missing in the system

[Free]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak83h96dkjt62cqj&w=s2hk8753d8c987532&e=s54ha42da943cakt6&s=sqjt976hqjtdq75c4]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

The auction went (North dealer):

1♦! - 1NT - 2♥ - pass

pass - pass

(1♦ = precision 2+♦)

 

Now South begins to act strangely, so EW ask if there's something wrong, and that this is the time to explain it (before the lead). He now explains that 2♥ is transfer ♠.

 

The lead is ♥3, South doesn't want to play and says EW can write a top score. "Will we enter -2?". EW refused because that's not fair to other tables.

 

2♥ went -6 for -300. NS managed to get 40% on this board. EW obviously had a shot at 4♥ or 5♣ if the explanation was correct. They feel they're damaged.

 

How do you rule?

 

EDIT: North missed in the system (he later admitted he forgot the agreement), South bid correctly. 2♥ is agreed as a transfer. North didn't realise it's a transfer and passed.

EDIT2: West can't double 2♥ for penalty, because Dbl is takeout.

[gwnn]

I think this is the same as

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40360

 

?

[Free]

I think this is the same as

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=40360

 

?

No it's not.

 

In my case the player who forgot the agreement is NORTH, while the call that was made by South was correct.

In your case the player who forgot made the wrong call, but the explanation was correct.

[blackshoe]

Where did this happen?

[TylerE]

Misbid, not fieled. What happens if west doubles 2♥ for penalty? He should know that either something is fishy or that 2Hx is going for 1100...

 

But in any case what law has been broken? EW received proper information, and I don't see any fielding. Stern words (possibly a PP) to South.

[aguahombre]

In my case the player who forgot the agreement is the one giving the explanation.

south bid 2H. South explained after the auction that it was a transfer.

 

Are you saying that 2H was not a transfer as they play it? If so, There is only a misbid. There is no failure to alert, since there was nothing to alert. It is not a violation, in this case, to forget what you play.

 

The Gratis information from South that he really has spades means nothing as far as ruling is concerned.

 

this assumes that what I quoted is what you meant.

[aguahombre]

Stern words (possibly a PP) to South.

For What? Misbidding?

[RMB1]

I would investigate and I may rule misinformation. But I expect I would rule that NS don't have a agreement that 2♥ is a transfer (who does?) and rule misbid not misinformation, result stands.

[TylerE]

Stern words (possibly a PP) to South.

For What? Misbidding?

For not wanting to play the hand and suggesting a score.

[aguahombre]

Yep, that would work. attempt skullduggary (sp?) I forgot that part of the post, and it is definitely worth dealing with. This is not an attempt at any type of humor. Edited August 5, 2010 by aguahombre

[dburn]

I would investigate and I may rule misinformation. But I expect I would rule that NS don't have a agreement that 2♥ is a transfer (who does?) and rule misbid not misinformation, result stands.

I have an agreement with some of my partners to play transfers after an opponent overcalls 1NT. Originally we played these only after a "comic" 1NT (natural or weak and unbalanced), but then it occurred to me that it made sense to play them after a natural 1NT also (which it did - they have gained many matchpoints and IMPs over the years).

 

If, then, you had been playing against me, 2♥ would have been a transfer which North would have forgotten to alert (because he would have forgotten that it applied). If you had been playing against Robin, then 2♥ would have been natural (and South would have misbid, but there would have been nothing to alert).

 

Since I cannot tell from the actual post what the North-South agreement was, I cannot tell whether there has been an infraction (a misbid is not an infraction), and I cannot therefore say how I would rule. If 2♥ was by agreement a transfer, then East-West have been misinformed and may have been damaged; if 2♥ was by agreement natural, then there is nothing on which to rule.

[mjj29]

Stern words (possibly a PP) to South.

For What? Misbidding?

For not wanting to play the hand and suggesting a score.

Doesn't that constitute a concession of all of the rest of the tricks? (the original "why don't you just have a top")? Granted -8 probably isn't going to make much of a difference to the number of matchpoints...

[RMB1]

I now have more facts: in answer to my parenthetical question "who does?", it appears someone does (dburn). If I thought that NS might be comparable in choice of system with dburn then I would be more likely to rule misinformation.

[peachy]

What was the actual agreement? The OP does not say.

If the agreement is "transfer", South should have corrected the MI without prompting, before opponent makes the opening lead.

If the agreement is "hearts", South should say nothing. Unless he wants to inflict further damage to himself :)

If there was no agreement, and South took a chance on being on the same wavelength and ot failed, South should say nothing. Or if he wants to, he can of course say whatever he wants to, but why?

[RMB1]

If there was no agreement, and South took a chance on being on the same wavelength and ot failed, South should say nothing.  Or if he wants to, he can of course say whatever he wants to, but why?

Why? Because if South thought it was their agreement the TD is likely to rule that they have that agreement (especially given Law 21B1). By saying something at the end of the auction, South avoids some of the affects of misinformation in the auction, and completely avoids damage from misinformation in the play.

