Unalerted and unanounced transfer

[jules101]

Similar, but related question (perhaps I should have started a new thread)

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2d]133|100[/hv]

 

You "know" either from previous experience or from convention card (if you can find one) that opps play transfers over 1N.

 

North doesn't, however, alert (or announce - delete as appropriate for your regulations) the 2♦ bid as a transfer.

 

 

You are next to bid and wish to double the transfer bid.

 

What do you do next?

 

 

1. 
    
   
2. Do you query the bid and then double after it is confirmed this is a transfer?
   
3. Do you pass, and seethe when they play in 2♥ and it turns out your side could have made 3♦?
   
4. Do you double anyway?
   

 

 

This situation (non alerting/announcing of transfers) happens more often than it should, and I never know how best to handle it.

 

Advice welcome.

 

I'm always worried with option 1 is that maybe the opps aren't playing transfers (there is no convention card, no announcement, and maybe you have misremembered what they played before, or maybe they've stopped playing transfers) and then 2♦ turns out to be natural after all then asking and not bidding is bad because it implies you have Diamonds too.

 

You are potentially in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation if you ask/don't ask.

 

How would you recommend such situations should be handled?

[mfa1010]

How would you recommend such situations should be handled?

Look at the convention card and rely on what it says. If you can't find their card, ask for one. If they don't have one, ask for a TD, since they must have one and you are in a position where you want to see one.

[jules101]

Look at the convention card and rely on what it says. If you can't find their card, ask for one. If they don't have one, ask for a TD, since they must have one and you are in a position where you want to see one.

 

 

Very club players in club tournaments have such a card. I know they should, but they don't. For many this is a social night out, and us pedants are taking it all a wee bit too seriously. If you are lucky though they may have a few scrawls on the front of their score card.

 

It's generally seen to be "bad form" to be asking for such a card when they evidently don't have one, and as for calling the director.....! They came out for a pleasant evening, and now you are spoiling it.

 

 

... but OK thanks for the advice, that's what I'll do in future.

 

Perhaps it will encourage players to be more fastidious about alerting (or announcing) and/or maybe even filling out a convention card!

 

Did I just see a pig flying past my window? :(

[mgoetze]

You are potentially in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation if you ask/don't ask.

 

Please elaborate. I have no idea how you can get into trouble by asking about a bid, discovering that it is artifical, and then doubling it.

[jules101]

Please elaborate. I have no idea how you can get into trouble by asking about a bid, discovering that it is artifical, and then doubling it.

 

If you ask expecting it to be artificial (so you can double to show that suit) and it is artificial all is fine. You double!

 

If unexpectedly the bid in the sequence does turn out to be natural, you ask and now you pass, then isn't it rather obvious you have a fistful of that suit? Then there is an ethics problem?

 

 

You are sometimes left wishing you could ask when a bid isn't alerted. Maybe it IS natural, in which case you would pass in tempo.

 

You don't wish to be unethical if the bid is natural, so you pass, but then the next hand completes the transfer and you have lost your opportunity to double.

 

Maybe one can call the director once the transfer is completed (after no alert/announcement) and you can ask to replace your pass with a double?

 

Is that allowed?

[pran]

If you ask expecting it to be artificial (so you can double to show that suit) and it is artificial all is fine. You double!

 

If unexpectedly the bid in the sequence does turn out to be natural, you ask and now you pass, then isn't it rather obvious you have a fistful of that suit? Then there is an ethics problem?

 

 

You are sometimes left wishing you could ask when a bid isn't alerted. Maybe it IS natural, in which case you would pass in tempo.

 

You don't wish to be unethical if the bid is natural, so you pass, but then the next hand completes the transfer and you have lost your opportunity to double.

 

Maybe one can call the director once the transfer is completed (after no alert/announcement) and you can ask to replace your pass with a double?

 

Is that allowed?

