Transfer or not?

[dickiegera]

bidding

 

1NT-P-1Spade -P

 

 

Now what?

 

1NT bidder said Transfer [really a relay]

 

Called director and director saw no problem and said to continue bidding.

 

My problem is that unautherized info occured , did 1Spade bidder mean to bid 2S or did he not see 1NT bid?

 

Now 1NT bidder bid 2C and 1S bidder bid 2D which was passed out.

[Tramticket]

The final pass accepts the insufficient bid.

 

I don't think that opener received any UI. I can see that the announcement may have transmitted UI to responder: that opener has taken 1♠ as a transfer. But has responder used the UI? Propbably not if responder actually intended the bid as a transfer.

 

What are the regulations regarding announcements in this jurisdiction? Are transfers to a minor usually announced? If not director might impose a PP (probably a warning).

[blackshoe]

Ohio is in the ACBL. :-)

 

A 2♠ response to 1NT, if a transfer (to clubs, for example) or a puppet (to 3♣, where responder might have diamonds) requires an alert. An announcement is improper.

 

Responder substituted an artificial bid for a different artificial bid with a different meaning. Opener should have been required to pass 2♣. That the director allowed this is director error.

[barmar]

Ohio is in the ACBL. :-)

 

A 2♠ response to 1NT, if a transfer (to clubs, for example) or a puppet (to 3♣, where responder might have diamonds) requires an alert. An announcement is improper.

But many players get confused by this -- I can't count the number of times I've heard people announce "transfer" for the above meanings. I always inform them of the correct procedure, but I'll bet most forget (and some insist that they were told by a TD that the announcement is proper).

Responder substituted an artificial bid for a different artificial bid with a different meaning. Opener should have been required to pass 2♣. That the director allowed this is director error.

I think you misread. Responder's bid was accepted because the next player called, and opener bid 2♣.

[pescetom]

bidding

 

1NT-P-1Spade -P

 

Now what?

 

As others have said, the mistake was to pass after 1♠ instead of calling the Director and refusing to accept the insufficient bid. Now the auction is legal.

 

What if the insufficient bid was not accepted? If responder had intended to bid an artificial 2♠ over 1NT then the substitution would probably be judged comparable. If instead he had missed 1NT and intended to open 1♠ then it is more difficult that substitution with 2♥ transfer would be judged comparable (as the transfer could be weak) although different RAs/Directors have different sensibilities here, and someone might accept 4♥ Texas or 4♠ natural instead.

[blackshoe]

I think you misread. Responder's bid was accepted because the next player called, and opener bid 2♣.

I think you're right.

[RMB1]

In my experience, the TD should check that 1♠ was intended. Law 25A can still apply, despite the Pass and the announcement.

 

As a practical player point, opener should ignore the meaning of 1♠ and always rebid 1NT - responder can now respond (sufficiently) to 1NT.

[Tramticket]

In my experience, the TD should check that 1♠ was intended. Law 25A can still apply, despite the Pass and the announcement.

 

Good point.

 

As a practical player point, opener should ignore the meaning of 1♠ and always rebid 1NT - responder can now respond (sufficiently) to 1NT.

 

Why? It would be a shame to go one-off in 3♦ when opponent's acceptance of the insufficient bid has allowed us to escape at the two level.

[gordontd]

Why? It would be a shame to go one-off in 3♦ when opponent's acceptance of the insufficient bid has allowed us to escape at the two level.

Where does 3D come from and how would you get there (or to 2D)?

[pescetom]

Where does 3D come from and how would you get there (or to 2D)?

I presume that 3D would come from repetition of 1NT as suggested by RMB1:

1NT-P-1S-P

1NT-P-2S-P

3C-P-3D-AP

and 2D from use of the presumed intended meaning of 1S, as in the OP:

1NT-P-1S-P

2C-P-2D-AP

Do you consider that use of UI, or inappropriate for some other reason?

[Tramticket]

Where does 3D come from and how would you get there (or to 2D)?

 

The opening post played in 2D.

 

Presumably after a 1NT rebid, responder bids 2S to transfer to a minor and corrects 3C to 3D.

 

Edit: just read pescetom has said This!

