Unauthorised

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9h642d9632ck72&w=sk4hakt975dcqj843&n=sq8632hdat8754ct9&e=sa75hqj83dkqjca65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np2dp3dp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

N/S are experienced players and E/W are less so.

After East's 3D bid, South asked the meaning of West's 2D bid and was told by East that it was diamonds. West then said, No - it was a transfer to hearts. Director was called and bidding continued as shown. They made 12 tricks. Despite the unauthorised information, I felt that it was not logical for West to pass the 3D East bid (holding a void in diamonds), and with 6 hearts I was comfortable for her to bid 3H. I felt that she would have bid 3H even without the question and answer at the table. I felt the same about the 4H bid by East (holding 4 hearts of her own) - but perhaps not quite as comfortable with that. I did consult with a couple of other directors in the room and they felt it should have been taken back to 3D going off a million. Comments please.

[Chris3875]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9h642d9632ck72&w=sk4hakt975dcqj843&n=sq8632hdat8754ct9&e=sa75hqj83dkqjca65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np2dp3dp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

N/S are experienced players and E/W are less so.

After East's 3D bid, South asked the meaning of West's 2D bid and was told by East that it was diamonds. West then said, No - it was a transfer to hearts. Director was called and bidding continued as shown. They made 12 tricks. Despite the unauthorised information, I felt that it was not logical for West to pass the 3D East bid (holding a void in diamonds), and with 6 hearts I was comfortable for her to bid 3H. I felt that she would have bid 3H even without the question and answer at the table. I felt the same about the 4H bid by East (holding 4 hearts of her own) - but perhaps not quite as comfortable with that. I did consult with a couple of other directors in the room and they felt it should have been taken back to 3D going off a million. Comments please.

I should have also added that I asked West about their system and whether they had an agreement to play transfers - she said "Yes, when I remember" !!

[sfi]

From the description, we know both East and West have UI.

 

Let's consider West first. If you're West and transfer into hearts, what does 3D mean? To many people it shows a heart fit and a reasonable hand, regardless of specific agreements. Given how strong West is, I have a hard time seeing 3H as a logical alternative, with 6H, 4H, 4C, and 4D all seeming like possibilities. Since it's clearly not an experienced partnership, I would rule out 4D as a cue bid and consider the others. 4H appears to be suggested by the UI - it's likely to wake partner up and is clearly going to be a reasonable spot. What would happen after 4C? It's not clear, but any bidding misunderstanding appears to lead them to 6H.

 

Given that 6H is cold, there appears to be no damage from the UI to West, even though IMO West did not consider their ethical obligations appropriately.

 

How about East? If partner bids diamonds (presumably forcing?) and then hearts, a raise looks normal. So no issues here.

 

In summary, I disagree with the reasoning for 'table result stands', but get to that conclusion anyway. I would have a discussion with East and West about how to handle UI situations (away from the table, since it's pretty clear they are new players).

 

Passing 3D looks crazy. The directors who suggested that have missed the mark - West still knows their own hand and that partner opened 1NT.

[aguahombre]

South should learn to keep his mouth shut. 2D was unalerted and raised; South doesn't have any reason in the World --- looking at the hand he held --- to butt into the opponents' misunderstanding.

 

The above is extra. The rest of you can haggle the ruling.

[StevenG]

Let's consider West first. If you're West and transfer into hearts, what does 3D mean? To many people it shows a heart fit and a reasonable hand, regardless of specific agreements.

Do those "many players" include those who don't always remember transfers?

[weejonnie]

The first call after the UI (That East thought 2 diamonds was natural) is with West. With game values and a six-card heart suit, passing is obviously not a LA. Giving East the worst possible hand for 1NT : QJX xx AKQJX KXX would still make 4 Hearts pretty frigid. (In fact in the actual hand KQJ of diamonds are waste paper). You could argue that the 3 Heart bid is actually pretty ethical since it is assuming that partner has diamonds and poor hearts.