 

If the auction yells for the suspicion that an unalerted bid actually was alertable you may call attention to a suspected irregularity (the failure to alert) by opponents, and if your partner has not yet called after your last call you will then certainly be eligible under Law 21B to withdraw your last call and replace it with another.

 

The auction

1NT - pass - 2♦ (not alerted) - pass

2♥

certainly "yells" for such suspicion (whether or not the 2♥ bid is alerted)

 

I would even go one step further and rule that it is not a violation of Law 20F1 if you at this time (without first calling the Director) just asks if the 2♦ bid should have been alerted.

It is no longer your turn to call, but such a question is in my opinion to establish if there has been an irregularity that warrants subsequent call for the Director rather than asking for an explanation of the auction.

[bluejak]

Similar, but related question (perhaps I should have started a new thread)

I believe a new thread would be better when a new hand is introduced so have split it.

 

1. 
    
   
2. Do you query the bid and then double after it is confirmed this is a transfer?
   
3. Do you pass, and seethe when they play in 2♥ and it turns out your side could have made 3♦?
   
4. Do you double anyway?
   

I do #1. I consider I am drawing attention to an irregularity rather than anything else.

[bluejak]

If the auction yells for the suspicion that an unalerted bid actually was alertable you may call attention to a suspected irregularity (the failure to alert) by opponents, and if your partner has not yet called after your last call you will then certainly be eligible under Law 21B to withdraw your last call and replace it with another.

 

The auction

1NT - pass - 2♦ (not alerted) - pass

2♥

certainly "yells" for such suspicion (whether or not the 2♥ bid is alerted)

 

I would even go one step further and rule that it is not a violation of Law 20F1 if you at this time (without first calling the Director) just asks if the 2♦ bid should have been alerted.

It is no longer your turn to call, but such a question is in my opinion to establish if there has been an irregularity that warrants subsequent call for the Director rather than asking for an explanation of the auction.

This would be my second choice, also reasonable.

[nigel_k]

I think it's fine to ask about an unalerted call in this kind of situation. To avoid UI you do need to ask every time, not just when you might wish to act. Of course your opponents will not know you always do this, but as long as you do then I think it's fine. Just decide for yourself that you will always ask about any unalerted call where most would play it as artificial.

 

Suppose it did turn out that the bid was natural and you passed holding a good diamond suit and opponents later claimed they were damaged. If I was the director and you simply said there is no UI because you would always ask in that situation then I would believe you. There is some risk that a different director might not be so trusting though.

[pran]

If the auction yells for the suspicion that an unalerted bid actually was alertable you may call attention to a suspected irregularity (the failure to alert) by opponents, and if your partner has not yet called after your last call you will then certainly be eligible under Law 21B to withdraw your last call and replace it with another.

 

The auction

1NT - pass - 2♦ (not alerted) - pass

2♥

certainly "yells" for such suspicion (whether or not the 2♥ bid is alerted)

 

I would even go one step further and rule that it is not a violation of Law 20F1 if you at this time (without first calling the Director) just asks if the 2♦ bid should have been alerted.

It is no longer your turn to call, but such a question is in my opinion to establish if there has been an irregularity that warrants subsequent call for the Director rather than asking for an explanation of the auction.

 

 

I think it's fine to ask about an unalerted call in this kind of situation. To avoid UI you do need to ask every time, not just when you might wish to act. Of course your opponents will not know you always do this, but as long as you do then I think it's fine. Just decide for yourself that you will always ask about any unalerted call where most would play it as artificial.

 

Suppose it did turn out that the bid was natural and you passed holding a good diamond suit and opponents later claimed they were damaged. If I was the director and you simply said there is no UI because you would always ask in that situation then I would believe you. There is some risk that a different director might not be so trusting though.

 

I would (as Director) certainly not appreciate a message from the player that he "always asks", that is precisely why I wrote: If the auction yells for the suspicion that an unalerted bid actually was alertable. There must be some solid reason for asking in the particular case. (Remember that even this question can pass UI, however small, to partner.)

