Who is the offending side here?

[Trinidad]

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

 

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

If I know my opponents and I know that they have been playing transfers for as long as I know them, I will obviously ask whether they forgot to alert. There is extremely little UI in that question, since everybody knows that I expected an alert, irrespective of the cards I hold in my hand. So, in case they stopped playing transfers, it is hard to imagine that I will be damaging our side.

 

However, If I don't know my opponents, I don't know whether they play transfers. It is entirely possible that they don't. It is even possible that they don't have an agreement and they are on their way to a disaster. There is a real possibility that my question will damage my side. Therefore, I will assume that the explanation is correct.

 

I should be able to play under the assumption that my opponents play by the rules. And if they don't the damage will be paid for by the guilty and not by the innocent.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

 

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

You seem to be arguing against your own statement earlier --- that when you know the meaning of an unalerted call and yet ask, you are asking solely for partner's benefit. The conclusion would be that when you know a call should have been alerted or announced you should protect yourself by asking; but, if you do you are committing an infraction.

[mycroft]

Sure, nearly everyone who plays strong NT plays transfers, but over what interference? Also, I really really love the people who are in the nearly everyone camp, but because of 1TBS, stare at me after 1NT (12-14)-p-2♥ "come, on, say it" - especially when they show up with a blank. Especially especially when, the time they don't stare at me, but ask "is that a transfer?" partner finds the "obvious" balance.

 

One of the benefits of switching to Keri is that we now Announce with the rest of the room, and this happy fun time happens much less. Whether it's theoretically better to play a transfer structure over a weak, or mini, NT or not, in the ACBL, it's practically better (even if you're "wrongsiding" these hands as well) just to avoid all this ruck.

 

Having said that, the OP is a strong NT *overcall*, and not "nearly everyone" plays transfers Systems On. In fact, in parts of the country, only a minority do. Had I not moved away from that area years ago, I would just be fine with "oh, they're playing Cuebid Stayman, that's natural" and not even think to ask.

[jillybean]

Nearly everyone who plays strong NT also plays transfers over them, and you're experienced enough to know this. You hear the auction 1NT-(Pass)-2♥, and there's no alert or announcement from opener (assuming this is required in your jurisdiction). Do you really think you'll get any protection if you proceed on the assumption that RHO has a weak hand with hearts, as if it were 30+ years ago? Isn't it far more likely that LHO simply forgot to alert/announce?

 

This is the kind of thing that the rule about players protecting themselves is aimed at.

 

Please read the OP again, your comment here is irrelevant.

[Vampyr]

Please read the OP again, your comment here is irrelevant.

 

It is not relevant to the specific hand and auction in the OP, but it is relevant to the thread.

[barmar]

You seem to be arguing against your own statement earlier --- that when you know the meaning of an unalerted call and yet ask, you are asking solely for partner's benefit. The conclusion would be that when you know a call should have been alerted or announced you should protect yourself by asking; but, if you do you are committing an infraction.

I'm not arguing against that. Because in this example that I gave, I wouldn't ask, I would just assume it's a transfer.

 

Assuming opener completes the transfer, at the end of the auction I might ask if they forgot to alert the transfer.

[Trinidad]

I'm not arguing against that. Because in this example that I gave, I wouldn't ask, I would just assume it's a transfer.

 

Assuming opener completes the transfer, at the end of the auction I might ask if they forgot to alert the transfer.

I don't understand how that is useful.

 

The auction started:

1NT-Pass-2♦ (no alert)

 

You assumed that 2♦ was a transfer, because "everybody plays transfers" or because you know your opponents and they have been playing transfers since they got married... in 1958. So, you didn't ask or say anything.

 

The auction has continued:

1NT-Pass-2♦-Pass

2♥-Pass-Pass-Pass

 

The auction is over. Now, you are >99.99% sure 2♦ was a transfer and now you ask whether they forgot to alert the transfer?!? You know they forgot to alert it.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

It is incumbent on the offending side, when MI has been transmitted and they become the declaring side, to call the director and explain the facts after the final pass of the auction. If the OS appears not to be doing that, perhaps the correct question is "why are you not calling the director?" Seems a bit rude, so I would just call the TD myself and explain that my opponents have committed two infractions (the requirement to call the TD is a "must" law).

 

The tendency of people to pick up their bidding cards instantly when the auction is over — and often before it's over — is annoying when seeing the auction on the table would be helpful to the director when he arrives. Even if you call "director" as quickly as possible, they'll still pick 'em up, even though they're not supposed to do anything once the TD is called. :(

[jillybean]

It is incumbent on the offending side, when MI has been transmitted and they become the declaring side, to call the director and explain the facts after the final pass of the auction. If the OS appears not to be doing that, perhaps the correct question is "why are you not calling the director?" Seems a bit rude, so I would just call the TD myself and explain that my opponents have committed two infractions (the requirement to call the TD is a "must" law).