 

(This is an exception to *unauthorised panic* IMHO since the EXTRA values of the SIXTH heart and the AK make the suit far better than it might have been.)

 

Now comes the question as to whether East should pass (1NT : 2D: 3D: 3H). With West having both red suits the hand is massive (2 Aces to cover the outside losers) and 4H looks obvious (in fact a cue bid of 4 Clubs would not be unreasonable). However this pair is inexperienced (I assume) and polling should be carried out to find out if, absent the UI, other inexperienced players would bid game.

 

In short the odds are well in favour of letting the table result stand.

[campboy]

No-one's ever going to pass 3♦. I don't see a way for East to make sense of West's bidding apart from "she must have intended 2♦ as a transfer". Once we assume that, East is on a guess whether to bid game or not (West could have a much weaker hand), and the UI doesn't affect the guess IMO. So score stands.

 

I don't like South's question either.

[barmar]

N/S are experienced players and E/W are less so.

What does "less so" mean? They're also experienced, just not as much as NS? Or does it mean "not very experienced"?

 

What kind of experienced players forget transfers? Are they so experienced that they're starting to suffer from dementia? I'm trying to ask this in a way that isn't ageist, but having a hard time. If someone is suffering from frequent age-related mental lapses (as opposed to the whimsical "senior moments"), it may just be time to retire from bridge. It's hard to comply with full disclosure laws if you frequently forget your system.

[Trinidad]

If someone is suffering from frequent age-related mental lapses (as opposed to the whimsical "senior moments"), it may just be time to retire from bridge. It's hard to comply with full disclosure laws if you frequently forget your system.

I agree only partially with you. It will certainly be time to retire from (pseudo-) serious bridge.

 

But I also would like them to keep playing bridge, up to the moment that they have forgotten that it is a card game. And I think that should be facilitated.

 

Simply put: They do need to play with 52 cards, but they don't need to play with a full deck. ;)

 

Rik

[mycroft]

For those who "sometimes remember" transfers, 3♦ means "partner forgot this is hearts". It might even mean "Good hearts and...I can't remember what, officially. But probably she forgot."

 

Passing 3♦ is ludicrous with this hand; partner psyched with a big hand and ♦AKQxxxx? Has to be a big hand, because AKQxxx and out (or any true garbage psychic with diamonds) passes 2♦.

 

Give West ♥T8532 ♦A83 and out, and now, you could present a case for passing 3♦ - if you can convince me they have no agreement about this auction, and likely would think it shows more diamonds than they have hearts (and they don't understand that passing 2♦ would show that hand).

 

And I'm notorious for wanting to nail people who play "forget transfers".

[Chris3875]

I was trying to be polite when I said "less so" because I am planning to show these posts to the people concerned. One player (the one who transferred) is still coming to supervised bridge (and I am making a mental note as I type to have a session on not speaking when partner is asked a question about the bidding, even if they answer incorrectly) and the other has been playing for about 6 months only.

[richlp]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt9h642d9632ck72&w=sk4hakt975dcqj843&n=sq8632hdat8754ct9&e=sa75hqj83dkqjca65&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np2dp3dp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

N/S are experienced players and E/W are less so.

After East's 3D bid, South asked the meaning of West's 2D bid and was told by East that it was diamonds. West then said, No - it was a transfer to hearts. Director was called and bidding continued as shown. They made 12 tricks. Despite the unauthorised information, I felt that it was not logical for West to pass the 3D East bid (holding a void in diamonds), and with 6 hearts I was comfortable for her to bid 3H. I felt that she would have bid 3H even without the question and answer at the table. I felt the same about the 4H bid by East (holding 4 hearts of her own) - but perhaps not quite as comfortable with that. I did consult with a couple of other directors in the room and they felt it should have been taken back to 3D going off a million. Comments please.