[mgoetze]

Please elaborate. I have no idea how you can get into trouble by asking about a bid, discovering that it is artifical, and then doubling it.

 

If you ask expecting it to be artificial (so you can double to show that suit) and it is artificial all is fine. You double!

 

If unexpectedly the bid in the sequence does turn out to be natural, you ask and now you pass, then isn't it rather obvious you have a fistful of that suit? Then there is an ethics problem?

 

No, if I "know" they play transfers, and that transfers are alertable, and they don't alert, then I will ask, regardless of my holding in the suit. In fact, if 1NT-2♦ = Heart transfer is alertable then I will ask about pretty much any unalerted 2♦ bid here. I'm sure I would be able to convince a director or two that I do this, also.

 

 

I believe a new thread would be better when a new hand is introduced so have split it.

 

Indeed - I wrote a reply along the above lines quite some time ago, then discovered the thread was about a Bergen raise rather than a transfer, and deleted my reply in confusion...

[Trinidad]

If the auction yells for the suspicion that an unalerted bid actually was alertable you may call attention to a suspected irregularity (the failure to alert) by opponents, and if your partner has not yet called after your last call you will then certainly be eligible under Law 21B to withdraw your last call and replace it with another.

 

The auction

1NT - pass - 2♦ (not alerted) - pass

2♥

certainly "yells" for such suspicion (whether or not the 2♥ bid is alerted)

 

I would even go one step further and rule that it is not a violation of Law 20F1 if you at this time (without first calling the Director) just asks if the 2♦ bid should have been alerted.

It is no longer your turn to call, but such a question is in my opinion to establish if there has been an irregularity that warrants subsequent call for the Director rather than asking for an explanation of the auction.

 

That's all fine and dandy for a situation with a transfer. But how about:

1♠-Pass-3♣ (no alert, you have clubs and Bergen raises are common) - Pass

3♦/♥/♠/4♠?

 

or

 

1♠-Pass-4♣ (no alert, you have clubs and splinters are common) - Pass

4♦/♥/♠?

 

or

 

1♦-Pass-3♣ (no alert, you have clubs and criss-cross raises are common) - Pass

3♦?

 

You have a strong suspicion (from your hand) that the unalerted bid is a convention. But -different from the transfer case- the response to the unalerted bid doesn't clarify anything.

 

In many jurisdictions you are supposed to protect yourself. This means that you should ask about the not alerted bid. That may work for the use of the fourth suit or for a cuebid in our suit, but it breaks down as soon as the probability that the bid was natural increases. My point of view is 100% opposite: You should be able to rely on the explanations and (non-)alerts made by the opponents. If the opponents err (which may happen and should not be a big deal), you should be protected by the laws and regulations without any need to protect yourself "just in case the opponents were breaking the rules".

 

Rik

[pran]

That's all fine and dandy for a situation with a transfer. But how about:

1♠-Pass-3♣ (no alert, you have clubs and Bergen raises are common) - Pass

3♦/♥/♠/4♠?

 

or

 

1♠-Pass-4♣ (no alert, you have clubs and splinters are common) - Pass

4♦/♥/♠?

 

or

 

1♦-Pass-3♣ (no alert, you have clubs and criss-cross raises are common) - Pass

3♦?

 

You have a strong suspicion (from your hand) that the unalerted bid is a convention. But -different from the transfer case- the response to the unalerted bid doesn't clarify anything.

 

In many jurisdictions you are supposed to protect yourself. This means that you should ask about the not alerted bid. That may work for the use of the fourth suit or for a cuebid in our suit, but it breaks down as soon as the probability that the bid was natural increases. My point of view is 100% opposite: You should be able to rely on the explanations and (non-)alerts made by the opponents. If the opponents err (which may happen and should not be a big deal), you should be protected by the laws and regulations without any need to protect yourself "just in case the opponents were breaking the rules".