[gordontd]

I presume that 3D would come from repetition of 1NT as suggested by RMB1:

1NT-P-1S-P

1NT-P-2S-P

3C-P-3D-AP

and 2D from use of the presumed intended meaning of 1S, as in the OP:

1NT-P-1S-P

2C-P-2D-AP

Do you consider that use of UI, or inappropriate for some other reason?

Sorry, I was just falling into the trap of assuming that other people play the way I do, and it hadn't occurred to me that 2S might have been diamonds.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry, I was just falling into the trap of assuming that other people play the way I do, and it hadn't occurred to me that 2S might have been diamonds.

 

It's not uncommon, we play it as weak with one minor or GF with both

 

The problem here is that by indicating that he's taken the bid as a transfer, he frames the 2♣ bid as artificial, if he'd taken the 1♠ as spades, 2♣ might have been a 5 or 6 card club suit, his partner now knows the context. If his partner had a weak hand with 6 diamonds and 4 clubs, might pass have been a LA without the UI ?

[VixTD]

I don't think that opener received any UI. I can see that the announcement may have transmitted UI to responder: that opener has taken 1♠ as a transfer. But has responder used the UI? Propbably not if responder actually intended the bid as a transfer.

 

What are the regulations regarding announcements in this jurisdiction? Are transfers to a minor usually announced? If not director might impose a PP (probably a warning).

In the EBU I would certainly alert such an insufficient bid, if one or more of the possible intended meanings was artificial, even if some or all of them should be announced. Then the opponents can ask, and I can just explain the relevant parts of our system that might apply, and they can try to guess what's going on, and little or no unauthorized information would be transmitted.

 

It's easier to do this where we have a regulation that requires "don't knows" and "possibly artificial" meanings to be alerted.

[sanst]

In the EBU I would certainly alert such an insufficient bid, if one or more of the possible intended meanings was artificial, even if some or all of them should be announced. Then the opponents can ask, and I can just explain the relevant parts of our system that might apply, and they can try to guess what's going on, and little or no unauthorized information would be transmitted.

 

It's easier to do this where we have a regulation that requires "don't knows" and "possibly artificial" meanings to be alerted.

And what do you say when asked about the bid? Actually, you can’t say a thing, but you have to call the TD. Once you remark anything about it being insufficient, the TD has to be summoned. You certainly shouldn’t explain what you think the meaning might be if it were sufficient or made sufficient.

[mycroft]

ACBL here, and Barmar and others have explained the legal requirements of 1NT-2♠.

 

I find it even more atrocious when they announce "transfer" when they're actually playing the system the OP plays - where it is really "shutout in either minor". It is not a transfer if you don't promise the suit (in fact, I have had people who complain that our 1NT-2♦ transfer should be Alerted, not Announced, because if partner is 4=4 or 5=4 in the majors with an invitational hand, "it could be only four hearts". Some of those same people have no issues with 1NT-2♠ "transfer" that could have zero clubs (but 6 diamonds) - some of them even play it! (those that know to Alert 2♠ aren't "some of those").

 

One of these days, fourth hand will have AJTxx and a stiff diamond and get talked out of bidding 3♣ because of the known bad break, causing partner not to lead them, letting 3♦ make, and the house will fall in. And if I'm the TD, and give the ruling of "misinformation causing damage", combined with "Failure to follow procedure, 2♠ is not Announced, it's Alerted" (and this is why, but I won't say that), I expect it to be LOUD.

 

And if it's one of the people who I've already warned "you don't Announce black-suit transfers, and definitely not black-suit 'transfer's", I might even enjoy it. Quietly.

 

Specifically to the OP's situation: were you in México recently? Because I had almost exactly that auction last week (but instead of accepting it, they called the TD). It was weird that I could, without any issue whatever, allow the correction to 2♠ because it showed "the same...hands as intended by the IB". They got to 3♦, of course, that way.

[VixTD]

And what do you say when asked about the bid? Actually, you can’t say a thing, but you have to call the TD. Once you remark anything about it being insufficient, the TD has to be summoned. You certainly shouldn’t explain what you think the meaning might be if it were sufficient or made sufficient.

Sorry for replying late.

