unauthorized info?

[dickiegera]

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p2cp2dp3np4hp4sp5hp6h]133|100|4 Hearts was alerted as a transfer [/hv]

 

South held AKJx,AKx,AKx,Axx

North had 6 hearts to the Queen and the Q of Diamonds.

 

No one else was in slam.

I believe that there was unauthorized info

.

What should have been done?

 

Thank you

[BillHiggin]

If there had been no alert of 4H, then what would North think the 4S bid meant? Over a natural call of 4H (presumably to play), a 4S call could mean:

1) South just discovered a hidden mother lode spades and is trying to correct the initial miss bid of 2N. (nope - that is absurd)

2) South has an excellent heart fit and is cue bidding a spade control looking for a possible 6H contract. (aha - this makes sense)

 

So, North who is ethically ignoring the UI that partner thinks he transferred to spades can reject the slam try and again sign off in hearts - which he did.

 

South learns from the 5H call that either:

A) His partner forgot about the Texas Transfers (but since this comes from the call he made it is AI)

B) His partner is cue bidding a heart control looking for 6S (and North loves that)

 

So, South may hedge and bid 6H (partner will correct with B) without worry (and not based on any UI).

 

It is clear that there has been no UI infraction! Result stands!

[aguahombre]

All of what Bill said above would be true enough, except for one little thing. OP is in Ohio, where South had no business announcing or alerting a bid above 3NT at this point of the auction. That puts us in a situation where South has committed a violation which he might have known could work to his advantage. If we don't rule L23, then the result should stand.

[ddrankin]

All of what Bill said above would be true enough, except for one little thing. OP is in Ohio, where South had no business announcing or alerting a bid above 3NT at this point of the auction. That puts us in a situation where South has committed a violation which he might have known could work to his advantage. If we don't rule L23, then the result should stand.

 

I used to say the same thing, until a player pointed out to me that the ACBL alert procedures make no mention of delayed announcements. So if he alerted the call, it was improper, but if it was announced, then probably not. Still UI though, but in this case, I agree that the result stands.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL alert regulation also says "when in doubt, alert". So I don't think you can fault a player for alerting if he was not sure whether he should - a circumstance in which 99% of ACBL players seem to regularly find themselves. :ph34r:

 

The ACBL was clever enough to exempt doubles and redoubles from the "delayed alerts above 3NT" rule. I should think they would have been equally clever wrt announcements if they had wished announcements to be immediate.

[aguahombre]

OP stated it was alerted. The regulations are clear in their intent about bids above 3NT beginning with Opener's second turn. Finding an excuse to announce rather than alert 4H is neither a good thing, nor what happened at the table.

[blackshoe]

OP stated it was alerted. The regulations are clear in their intent about bids above 3NT beginning with Opener's second turn. Finding an excuse to announce rather than alert 4H is neither a good thing, nor what happened at the table.

I don't understand your point.

[campboy]

Law 23 is not relevant since NS did not actually gain from the incorrect alert.

[Mbodell]

An announcement is an alert, just a special type of alert. There should be no announce of this transfer. I'd say results should stand and then there may well be a penalty for this break in procedure (I'd think at least the PP of a warning would be appropriate).

[aguahombre]

Law 23 is not relevant since NS did not actually gain from the incorrect alert.

We can say that the continuing auction itself made things clear without the UI of the alert or any use of it. But we might determine that, if there had been any doubt before, the violation of alert procedure eliminated it ---and this violator demonstrably could have known that at the time he committed the violation.

 

We decide not to apply L23 if we determine they didn't actually gain from it, but it is relevant.

[sfi]

We can say that the continuing auction itself made things clear without the UI of the alert or any use of it.

 

Is there any reason to be certain that 3NT was not simply "to play" with a long spade suit? This sort of bid is common enough that I would be unsure about what my opponent had (of course I would never doubt my partner).

[aguahombre]

Is there any reason to be certain that 3NT was not simply "to play" with a long spade suit? This sort of bid is common enough that I would be unsure about what my opponent had (of course I would never doubt my partner).

The part of my post you did not quote would apply to that situation.

[blackshoe]

I'm surprised that no one has thought to ask North why he bid 5♥, and South why he bid 6♥. What are the methods of the partnership? Classic Texas is a sign-off with no slam interest. To me, this makes Bill Higgins' construction interesting, but unlikely. It seems far more likely that 5♥ was "unauthorized panic". Is passing 4♠ a LA in that case? In some more modern styles 5♥ would be Exclusion RKC with a void in hearts. But that seems unlikely here, since 6♥ would have no meaning in that method.

 

If passing 4♠ is a LA, I think we adjust to 4♠ making however many tricks it makes (or doesn't make). If pass is not a LA, then there is no infraction of Law 16, but I agree with those who suggest a PP (Warning) for the incorrect immediate alert. I'm inclined to think pass is not a LA, but I'd poll to be sure.

[aguahombre]

We have had other threads which agreed 5H in a transfer confusion situation is perhaps panic, but not unauthorised panic when 4S has no meaning over a 4H "signoff". The 4S bid itself was enough authorised information for Responder to know what has happened.

 

Here, however, if 4H were a transfer, there was no room for it to be declared a signoff; and we might have a UI problem. The more I think about it, the more I believe the choice of ruling is unclear. If I allow 5H, I would allow the hedge-raise to 6H. Opener doesn't seem to have any UI.

[barmar]

I'm surprised that no one has thought to ask North why he bid 5♥, and South why he bid 6♥. What are the methods of the partnership? Classic Texas is a sign-off with no slam interest.

"Classic Texas" is also a jump bid. But South crowded the auction by jumping to 3NT. My suspicion is that NS don't have a firm agreement about whether transfers are on in this auction.

[blackshoe]

We have had other threads which agreed 5H in a transfer confusion situation is perhaps panic, but not unauthorised panic when 4S has no meaning over a 4H "signoff". The 4S bid itself was enough authorised information for Responder to know what has happened.

 

Here, however, if 4H were a transfer, there was no room for it to be declared a signoff; and we might have a UI problem. The more I think about it, the more I believe the choice of ruling is unclear. If I allow 5H, I would allow the hedge-raise to 6H. Opener doesn't seem to have any UI.

 

 

"Classic Texas" is also a jump bid. But South crowded the auction by jumping to 3NT. My suspicion is that NS don't have a firm agreement about whether transfers are on in this auction.

Sure. The questions I posed remain unanswered, though.