 

Rik

If misinformation (e.g. missing required alert) does not become probable until it is too late to do anything about it (e.g. have a call changed) then there is no reason to ask and I should be most surprised if there is any jurisdiction where the player is critizised for not "protecting himself by asking". The director must in any case deal with the situation when MI is revealed, usually after play has been completed.

[TimG]

You "know" either from previous experience or from convention card (if you can find one) that opps play transfers over 1N.

 

What do you do next?

 

Do you query the bid and then double after it is confirmed this is a transfer?

1. Do you pass, and seethe when they play in 2♥ and it turns out your side could have made 3♦?

If I am not certain about the transfer, I agree with Pran's approach.

 

But, if I am certain that 2♦ is a transfer, as in the case where I have been able to glance at their convention card and see transfers marked, I think it is wrong to wait for the irregularity to present itself later in the auction or to ask the opponents the meaning of the bid. Asking and then doubling in this situation is a case of asking solely for partner's benefit.

[bluejak]

Law 9A1 gives you the right to draw attention to an irregularity. So if they fail to alert and you know it is alertable, Law 9A1 gives you an absolute right to point it out.

 

:ph34r:

 

Strange: my piccy has disappeared again! :lol:

[matmat]

Law 9A1 gives you the right to draw attention to an irregularity. So if they fail to alert and you know it is alertable, Law 9A1 gives you an absolute right to point it out.

 

:ph34r:

 

Strange: my piccy has disappeared again! :lol:

 

And remind LHO that they might have forgotten one of their agreements?

[Bbradley62]

Very club players in club tournaments have such a card. I know they should, but they don't. For many this is a social night out, and us pedants are taking it all a wee bit too seriously. If you are lucky though they may have a few scrawls on the front of their score card.

 

It's generally seen to be "bad form" to be asking for such a card when they evidently don't have one, and as for calling the director.....! They came out for a pleasant evening, and now you are spoiling it.

How common is this situation? I haven't played a club game in 15 years, but back then everyone had a convention card, even if it was only partially completed. It seems to me that this is related to a conversation in another thread as to whether a duplicate bridge game is a social event or a competition, and how sanctioning organizations should market these activities.

[wank]

well, whenever i've played bridge in a club noone had convention cards. it would be pretty excessive to expect them - clubs are supposed to be predominantly social, hence the term 'club', no?

[TimG]

well, whenever i've played bridge in a club noone had convention cards. it would be pretty excessive to expect them - clubs are supposed to be predominantly social, hence the term 'club', no?

 

I don't see mention of where you are from in your profile, but here in the US I think it is common to have a CC at club games. Pickup partners use a CC to help establish what they are playing and players often carry around CC holders with CC for a variety of partners. In short, the social aspect of club play does not mean that CC are not common.

[blackshoe]

It is common for both members of a pair to have a CC in clubs around here. It's also common, though perhaps less so, for one or both not to have one, or for the one they have to be illegible. It's also pretty common to keep CCs in a plastic "pocket", one side of which holds the CC, the other the personal score, and to be very reluctant to let go control of the thing. Or to put the CC in a purse, or sit on it, or put it on the floor. It's very common to put this plastic device, CC face up, under one's bidding box. All things considered, even when one or both players have a CC, the damn thing's not very useful to opponents, at least not immediately so. And then there's the attitude I ran into some years ago, when an opponent, after I suggested she look at our diligently completed CC rather than keep badgering my partner, replied rather superciliously "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions!"

[pran]

Law 9A1 gives you the right to draw attention to an irregularity. So if they fail to alert and you know it is alertable, Law 9A1 gives you an absolute right to point it out.

 

:ph34r:

 

Strange: my piccy has disappeared again! :lol:

 

And remind LHO that they might have forgotten one of their agreements?

