UI -basic case

[pran]

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?

 

No, it is how we apply Law 16B1.

[pran]

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.

Be aware that opener could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder. Had the 2♦ transfer bid not been doubled then 2♦ would be the contract to play.

[helene_t]

Of course North is allowed to escape to 2♥, as other have said the likelihood that South thought they weren't playing transfers is overwhelming so pass is not a LA.

 

Failure to alert can mean either "no agreement, possibly natural/standard" or "natural/standard". So there is no misinformation either.

[pran]

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......

Of course both alerts and missing alerts are UI.

 

An expected alert (or missing alert when no alert is expected) gives the unauthorized information that the call was (probably) correct understood, but this information does not demonstrably suggest any action other than to continue a normal auction.

 

An unexpected alert gives the unauthorized information that a misunderstanding exists in the partnership.

 

A missing alert when alert was expected either gives the same unauthorized information, or it gives the less serious unathorized information that partner simply forgot to alert.

 

In either case this unauthorized information can very well demonstrably suggest actions which the affected player is now prohibited from selecting unless he has no other alternative action available. He must continue his auction ignoring all inferences he can draw from the fact that partner alerted unexpectedly or did not alert when expected.

 

Here the missing alert gave opponents the misinformation that responder had diamonds for his 2♦ bid, and responder the unauthorized information that opener did not hold a "Diamonds heavy" 1NT opening bid.

 

In the actual case opponents doubled because they knew that this would be needed for a reasonable score when 2♦ was natural. Had they known that 2♦ was transfer (information to which they were entitled) they could see that the double was most likely superfluous. (They already "knew" that their side held the majority of cards and that a 2♦ contract would go down)

[pran]

Of course North is allowed to escape to 2♥, as other have said the likelihood that South thought they weren't playing transfers is overwhelming so pass is not a LA.

 

Failure to alert can mean either "no agreement, possibly natural/standard" or "natural/standard". So there is no misinformation either.

How is an escape to 2♥ possible when/if the 2♦ bid is followed by three passes? This would have been the situation had opponents received correct information. (That the 1NT opener without his misunderstanding would have bid 2♥ instead of passing is in this context irrelevant, how strange that may seem to somebody)

[helene_t]

Why would opener pass the transfer? Even with six diamonds and two hearts he shouldn't think diamonds play better than hearts, but even if he does it doesn't give him the right to pass a forcing bid. East is an unpassed hand. If West had alerted the 2♦ bid, I would say that West's pass suggests that his 1NT opening was a psyche.

 

I find it hard to believe that a good Norwegian TD would say that East must pretend that 2♦ was alerted. What he must pretend is that he doesn't know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, and then the fact that West passes makes it 99.8% certain that he thought 2♦ was natural. 0.1% goes to the possibility that West psyched. 0.1% to the possibility that his pass was some kind of brain fart, maybe West didn't see the 2♦ call and thought that East had passed.

 

Even in the hypothetical case that they have completely bizarre regulations in Norway, it is irrelevant to this thread as it didn't happen in Norway.

 

Edit: NS corrected to EW.

[aguahombre]

How is an escape to 2♥ possible when/if the 2♦ bid is followed by three passes? This would have been the situation had opponents received correct information.

No. the opponents, whether having been given the correct information or not, would not have settled for fifty cents per undertrick. The double still would have ocurred.

[pran]

Why would opener pass the transfer? Even with six diamonds and two hearts he shouldn't think diamonds play better than hearts, but even if he does it doesn't give him the right to pass a forcing bid. North is an unpassed hand. If South had alerted the 2♦ bid, I would say that South's pass suggests that his 1NT opening was a psyche.

 

I find it hard to believe that a good Norwegian TD would say that North must pretend that 2♦ was alerted. What he must pretend is that he doesn't know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, and then the fact that South passes makes it 99.8% certain that he thought 2♦ was natural. 0.1% goes to the possibility that South psyched. 0.1% to the possibility that his pass was some kind of brain fart, maybe South didn't see the 2♦ call and thought that North had passed.

 

Even in the hypothetical case that they have completely bizarre regulations in Norway, it is irrelevant to this thread as it didn't happen in Norway.

1: North was the opener and South was responder

2: Opener did pass the transfer 2♦ bid in addition to not alerting it.

 

There are possible hands opened 1NT with which the opener might select to pass a 2♦ transfer after the 1NT opening bid is doubled. Maybe you would never, maybe I would never, that is immaterial. (And we exclude psyches from this considerations)

 

The important point here is that South has received the unauthorized information that in this situation this is probably not the reason why North passed his 2♦ transfer bid.

 

And BTW. As I was the Director (look up OP) I can tell you that the event most certainly occurred in Norway.

[aguahombre]

edited out..dupe

[gnasher]

And BTW. As I was the Director (look up OP) I can tell you that the event most certainly occurred in Norway.

No, another very similar ruling occurred in Norway. According to the original post, this is a hypothetical ruling in the EBU, under EBU regulations - look at the subject line.