 

The tendency of people to pick up their bidding cards instantly when the auction is over — and often before it's over — is annoying when seeing the auction on the table would be helpful to the director when he arrives. Even if you call "director" as quickly as possible, they'll still pick 'em up, even though they're not supposed to do anything once the TD is called. :(

 

You've been playing at my club too?

[barmar]

The auction is over. Now, you are >99.99% sure 2♦ was a transfer and now you ask whether they forgot to alert the transfer?!? You know they forgot to alert it.

It's more a reminder that they're supposed to alert, so hopefully they'll remember next time. "Did you forget to announce the transfer?" "Oh, yeah, right."

[mycroft]

My favourite is:

 

1NT(whatever)-p-2♦-p

"transfer" 2♥.

 

Especially when I've given them the odd couple of seconds to Announce before my pass.

 

Grumble.

[Trinidad]

It's more a reminder that they're supposed to alert, so hopefully they'll remember next time. "Did you forget to announce the transfer?" "Oh, yeah, right."

I figured that. But it's not our job to teach the Laws to our opponents. So, either it is "no harm, no foul", or we have to go Blackshoe's way and call the TD.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

What gets me is the number of players (I don't think I've ever heard a director voice this complaint) say that calling the TD wastes time, is a pain in the butt, yada, yada, yada. These are the same folks who bitch the loudest when after they declined to call the TD the opponents seemed to gain an advantage - even if their perception turns out to be wrong.

[barmar]

What's the point of calling the TD in a case like this? He'll ask the last passer if he would have done anything different, he'll say no, and the TD will say to call him back at the end of the hand if we feel damaged by the failure to alert. Since everyone could tell that it was a transfer, no one feels damaged, so we don't call back.

 

Is there really no middle ground between keeping silent and a useless director call?

[blackshoe]

What if the last passer would not say no? And how does anyone know whether he would or wouldn't?

 

The laws say that once attention is drawn to an irregularity, the director should be called. So either you call the director, or you don't draw attention to the irregularity in the first place. Your choice. Everyone's choice, really, so if someone else draws attention to it, you're back to "call the director".

 

If we get into the "I know better than the rules, so I'll just ignore them" culture, we'll have bigger problems than "a useless director call".

[mycroft]

The TD *should* also remind the opponents of their requirement to Announce/Alert/whatever. Hopefully, next time they may not "forget". This goes double if they've caught the dreaded "oh, we don't have to Announce 15-17 NTs anymore, do we?" disease.

 

Also, now the TD is aware that this pair "forgets". If the forgetting becomes habitual (I seem to remember just writing "if it's wrong, but there's no penalty, then they won't do it" in some other context), then the TD can penalize them - which should get the point across. But she can't do that if nobody ever bothers to call.

 

Yes, it's a waste of time (or can be). But who wasted the time? The side who followed the Laws and Regulations, or the side who didn't?

[jillybean]

What's the point of calling the TD in a case like this? He'll ask the last passer if he would have done anything different, he'll say no, and the TD will say to call him back at the end of the hand if we feel damaged by the failure to alert. Since everyone could tell that it was a transfer, no one feels damaged, so we don't call back.

 

Is there really no middle ground between keeping silent and a useless director call?

 

Who decides which laws to ignore?

 

The game is rapidly becoming one which is run by players who believe they know the rules, mostly learned by observing other players enforcing rules. These players often make their own rulings, tell the table to disregard the infraction and get very upset when a player insists on calling the director. On the other hand, I think the directors job is becoming one of taking the money, getting the game going and keeping everyone happy.

The laws, proprieties, regulations, COC are consistently ignored or adjusted including those which include the word MUST, which to my understanding means there is no room for discretion. For example in the General COC "Each member of a partnership must have a completed convention card available." And I have just discovered there is even a line: "A pair must have a carding agreement listed on their convention cards"

 

Before anyone jumps up and down and says you can't enforce the laws on inexperienced players, I am not talking about 0-99'er games, this happens through out the game, at club and tournament level.

 

During a recent conversation with a player (200+ MP), they were telling me how they had gone down in a slam because they had inadvertently pulled a card from their hand and were told by the opponents that they had to play the card because one of them had seen it, and could prove it, it was the XX so there was no point in calling the director.

Guess what this player will say next time they see a card inadvertently played?

[blackshoe]

I cannot stress enough the fact that when there is an irregularity, or when you even think there's an irregularity, and someone (anyone) has drawn attention to it, call the director! If someone suggests doing something else, ignore him and call the director! If you're uncomfortable calling the director, either get over it, or give up bridge. If you think you know better than the law, you don't. Again, and again, and again, call the director!

[mycroft]

"rapidly becoming?" Ah, jillybean has truly become an old bridge player - she has joined the group for whom 20 years ago is "recent". Now in most people's cases, they're talking about changes to the Law or Alert regulation...

 

All of those habits were well in force when I started playing seriously, in nineteen-eightymumble... The good news is that the tolerance games have had an effect and "very upset" is much less voluble than the actual abuse that was common back then; oh and the fact you can see from one end of the room to the other.