 

Or possibly be told that what you believe you know is wrong; the call isn't alertable. (They may for instance have changed their agreements since last time you played against them - this has happened to me!)

 

So I think it is better to ascertain that an irregularity really has occurred before calling the director under law 9A1.

[bluejak]

well, whenever i've played bridge in a club noone had convention cards. it would be pretty excessive to expect them - clubs are supposed to be predominantly social, hence the term 'club', no?

No, I do not think so. They are a mix of people who have a social view, people who have a competitive view, and the majority who have some of each. And I do not understand the word 'supposed': they are not supposed to be anything. They just are.

[bluejak]

Of course it depends in part where you play. If I play at an EBU clubs I expect about 100 pairs out of 99 to be playing transfers.

 

But I am not saying what you should do anyway: I am telling you what is [a] legal and what I would do. If I am confident someone has forgotten to say "transfer" then it is [c] legal and in my view [d] sensible to draw attention to this.

[mfa1010]

In many jurisdictions you are supposed to protect yourself. This means that you should ask about the not alerted bid. That may work for the use of the fourth suit or for a cuebid in our suit, but it breaks down as soon as the probability that the bid was natural increases. My point of view is 100% opposite: You should be able to rely on the explanations and (non-)alerts made by the opponents. If the opponents err (which may happen and should not be a big deal), you should be protected by the laws and regulations without any need to protect yourself "just in case the opponents were breaking the rules"

The principle of protecting oneself is imo indispensable. But should be ruled upon with care. The alternative of having it is to allow players positively to speculate in MI while being markedly in bad faith. This would be lucrative because the rules regarding MI are really nice to the nonoffending side, who gets a free double shot plus the 'best result likely' when TD is correcting.

 

a. (1♣)-1♠-(2♠)-?

2♠ was not alerted as it should in this jurisdiction. So 4th hand passes with his spade support and later claims damages.

 

b. (1♥)-p-(2NT)-?

2NT is by pure accident explained as "4-card spade support and GF". 4th hand's thinking with a huge spade suit: "Hah, no reason to make my obvious spade bid now." ...!

 

c. (1♠)-p-(4♠)-p, (4NT)-p-(5♣)-p-(6♠)

Screens. No alerts although it was a RKC sequence.

Opening leader chooses an aggressive but unfortunately ♥ from the K. "Director, I thought that there would be a threatening club suit in dummy and declarer had a balanced hand, so I had to be aggressive. If I had known about (...) I would have gone passive".

 

How would you cope with these? Strong players.

It is the "My point of view is 100% opposite"-part of your post that worries me.

[bluejak]

The principle behind protecting yourself is one of damage. Consider a simple auction where all artificial bids are alertable.

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sp3sp4np5hp6sppp]133|100|Simple Blackwood: alerted[/hv]

 

4NT is Blackwood, alerted. 5♥ shows two aces, not alerted.

 

North has an obvious heart lead [KQJ, say] which beats 6♠ but he does not make it because, he says, he thought 5♥ showed a suit, not being alerted. Do we adjust?

 

Now, many people will say "North should protect himself". We might, in certain jurisdictions, point to a regulation. But what do we mean?

 

What we mean is that the result was due to North's failure to act sensibly. With 4NT alerted as Blackwood he has no reason to suppose the 5♥ bid is natural, and the damage is caused by North's failure to ask and his failure to act sensibly rather than by the failure to alert.

 

Now, suppose North is a novice, playing his second game of duplicate after coming out of the beginner's class. He has been taught, he will explain if asked, to lead his best holding from the unbid suits, and he has been told that does not include alerted suits since they do not count. Do we adjust?

 

Yes, we do. You can either say that it is unreasonable for this North to protect himself, or you can say that the failure to alert caused the damage.

 

I would not worry too much about whether there is a regulation that a player must protect himself: I would worry as to what caused the damage: was it failure of the non-offenders to act reasonably, or failure of the offenders to follow the rules and alert?