[mjj29]

Sven, If you are in this situation and you have _no idea_ if transfers are on or not (as in the OP), how are you meant to behave. If I assume the are off, bid 2H and opener alerts and bids 2S, we're screwed (above 2H). If I assume they are on, bid 2D and opener does not alert, I'm now required to leave 2DX in. I can only win if both partners guess correctly in an _undiscussed_ situation.

 

What I want to do is to bid 2D, risk playing in 2D and going for 50s if P gets it wrong (which will be better than 1NX) and play in 2H or 2HX if either partner gets it right or oppo double. When escaping from 1NX I want to guarantee that either 1. we aren't doubled, 2. we are playing in 2H or 3. oppo are declaring. If we don't have a firm agreement, how am I meant to do that?

 

I know there is no agreement, so whatever partner does is AI (doesn't alert => also knows there isn't agreement, does alert => well, presumably he's just bid 2H, so it's pretty damn obvious he thinks it's on).

 

What I think you can complain about is passing 2DX if partner does alert, passes and they have no agreement.

 

Matt

[helene_t]

And BTW. As I was the Director (look up OP) I can tell you that the event most certainly occurred in Norway.

Oops sorry.

[hotShot]

Let us assume for a moment that there were screens.

 

When the tray comes back and it's responder turn on bidding, he has to deal with 2♦X. Even if he were sure that there is an agreement that system is on, he would know that partner forgot. No need to see the alert on nonalert from partner. There are (almost) no hands that opener would start with 1NT, that could successfully play 2♦ opposite responders possible void or single.

[helene_t]

There are (almost) no hands that opener would start with 1NT, that could successfully play 2♦ opposite responders possible void or single.

Or responder's game-forcing hand, for that matter.

[pran]

And BTW. As I was the Director (look up OP) I can tell you that the event most certainly occurred in Norway.

No, another very similar ruling occurred in Norway. According to the original post, this is a hypothetical ruling in the EBU, under EBU regulations - look at the subject line.

As far as I can remember my original case, OP in this thread quoted it very accurately and even referred to me, so it must have been some coincidence if my case was a very similar ruling?

[blackshoe]

…Had they known that 2♦ was transfer (information to which they were entitled)…

No. Opponents are entitled to know what the agreement is. Here there isn't one. That's what they're entitled to know, not responder's intent or hope.

 

Okay, if both players know they have no agreement should opener think along the lines "we both know we have no agreement. If I don't alert, opps will think our agreement is 'natural', and if I alert, they'll think it's artificial and probably a transfer. However, they're more likely to ask if I alert, so that's what I should do"? Maybe he should, but it seems like the kind of process that's unlikely to occur to anybody below top level. :blink: :blink: :unsure:

[blackshoe]

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. :blink:

[paulg]

My sympathies are with pran's assessment.

 

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double. Even though I am aware that we may not have an agreement, presumably bidding 2♦ shows my best guess and it is the lack of an alert that mainly confirms this, not the auction.

 

Also 2♦ is not doubled when partner passes it. I'm sure my expert partner is permitted to take a view with a 6-card diamond suit in these circumstances and it is not my job to bid my hand again. I am happy to play in a 5-3 or 6-3 diamond fit rather than a 5-2 heart fit.

 

BTW, has anyone asked if the double of 2♦ was for penalty or takeout?

 

Paul

[iviehoff]

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.

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"?

[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.

[nige1]

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. :ph34r:

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.

[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.

 

If I make a natural call that I have an expectation that partner will understand, then I should work on the principle it will not be alerted.

 

So, in this case, whether partner alerts or not, I should treat it as if he had alerted.

 

Paul

[peachy]

Had they known that 2♦ was transfer (information to which they were entitled)

They are entitled to know the partnership agreements. They are _not_ entitled to know what is in responder's hand when there is no partnership agrteement. This is a basic level principle in the laws about disclosure, at least I think so.

[peachy]

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.

[pran]

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.

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 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.

 

If they can show convincing evidence of no partnership understanding, not even by partnership experience, fine. However, in that case they will need a convincing explanation on why they used the artificial call in the first place.

 

Otherwise we tend to rule that they indeed have the agreement (or understanding) that is consistent with their use of the artificial call and that they have provided opponents with misinformation.

 

Second: If there is an apparent misunderstanding within a partnership we do not allow a player to become aware of his mistake from anything other than the legal calls and plays. Alerts, missing alerts, questions, explanations whatever (you name it) are extraneous information, and once a player receives any such information and this information could be what helped him realize his mistake we do not allow him to act accordingly, but require him to continue his auction and play subject to his original mistake.

 

If subsequently we rule that he may have been awakened by such UI and consequently saved his side from a bad result we do adjust the result back to what should be expected had he not been awakened.

 

We consider being in full compliance with the laws on duplicate bridge.

 

 

In the case under discussion this means that North/South is considered to have the agreement that 2♦ is a transfer bid, that North is mistaken and has given MI to opponents and UI to partner by not alerting and that South is not allowed to correct 2♦X to 2♥ unless he always would have done so if for instance North had alerted the 2♦ transfer bid and then passed.