[VixTD]

Multiple teams (IMPs -> VPs). 2♦ announced as transfer to hearts.

---

There was a playing director (not me). I was also playing in the competition.

Result: 4♦(W)=, NS-130. At the other table EW made a game.

At the end of the hand North called the director and explained what had happened. He drew the director's attention to the "transfer" on a three-card suit. The director told them to score it as played and that he would consult me at the end.

At the end of play North called me over while the director was busy and said: "I don't want the score adjusted, but could you just tell me what the legal situation is?" He proceeded to describe the auction, and how he had led a heart, knowing from the auction that his partner must be void, and a few other things I also didn't understand. EW were regular club players who played together frequently, but were fairly inexperienced. It is clear that their agreement was that 2♦ was a transfer.

I discussed the hand with the TD and we worked out what our ruling would be. North then approached me again later feeling mighty aggrieved and said the TD was refusing to adjust the score, and would I talk to him. When I asked the TD if he was going to adjust the score he said, no, North had told him initially he didn't want an adjustment. North now claimed he had said he didn't want a score adjustment unless it made a difference to the outcome of the match. (So it looks as if North told me and the TD separately that he didn't want an adjustment, but later changed his mind.)

So the upshot was that no adjustment was made, and North left muttering like a premier league football manager that the referees' decisions always go against him.

1. What would your ruling have been?

2. If North had appealed the decision not to adjust the score, what would you have done as an appeals committee member?

3. What's the best way of handling such appeals in clubs that don't have enough experienced regulars to set up their own committees?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2010-November-19, 08:51, said:

Multiple teams (IMPs -> VPs). 2♦ announced as transfer to hearts.

---

There was a playing director (not me). I was also playing in the competition.

Result: 4♦(W)=, NS-130. At the other table EW made a game.

At the end of the hand North called the director and explained what had happened. He drew the director's attention to the "transfer" on a three-card suit. The director told them to score it as played and that he would consult me at the end.

At the end of play North called me over while the director was busy and said: "I don't want the score adjusted, but could you just tell me what the legal situation is?" He proceeded to describe the auction, and how he had led a heart, knowing from the auction that his partner must be void, and a few other things I also didn't understand. EW were regular club players who played together frequently, but were fairly inexperienced. It is clear that their agreement was that 2♦ was a transfer.

I discussed the hand with the TD and we worked out what our ruling would be. North then approached me again later feeling mighty aggrieved and said the TD was refusing to adjust the score, and would I talk to him. When I asked the TD if he was going to adjust the score he said, no, North had told him initially he didn't want an adjustment. North now claimed he had said he didn't want a score adjustment unless it made a difference to the outcome of the match. (So it looks as if North told me and the TD separately that he didn't want an adjustment, but later changed his mind.)

So the upshot was that no adjustment was made, and North left muttering like a premier league football manager that the referees' decisions always go against him.

1. What would your ruling have been?

2. If North had appealed the decision not to adjust the score, what would you have done as an appeals committee member?

3. What's the best way of handling such appeals in clubs that don't have enough experienced regulars to set up their own committees?

2♦ is a transfer to hearts and East bid correspondingly - no problem
3♦ is what? and East maintained his bid according to the transfer.

I strongly suspect that the 4♦ bid should make it clear to everybody that West had forgotten their agreements, what else can it mean?

Consequently I have no objection to East passing out, especially since he holds the two high honours in diamonds.

My ruling is that table result stands, and in case of an appeal I would make my reasoning clear to anybody involved.

To Q3: Arrange with somebody qualified to allow for calling them (on the telephone) whenever needed

[paulg]

pran, on 2010-November-19, 09:17, said:

I strongly suspect that the 4♦ bid should make it clear to everybody that West had forgotten their agreements, what else can it mean?

2♦ transfer
3♦ second suit
4♦ - extra length in diamonds, perhaps 5-6, or a weakish 6-6 with slam interest opposite the right hand

I've seen the 5-6 auction happen at the club a couple of times, especially where inexperienced players are unhappy transferring into a minor. I have never seen partner forget that 2♦ is a transfer.

Over 3♥ West seems to have a number of LAs, including pass and 4♥. It seems that 4♦ is easily the bid suggested by the UI.

Seems very likely that I am going to adjust and probably warn West, and perhaps East, about their obligations under UI. No PP given the lack of experience.

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2010-November-19, 09:36, said:

2♦ transfer
3♦ second suit
4♦ - extra length in diamonds, perhaps 5-6, or a weakish 6-6 with slam interest opposite the right hand

I disagree, I believe 4♦ is a cuebid for the agreed trump suit of hearts, showing either A/K or two of the top three, depending on cuebidding agreements. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that 4♦ is neither an impossible bid nor non-forcing.