[peachy]

If there was no agreement, and South took a chance on being on the same wavelength and ot failed, South should say nothing.  Or if he wants to, he can of course say whatever he wants to, but why?

Why? Because if South thought it was their agreement the TD is likely to rule that they have that agreement (especially given Law 21B1). By saying something at the end of the auction, South avoids some of the affects of misinformation in the auction, and completely avoids damage from misinformation in the play.

I said "when there is no agreement". Maybe I should have said "When South knows there is no agreement". I think it is wrong for South or anybody else to assume there is an agreement when there is no agreement. Furthermore, it is MI to explain on the premise there is an agreement when there is no agreement.

 

Maybe we are saying the same thing, I don't know. But South cannot unilaterally create an agreement during the auction when there was no agreement before the auction began.

[blackshoe]

And it's of course never ever happened that one player thought he had a particular agreement with his current partner, but that partner disagreed.

 

If you think you have an agreement, you explain that agreement. If your partner disagrees, he will, assuming he knows this particular legal obligation, call the director at the appropriate time, and state that he disagrees, and what he thinks the agreement is. It is then up to the director to decide which agreement is the "real" one, or that there is no agreement.

 

I suspect that most posters to this thread understand the above. But the point is that at the time he is called upon to explain an agreement a player must explain on the basis of his understanding at that time, and if it turns out that his understanding is wrong he will not be penalized (no PP) but the TD will rule MI and may adjust the score.

[bluejak]

One of the repeated things here and on RGB is that people are surprised that many players do things they are not forced to do. I do not know whether it is geographical, but in Great Britain players often do so: if, for example, they have forgotten their system, and are reminded by partner's explanation, they often tell the opponents they have made the wrong bid to their own detriment. One opponent did this against me a couple of days ago. It is like pointing out your own revokes which is not a requirement but many players do.

 

So there is no need for surprise if a person does it. Also, as Robin points out, they may do it for legal or quasi-legal reasons. By quasi-legal I mean when they think they ought to say something but they have misunderstood the legalities.

 

Another thing that surprises me is that many people have very clear ideas whether players have agreements or not. Well, lots of player do not hav clear ideas. :( It is certainly not uncommon for me when playing with some of my partners to guess what our agreement is. It does not mean we do not have one, it is that I do not know whether w have. It happens, especially at club level.

 

:blink:

 

The other thing that interests me is that E/W called foul when they realised they might have got a better score. Well, if the correct explanation is natural or undiscussed they were not misinformed so no reason to adjust. But suppose the correct explanation is transfer?

 

East could have had his pass back if he called the TD. But are you seriously suggesting he would do anything but pass? No way! :D

 

But E/W might have a case: West might have doubled 2♥. He might play - as I do - that a double of a natural 2♥ s takeout, but of an artificial one is penalties. So E/W do have a case if there was MI.

[Free]

Edited the original post to make things clear

 

- it's not a misbid, North admitted he forgot the agreement

- West can't dbl because Dbl is takeout

[aguahombre]

Edited the original post to make things clear

 

- it's not a misbid, North admitted he forgot the agreement

- West can't dbl because Dbl is takeout

You need to edit your second post, too ----which says just the opposite and is the reason for most of the replies.

 

In that one you state that the 2H bidder misbid in your case. Maybe there are two Free's.

[Free]

Edited the original post to make things clear

 

- it's not a misbid, North admitted he forgot the agreement

- West can't dbl because Dbl is takeout

You need to edit your second post, too ----which says just the opposite and is the reason for most of the replies.

 

In that one you state that the 2H bidder misbid in your case. Maybe there are two Free's.

Done. B)

[blackshoe]

Maybe we should just toss this thread and start over. :D

[barmar]

Maybe we should just toss this thread and start over. :)

Yeah, I'm coming to this thread late, and wondering what all the confusion is about when the original post seemed so clear.

[blackshoe]

By agreement, 2♥ is a transfer. This requires an alert (Alert Procedure). There was no alert. Failure to alert when required is considered MI (Law 21B1a). South is required to call the TD after the final pass, and before the opening lead is chosen, and explain that there was a failure to alert. Instead, EW told him to explain the problem, which he did. Now South wants to abandon the hand, but EW demur, and the hand is played out. Again the TD was not called, while Law 68D says he must be called. After the hand, EW call the TD and ask for redress. Given all the procedural errors here, I'm inclined to rule result stands (Law 10) and assess a PP to both sides for multiple failures to call the TD. If this was a club game and both sides were totally clueless as to their legal obligations, I'd make the PP a warning.

[ggwhiz]

I thought it was a pretty clear situation.

 

Mis-information is a punishable offence, mis-bidding (with no fielding) is not.

 

Failure to own a penalty double by the east-west pair is bad luck and they were accidentally fixed which happens to me all the time.

 

Fessing up before the opening lead gives e/w their best chance on defence and I've seen that done many times when not required too. It's the best the side that had the accident can do under the law isn't it?