Not Another Transfer Snafu (UI)

[aguahombre]

agua, in a beginner's world, 3H here simply means: "Sorry partner, I forgot our agreement (again)." Why try and ascribe any other meaning to it. From the 1NT bidder's point of view this is obvious, in fact I might suggest all teacher's teach a raise of the transfer suit by Opener in such auctions as having the agreed meaning "I forgot". I do not see any problem with defining a bid as system-forget. I have also seen enough of this auction type, especially in the Acol room on BBO, to be pretty confident that the automatic action from B7I players after a raise of the transfer suit is to repeat their suit even without UI from a non-alert/announce.

If you see nothing wrong with anyone at any level doing that for that reason (which was exactly my point in post #11), o.k. Being confident that partner would automatically bid 3S over 3H is being confident that partner will take advantage of the UI, whether they know what UI means or not.

[iviehoff]

agua, in a beginner's world, 3H here simply means: "Sorry partner, I forgot our agreement (again)." Why try and ascribe any other meaning to it. From the 1NT bidder's point of view this is obvious, in fact I might suggest all teacher's teach a raise of the transfer suit by Opener in such auctions as having the agreed meaning "I forgot". I do not see any problem with defining a bid as system-forget. I have also seen enough of this auction type, especially in the Acol room on BBO, to be pretty confident that the automatic action from B7I players after a raise of the transfer suit is to repeat their suit even without UI from a non-alert/announce.

But if you do that, you have to advise them to describe 2H bid not as a transfer to S, but rather as "H or S". Is it even permitted for them to play such a convention at the kind of events they are likely to play at? In England, mostly it isn't. Have you thought about defences to such a convention?

 

I don't think this is a good idea.

[iviehoff]

But of course I had to try to decide what 3♣ over a natural 2N would have meant, and (despite your cynicism) I made a determined effort to do so.

Well done for trying. I'm not surprised that the Directors and the Appeal Committee had different ideas from you, and from each other, about what was the ethical bid in a complex situation. Cynically, we can say that successful bids in such situation are rarely ruled to be the ethical bid.

[RMB1]

But if you do that, you have to advise them to describe 2H bid not as a transfer to S, but rather as "H or S". Is it even permitted for them to play such a convention at the kind of events they are likely to play at? In England, mostly it isn't. Have you thought about defences to such a convention?

 

At EBU level 2 (first level above "Simple Systems") and above, One No Trump Opening Bids (OB 11F1): All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention. So you can play 1NT-(any)-2♥ as Hearts or Spades. Indeed some players who don't have any (other) weak bid with diamonds, play 1NT-(Pass)-2♦ as a transfer to ♥ or to play in 3♦ (some even know to alert and to explain it fully).

[WellSpyder]

Cynically, we can say that successful bids in such situation are rarely ruled to be the ethical bid.

A very good point, and one which hopefully will help me to be philosophical next time I find myself in the same situation.

 

Actually, the ruling I described raised a query in my mind about the mechanics of the ruling, too. The TD ruled that passing 3♣ was a LA and that 3N was suggested over passing by the UI, so adjusted the score to 3♣+1. Fair enough, if you accept the judgments involved.

 

The AC wasn't quite as precise, but said that even though passing 3♣ wasn't a LA, bidding 3♦ or raising to 4♣ were both LAs to the 3N bid chosen, so there was no reason to change the adjustment given by the TD. The implication, I think, was that 3N was suggested over 3♦ or 4♣ by the UI, but not that neither 3♦ nor 4♣ was suggested over the other.

 

Am I right in thinking that the technically correct way to rule on those assumptions (NB in England) would comprise the following steps?:

a) rule out the 3N bid

b) allocate approximate percentages to the relative likelihood of the auction continuing with 3♦ or 4♣ and to the likely continuations in each case (almost certainly 3N in the first case and pass in the second)

c) assign a weighted score comprising some probability of 3N (I don't think there was any doubt that the actual number of tricks made at the table would still have been made) and some probability of 4♣ (again, I don't think there was any doubt over the number of tricks assigned in the TD's ruling of 3♣+1)

 

I suppose I can understand why an AC might not want to bother to change an adjustment from 3♣+1 to 4♣=. But not including a percentage of 3N reached by a different route than the disallowed bid seems wrong in principle.

[campboy]

Am I right in thinking that the technically correct way to rule on those assumptions (NB in England) would comprise the following steps?:

Yes. However it seems obvious that 3♦ is suggested over 4♣ precisely because it could well result in getting to 3NT, so (at least) one of those assumptions is wrong IMO. Whether 4♣ is an LA is less clear.