VixTD, on 2010-November-19, 08:51, said:

When I asked the TD if he was going to adjust the score he said, no, North had told him initially he didn't want an adjustment.

Sorry, but what kind of reason it that? I was under the impression that, once the director's attention had been called to an irregularity, it was the director's responsibility to resolve that irregularity, and players could only influence the outcome insofar as the law provides them with options, which it does not in this case.

[mgoetze]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-19, 10:57, said:

I disagree, I believe 4♦ is a cuebid for the agreed trump suit of hearts, showing either A/K or two of the top three, depending on cuebidding agreements. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that 4♦ is neither an impossible bid nor non-forcing.

OK, it is of course an impossible bid given that East holds AK of diamonds... that makes this more difficult.

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2010-November-19, 10:57, said:

I disagree, I believe 4♦ is a cuebid for the agreed trump suit of hearts, showing either A/K or two of the top three, depending on cuebidding agreements. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that 4♦ is neither an impossible bid nor non-forcing.

What I believe 4♦ should be, and I what I've seen inexperienced players do, are often different

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-19, 09:17, said:

I strongly suspect that the 4♦ bid should make it clear to everybody that West had forgotten their agreements, what else can it mean?

It can mean at least six hearts, five diamonds, game force, and no partner of mine would ever be fool enough to pass it. Of course it does not show she has forgotten transfers!

If you play - as I do with my regular partner - that 3♥ shows a heart fit then I suppose 4♦ is a control bid. With the actual hand that is confusing - but it still not show she has forgotten transfers!



For an appeal you only really need three reasonable players, one who will follow instructions as to checking the Law with the TD. But if this proves impossible phone an EBU Referee - or me! Famously a Merseyside & Cheshire AC sat to hear two tricky cases from Hertfordshire!

[pran]

Whatever the 4♦ bid is supposed to mean the only question that matters is if East is under restrictions because of UI.

So what UI has East received in the auction?

[pran]

paulg, on 2010-November-19, 09:36, said:

I've seen the 5-6 auction happen at the club a couple of times, especially where inexperienced players are unhappy transferring into a minor. I have never seen partner forget that 2♦ is a transfer.

Isn't the auction and the actual hand convincing evidence that West had forgotten 2♦ being transfer?

[blackshoe]

West has UI because East announced that 2♦ was a transfer. And yes, it certainly appears that West forgot that agreement, at least momentarily.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-19, 11:38, said:

Whatever the 4♦ bid is supposed to mean the only question that matters is if East is under restrictions because of UI.

So what UI has East received in the auction?

The only question? West has UI and has failed to accept an apparent 5-3 fit twice. I do not think that East not having UI is the point.

[mycroft]

Wow, forget transfers again. Well, they got one level higher than most people do; I guess they were playing with screens, so that East couldn't see the ugly face and the slapped-down nature of the 3D call.

*If* East is in possession of no UI, then he's entitled to look at his DAK and assume that partner forgot. Nothing has been said, and we should assume only what's in the OP, but I have seen forget transfers *a lot*, and there's *never* no UI from the diamond bidder. Maybe I'm prejudiced.

West, however, *does* have UI. So, do they frequently open NT with 3=5=2=3 hands? or just 5-card majors? Yeah, 7 diamonds is 7 diamonds, but a reasonably-makeable 8-card heart fit is a draw (less at IMPs, I guess). Definitely, if I had 1NT-2D (screens); 2H "oh dear, right, we play transfers", I'm passing in my last potential plus score - partner's not going to let me play diamonds until I'm going minus.

Also, if it's clear to East with DAK and 4 hearts that partner's forgotten transfers after 3 diamond bids, why isn't it clear to West that partner's psyched 1NT with Fred's famous HAKQJTx and out after two heart overrides?

[StevenG]

Many (weaker) players locally play 1NT-2♦-2♥-3♦ as a weak takeout into diamonds. They do not realise that this invalidates the description of 2♦ as a transfer. I strongly suspect that West plays this, but East doesn't.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2010-November-19, 09:36, said:

2♦ transfer
3♦ second suit
4♦ - extra length in diamonds, perhaps 5-6, or a weakish 6-6 with slam interest opposite the right hand
I've seen the 5-6 auction happen at the club a couple of times, especially where inexperienced players are unhappy transferring into a minor. I have never seen partner forget that 2♦ is a transfer.
Over 3♥ West seems to have a number of LAs, including pass and 4♥. It seems that 4♦ is easily the bid suggested by the UI. Seems very likely that I am going to adjust and probably warn West, and perhaps East, about their obligations under UI. No PP given the lack of experience.

