[gartinmale]

---

At a club game in the US, partner (North) opens a 15-17 1NT. I have a pretty flat hand with two or three points. Partner's bid is doubled for penalty (!) by East, and when I pass West bids 2♥, announced as a transfer. West visibly doesn't take this well. East bids 2♠ to complete the transfer, and when West follows with 3♥ with an audible sigh of annoyance, East passes, announcing "This should be a strong two-suited hand but I am choosing to believe she forgot our agreements". I think it is clear to everyone at the table at this point that West has hearts (indeed, she shows up with a 5 count, six hearts to the KQ and out). As for their agreements, neither has a convention card.

For the purposes of this question, let's assume my hand is such that I am not going to bid anything (even X) regardless of their auction. I can't really claim that their cluelessness damaged our side, because (1) we were not making 1NT doubled, and (2) if they decide not to take advantage of a penalty double of a strong 1NT when it comes up, some number of hearts looks like the reasonable place for them to play and they got there. So to be clear, I am not claiming that I think they should have to play some other contract. What, however, should be done about lefty visibly indicating her distaste for the auction?

(For the record, I called the director just to ask about what was going on, who said that since my partner opened a 15-17 1NT that East is allowed to assume their side doesn't have game and hence can stop in whatever contract he likes. She asked if I would have defended differently knowing that West had hearts, and I told her that West made it obvious to everyone (and authorized to our side) that she had hearts, so I would not have).

Edit: I'm new here, so sorry if this is a stupid question. I've tried to use the correct formatting, but please let me know what I could do better, or if there's any relevant information missing from the above.

[bluejak]

Even though you do not think you are damaged, you have to compare what would happen with highly ethical opponents. If the doubler has three spades and two hearts, for example, you have been damaged since the pass of 3♥ is illegal: he has used the unauthorised information from partner.

So what would I do as TD? Find out whether an adjustment was reasonable, based on doubler's holdings, and if not give the 2♥ bidder a stern lecture if he is inexperienced, or a procedural penalty of a quarter board if he is experienced.

[gartinmale]

The doubler had four spades and two hearts, which is ostensibly (although probably not actually) why he decided not to believe his partner. Suppose that, ethically, he had rebid 3♠ and West had bid 4♥. Would he be allowed to wake up then? If so, suppose that 4♥ makes. Should the result at the table be adjusted to 4♥ making?

[bluejak]

No, why should he? People do pick up 6-6 hands occasionally.

People are required to follow the UI Laws: if they do not then it is right that they get adjusted against.

[pran]

If 2♥ in this auction is transfer (by agreements) then West has effectively shown a hand with 5(+) spades and 4(+) hearts with strength sufficient for the three-level, and unless East can clearly understand from information legal to him that this is not the case then he is supposed to call as if that were the case.

Any deviation from this by East should be considered a violation of Law 16B1.

[barmar]

There are other problems beside West showing agitation. In ACBL, you don't announce transfers in this type of auction, you alert them, and only explain if asked (the only transfers that you announce are Jacoby and Texas transfers when your side has opened NT). And East shouldn't be explaining why he's passing after 3♥. The TD needs to explain correct procedure to EW.

[suprgrover]

barmar, on 2011-April-06, 06:34, said:

There are other problems beside West showing agitation. In ACBL, you don't announce transfers in this type of auction, you alert them, and only explain if asked (the only transfers that you announce are Jacoby and Texas transfers when your side has opened NT).

Actually, transfers to the majors after NT openings and overcalls are both announced in the ACBL, or at least should be. (What is not announced in the case of a NT overcall is the range.)

In a more perfect ACBL, there would be something much like the Orange Book instead of the mishmash of (inaccessible) Laws Commission minutes, Defense Database, Tech Files, and Alert charts. Of course, a more perfect ACBL would have a Law book that was identical to the Law book used elsewhere.

[blackshoe]

With, AFAIK, one exception, the ACBL's version of the lawbook is identical to the WBF's. The difference is that both versions contain elections for the RA, and the ACBL has chosen different ones to the ones chosen by others. It is perhaps the case that the elections are there to minimize the exceptions, the ACBL taking the attitude that within its jurisdiction it can promulgate whatever laws it likes.

I do agree that a single comprehensive reference document would go a long way towards improving the situation, but I prefer my normal coloring to blue, so I'm not holding my breath for it.

[aguahombre]

suprgrover, on 2011-April-06, 09:21, said:

Actually, transfers to the majors after NT openings and overcalls are both announced in the ACBL, or at least should be. (What is not announced in the case of a NT overcall is the range.)

Double was neither. Just because we treat double as a NT opener and 2H is a transfer in response to double of 1NT does not mean we announce....we alert.

[blackshoe]

Aqua is correct.

[suprgrover]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-06, 09:57, said:

With, AFAIK, one exception, the ACBL's version of the lawbook is identical to the WBF's. The difference is that both versions contain elections for the RA, and the ACBL has chosen different ones to the ones chosen by others. It is perhaps the case that the elections are there to minimize the exceptions, the ACBL taking the attitude that within its jurisdiction it can promulgate whatever laws it likes.

I do agree that a single comprehensive reference document would go a long way towards improving the situation, but I prefer my normal coloring to blue, so I'm not holding my breath for it.

I was think of 12c1Eii, which is different in an important way in the ACBL version. I seem to recall a couple of other issues, but can't find them right now.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-06, 09:57, said:

With, AFAIK, one exception, the ACBL's version of the lawbook is identical to the WBF's.

Aside from them putting back the chapter headings and the contents pages from the previous lawbook, and removing the statement of confidence in their tournament directors?

[blackshoe]

suprgrover, on 2011-April-06, 23:38, said:

I was think of 12c1Eii, which is different in an important way in the ACBL version. I seem to recall a couple of other issues, but can't find them right now.

Well, yes, but that's one of the elections I mentioned. The one I was thinking of is the footnote to 12C2c, which does not appear in the WBF version of the laws, and is not the result of an allowed election — the ACBL stuck that in on its own.

[suprgrover]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-07, 09:14, said:

Well, yes, but that's one of the elections I mentioned.

The ACBL can elect to have 12c1e apply, but the 12c1e that is supposed to apply is not the one the the ACBL has elected to apply.

[blackshoe]

Ah, yes, "had the irregularity not occurred". Fair enough.

Gordon, I was referring to the content of the actual laws, not the other stuff.

I've said it before, and will say it again: the ACBL considers itself, and not the WBF, the final arbiter of the laws in North America. I disagree with them, but they don't care what I think.