I don't understand 3♥ (it wouldn't be forcing for me (I don't see why it couldn't be a 3-6-1-3 count). I might bid 4♥ because of the diamond duplication but I would probably bid 3♠ to show my control and slam interest.

 

I don't think 4♥ is the right ethical bid. Partner's 2♦ presumably showed a weak hand with diamonds, I invited and parter (for me) accepted showing a heart stopper rather than a suit. I'm not sure what the LA's are but I'm certain that 4♥ is suggested by the UI.

 

I'm astonished that "a couple" of directors felt it should roll back to 3D. Regardless of what 3♦ "should" be in light of the transfer, there WAS a 1NT opener and West can't stop short of game.

[sfi]

Do those "many players" include those who don't always remember transfers?

 

So what do you propose it is and what actions does it suggest to West? I have a hard time believing it says that West should pass.

[StevenG]

So what do you propose it is and what actions does it suggest to West? I have a hard time believing it says that West should pass.

Chris has (now) said that they are beginners. So 3♦ is an impossible bid which, in practice, only ever means that partner has forgotten about transfers. LAs are dependent upon system - you cannot force system upon people just to give a rationale for adjustment. They do not play transfer breaks, so any interpretation on 3♦ as a transfer break is absolutely wrong.

[blackshoe]

Chris has (now) said that they are beginners. So 3♦ is an impossible bid which, in practice, only ever means that partner has forgotten about transfers. LAs are dependent upon system - you cannot force system upon people just to give a rationale for adjustment. They do not play transfer breaks, so any interpretation on 3♦ as a transfer break is absolutely wrong.

"They do not play transfer breaks" is kind of like "they do not play reverses". What is meant is not what is said, but rather "they do not have the usual (or in some cases any) understanding about what that bid means". IOW 3♦ in the given auction, for the given partnership, does not mean "I have 4 hearts and a doubleton in diamonds" or whatever the "usual" meaning of this transfer break is for more sophisticated partnerships. Instead it means "I have a fit for your diamonds", which clearly indicates that opener has forgotten that 2♦ is a transfer. Is this AI or UI to responder?

[barmar]

"They do not play transfer breaks" is kind of like "they do not play reverses". What is meant is not what is said, but rather "they do not have the usual (or in some cases any) understanding about what

Yes, that's what's meant -- consider it shorthand.

that bid means". IOW 3♦ in the given auction, for the given partnership, does not mean "I have 4 hearts and a doubleton in diamonds" or whatever the "usual" meaning of this transfer break is for more sophisticated partnerships. Instead it means "I have a fit for your diamonds", which clearly indicates that opener has forgotten that 2♦ is a transfer. Is this AI or UI to responder?

if it "clearly indicates that", then the information comes from the auction and the pair's agreements (or lack thereof, in this case), so it's AI. It just so happens that the AI is consistent with the UI.

 

An experienced player might be familiar with other possible meanings. In that case, it's not so obvious what opener's "impossible" bid means. Therefore, when responder is trying to figure out what it means, choosing the meaning most consistent with the UI would be a Law 73 violation.

[blackshoe]

if it "clearly indicates that", then the information comes from the auction and the pair's agreements (or lack thereof, in this case), so it's AI. It just so happens that the AI is consistent with the UI.

After a discussion on another forum, I came to the conclusion that when AI and UI convey the same information, the UI is not relevant. I based this on Law 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." If the UI is the same as the AI, then it is not "other", so the constrain on using UI does not apply.

 

An experienced player might be familiar with other possible meanings. In that case, it's not so obvious what opener's "impossible" bid means. Therefore, when responder is trying to figure out what it means, choosing the meaning most consistent with the UI would be a Law 73 violation.

If the player is experienced, yes.

[barmar]

After a discussion on another forum, I came to the conclusion that when AI and UI convey the same information, the UI is not relevant. I based this on Law 16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information (such information being designated extraneous)." If the UI is the same as the AI, then it is not "other", so the constrain on using UI does not apply.

I don't think there's a single rule like that to cover all cases.