mycroft, on 2010-November-19, 12:49, said:

Wow, forget transfers again. Well, they got one level higher than most people do; I guess they were playing with screens, so that East couldn't see the ugly face and the slapped-down nature of the 3D call. *If* East is in possession of no UI, then he's entitled to look at his DAK and assume that partner forgot. Nothing has been said, and we should assume only what's in the OP, but I have seen forget transfers *a lot*, and there's *never* no UI from the diamond bidder. Maybe I'm prejudiced. West, however, *does* have UI. So, do they frequently open NT with 3=5=2=3 hands? or just 5-card majors? Yeah, 7 diamonds is 7 diamonds, but a reasonably-makeable 8-card heart fit is a draw (less at IMPs, I guess). Definitely, if I had 1NT-2D (screens); 2H "oh dear, right, we play transfers", I'm passing in my last potential plus score - partner's not going to let me play diamonds until I'm going minus. Also, if it's clear to East with DAK and 4 hearts that partner's forgotten transfers after 3 diamond bids, why isn't it clear to West that partner's psyched 1NT with Fred's famous HAKQJTx and out after two heart overrides?

Mycroft's analysis seems spot on and Paulg's is the most sensible ruling I've ever read about in such a case. In previous similar cases, directors seem to rule that it is somehow obvious that a wheel has come off. For instance New Orleans NABC #5

[pran]

bluejak, on 2010-November-19, 12:36, said:

The only question? West has UI and has failed to accept an apparent 5-3 fit twice. I do not think that East not having UI is the point.

5-3 fit? Does East-West agreements include opening 1NT with a 5 card major suit?

Even if they do West "knows" that they have a 7-2 fit in diamonds (I suppose a singleton diamond is not allowed with the 1NT opening?), and the prospect of getting values for his diamonds in a heart contract is doubtful because of lack of entries.

To me West has bid rather ethically by sticking to his diamond suit and not just passing out 2♥ or 3♥ once he became aware of his mistake, especially since this is with IMPs scoring.

If you want to adjust the contract to 4♥ (bid by East instead of 4♦) I shall accept that as an opinion, but I don't agree.

What I shall not accept is that East has made any use of UI; at least I have so far not seen any UI that East has used. (That West has UI is unquestionable.)

[bluejak]

It is all very well saying that West might bid diamonds again because that is reasonable but that is not the way we rule UI cases. We follow the UI Laws. If pass of 2♥ is an LA then whether 3♦ is sensible is of no relevance whatever. Remember "choose amongst LAs"?

Remember fielded misbids? This is exactly the sort of hand which illustrates the point. If I agree that 2♦ is signoff and my partner I bids 2♥ over it I assume he has five hearts and a small doubleton diamond. The reasons this player does not is because it has happened before, ie his 3♦ is based not just on UI but also because of a concealed partnership understanding.

[jeremy69]

When West bid 3D then if in theory that showed hearts and diamonds but West had done this sort of thing before(which is UI) was East put off from bidding 4H. If 3D was forcing only to 3H then East has a clear 4H bid. If 3D was FG with both red suits then with 4 hearts and AAK I would have thought a cue bid of some sort to be normal. Now I know poor players don't necessarily do this sort of thing but they do jump to game especially if they have never discussed whether 3D is INV or FG. At the very least the TD ought to have asked some more questions.

[campboy]

Well, some East players (such as me) will have the agreement that a cue over 3♦ agrees diamonds, so have to bid 3♥ here. Obviously at the time the TD will want to ask both players to give reasons for their second- and third-round calls, but East might be able to give convincing answers. West, on the other hand, has no business bidding 3♦ or 4♦, so I would probably adjust to 3♥ making some number of tricks.

[blackshoe]

If West had no business bidding 3♦, how do they get to 3♥?

[RMB1]

jeremy69, on 2010-November-20, 03:45, said:

When West bid 3D then if in theory that showed hearts and diamonds but West had done this sort of thing before(which is UI) ...

Why? Partnership experience is not UI.
It is likely that EW have an implicit agreement (or common bridge knowledge) that 2♦ is a transfer to hearts except if partner repeats diamonds when it shows diamonds.

2♦ = hearts(any strength) or diamonds (to play in 3♦) is a permitted agreement.
[In my local congresses, I have seen people with this agreement on their convention cards.]

Of course EW have failed to properly explain their agreements (e.g. 2♦ should be alerted and explained as above). So there is a need to investigate a misinformation ruling.