 

I don't know if I would alert an insufficient bid if no one had drawn attention to it. I might well wait to see if no one notices and bids over it. I don't think this is a problem as we can't really have agreements for insufficient bids. If attention has been drawn to it I might alert, particularly as we're expected to alert if there's any possibility the call could have an alertable meaning. I would not volunteer any further information unless the opponents asked, at which point I would explain what any similar (legal) sequences would mean.

[lamford]

I broadly agree with VixTD. I don't think the 1NT bidder should say anything, nor alert, as there is no agreement over 1NT-(P)-1S. And if asked the answer should be "no partnership agreement". The meanings might be several, for example Pass-(P)-1S is likely to be natural. 1C-(P)-1S might be natural, or a balanced hand. 1D-(P)-1S is likely to be natural and 1H-(P)-1S maybe be natural or might be a forcing NT for example. 1NT-(P)-2S might have many meanings. The announcement was, I think, illegal communication and does give UI. However, the 2C bid presumably shows clubs, and responder's 2D can be interpreted in any way the 1NT bidder chooses, as he has no UI. No adjustment for me.

[Zelandakh]

However, the 2C bid presumably shows clubs

Are you sure about that Paul? If I have understood so far, the point of Opener announcing "Transfer" was precisely to cancel the message of 2♣ showing clubs and to say that it is simple pass/correct for Responder's minor if they actually do have that hand. And if Responder has a different hand, well they better do something different! In this context the 2♦ rebid is a clear "I have a weak hand and long diamonds". If Responder has, say, 5♠+4♦ and meant to respond to a 1♣ opening, they do not rebid 2♦ here (assuming 'normal' levels of ethics).

 

Incidentally, if the announcement of "Transfer" came after 4th hand had passed, would you allow them to take it back and refuse the IB? It is hard to imagine that the order of events would really be IB->announce->pass->TD call but as the OP was silent on the precise order we have to consider each of the possibilities.

[helene_t]

I would think that UI is not an issue since opener's 2♣ rebid already gives the AI to responder that he made an insufficient bid.

 

Maybe the practical move for opener is to rebid 3♣ (if that's the normal response to 2♠) to avoid any misunderstandings.

[pescetom]

Are you sure about that Paul? If I have understood so far, the point of Opener announcing "Transfer" was precisely to cancel the message of 2♣ showing clubs and to say that it is simple pass/correct for Responder's minor if they actually do have that hand. And if Responder has a different hand, well they better do something different! In this context the 2♦ rebid is a clear "I have a weak hand and long diamonds". If Responder has, say, 5♠+4♦ and meant to respond to a 1♣ opening, they do not rebid 2♦ here (assuming 'normal' levels of ethics).

 

Incidentally, if the announcement of "Transfer" came after 4th hand had passed, would you allow them to take it back and refuse the IB? It is hard to imagine that the order of events would really be IB->announce->pass->TD call but as the OP was silent on the precise order we have to consider each of the possibilities.

 

Zel's well known passion for raking up dead threads apart, it is a mild shock to reread this and try to focus on such problems again after months of "real" (to reverse the paradigm) online bridge where insufficient bids and similar are things of the past.

On a national chat between TDs somebody asked a question today about comparable calls. The reaction was one of stunned amazement, plus a certain relief that if face to face bridge resumes 2021 is no longer far away.

[nige1]

bidding 1NT-P-1Spade -P Now what? 1NT bidder said Transfer [really a relay] Called director and director saw no problem and said to continue bidding. My problem is that unauthorised info occurred. Did 1Spade bidder mean to bid 2S or did he not see 1NT bid? Now 1NT bidder bid 2C and 1S bidder bid 2D which was passed out.

IMO, the 1N opener should call the director. Then it's the poor director's problem. Failing that, he should alert 1♠ (because it might have a conventional meaning) but, when asked should explain "no agreement". In the old days, I would then offer to speculate on possible meanings, but directors tell me that such an offer is illegal (I can't think why). Anyway, I agree with Dickiegera: that opener's "Transfer" announcement is UI, and the director should so rule. But you have to sympathise with directors, who struggle to cope with the current loony laws.

 

Interesting discovery: the BBO ♠ option won't create an auction with an insufficient bid :)