 

It really comes down to the law about choosing among LAs (16C3?). If there's only one LA, you're always allowed to choose it, even if it's also suggested by the UI (you're not really making a choice if there's no other option). If there are multiple LAs, you mustn't choose the one(s) suggested by the UI.

 

If the AI leaves you with only one LA, then you don't have a problem when AI and UI convey the same information. But if the AI gives you multiple options, the UI restricts you.

[blackshoe]

I don't think there's a single rule like that to cover all cases.

 

It really comes down to the law about choosing among LAs (16C3?). If there's only one LA, you're always allowed to choose it, even if it's also suggested by the UI (you're not really making a choice if there's no other option). If there are multiple LAs, you mustn't choose the one(s) suggested by the UI.

 

If the AI leaves you with only one LA, then you don't have a problem when AI and UI convey the same information. But if the AI gives you multiple options, the UI restricts you.

Not 16C3. 16C deals with UI from other sources than partner.

 

If the AI and the UI convey the same information, but the UI still constrains you, then what is the point of 16A3?

[sfi]

Chris has (now) said that they are beginners. So 3♦ is an impossible bid which, in practice, only ever means that partner has forgotten about transfers. LAs are dependent upon system - you cannot force system upon people just to give a rationale for adjustment. They do not play transfer breaks, so any interpretation on 3♦ as a transfer break is absolutely wrong.

 

So once again I ask: Given the only reason I mentioned any meaning to 3D is to determine whether pass is a logical alternative, how does the meaning you attach to it affect West's actions?

 

And it was clear they were beginners from the start - my original post assumed (and stated) that.

[StevenG]

So once again I ask: Given the only reason I mentioned any meaning to 3D is to determine whether pass is a logical alternative, how does the meaning you attach to it affect West's actions?

I can't see any reasopn at all to worry about West's action. A non-forcing 3♥ with that hand is hardly suggested by the UI. I'm not sure about East's raise, though.

[barmar]

Not 16C3. 16C deals with UI from other sources than partner.

I was going from memory, hence the question mark. I was close: 16B.

If the AI and the UI convey the same information, but the UI still constrains you, then what is the point of 16A3?

The point is that AI may suggest multiple possibilities, and UI limits them further. As in the post above, where an experience player may consider that 3♦ is some kind of super-accept: that's AI. So the AI suggests that he's either super-accepting or he forgot transfers. The UI from the non-alert makes the forgetting case more likely.

[campboy]

"They do not play transfer breaks" is kind of like "they do not play reverses". What is meant is not what is said, but rather "they do not have the usual (or in some cases any) understanding about what that bid means".

I don't think these are similar at all. Saying a pair don't play transfer breaks usually means that their (explicit or implicit) agreement is to always complete the transfer. A pair who "don't play reverses" still make those bids, just with a different meaning.

[Aardv]

You might decide that this pair's implicit agreement is that the only meaning for 3♦ is "I've forgotten we're playing transfers". In that case it's hard to understand why West would bid 3♥ rather than 4♥, and how East would know to raise it, so you could ask about that, but the likely outcome is "result stands".

 

Or you might decide that it's at least possible that East would bid 3♦ without having forgotten about transfers, perhaps with unexpectedly good diamonds, and poor hearts. In that case, I strongly disagree with comments that West's 3♥ is unobjectionable: there's a pretty good case for continuing to describe his still-promising hand by bidding 4♣. East would now give preference to 4♦, West would try 4♥, and what East would do I cannot say, but it's not obvious to pass.

[blackshoe]

I don't think these are similar at all. Saying a pair don't play transfer breaks usually means that their (explicit or implicit) agreement is to always complete the transfer. A pair who "don't play reverses" still make those bids, just with a different meaning.

Except that in this case the opener did not complete the transfer. Maybe it boils down to "what is a transfer break?" I was using the meaning "a bid of something other than the minimum available bid in the suit to which transferred".