway, that says yours is the only correct interpretation.

[paulg]

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

 

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

In practice, East might then have claimed that he was confident that they agreed on transfers, or at least sufficiently confident that he decided to stick to his story and therefore take pass as meaning long diamonds.

 

Even though I think it would very bad to pass 2♦ if understood as a transfer, I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

 

But an ethical East, who had made the 2♦ bid hoping that it would be taken as a transfer but with little confidence that it would, will take 2♦ back to 2♥, because that is what he would have done if he did not know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, which is what he must base his action on.

I don't think our ethical stances are different, it is just that we are adopting different approaches.

 

In my way, if I make a bid such as 2♦, I am going to work on the assumption that partner knows it is a transfer whether he alerts or not. This means that I will pass the double of 2♦.

 

If I understand your way correctly, you assume that partner may not understand the bid and you will bid hearts whether he alerts 2♦ or not.

 

Unless you are playing with screens, the problem with not having a defined approach is well illustrated in this thread. The UI that may arise can make your life difficult.

 

Paul

[helene_t]

If I understand your way correctly, you assume that partner may not understand the bid and you will bid hearts whether he alerts 2♦ or not.

 

Unless you are playing with screens, the problem with not having a defined approach is well illustrated in this thread. The UI that may arise can make your life difficult.

In this case yes. That is because:

- It was stated in the OP that I do not know whether p takes 2♦ as a transfer or not. I bid 2♦ rather than 2♥ not because I think p is more likely to take 2♦ as showing hearts, but because I can correct 2♦X to 2♥. I can't correct 2♠X to 2♥.

- The idea of partner's passing 2♦ meaning anything other than that he thought that 2♦ was natural is completely absurd to me. Even if I was 100% sure that we agreed to play transfers, I would take his pass as evidence that he forgot about transfers.

 

Yes, lack of agreements sometimes makes life difficult. The UI problem ought not to be a problem as long as I am confident that partner is aware that we don't have an agreement. But yes, if partner thinks we have an agreement I would hate to know (through UI) what he thinks that agreement is.

 

In this particular case I don't think it's a problem. Whatever UI I receive I have no logical alternative to correcting 2♦X to 2♥ (if I have more hearts than diamonds) and to passing 2♦X (if I have at least as many diamonds as hearts). And I expect the TD (and opps) to agree with that.

[bluejak]

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

 

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Exactly: you seem to be saying you will presume they will have an agreement even when there is evidence to the contrary because that will benefit the opponents.

 

That is not what the Law says, nor, so it seems, Norwegian regulations.

 

It takes more than a self-serving statement to convince me that they have no agreement when a player has used an artificial call in an auction. What is the point of using an artificial call unless you expect partner to understand it?

You have been given an example, which you clearly are ignoring: what do you expect a player to do after 1NT (dbl) knowing he has no agreement? Refuse to call because he knows he will be ruled against?

 

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

We are not talking about this: we are talking about an undiscussed situation.

[pran]

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents?  If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Exactly: you seem to be saying you will presume they will have an agreement even when there is evidence to the contrary because that will benefit the opponents.

Just one question:

 

What evidence is there of "no agreement" or "Undiscussed" (rather than "forgotten agreement" and misexplanation)?

 

The self serving statements of the two players in a pair, one of which used an artificial call with the apparent belief that they indeed had an agreement?

[campboy]

I cannot see how the section of law you quote is relevant. There is no question of "presuming mistaken call". For 2♦ to be a mistaken call they would have to have an agreement that it is natural (or some other meaning inconsistent with East's hand), and no-one is suggesting that is the case.