[Rossoneri]

---

3♦ was unalerted. NS agreement is a transfer. After the J♠ lead, NS made 12 tricks. Scoring is Butler IMPs.

The director was called at the end of the hand. South claimed that he said "I think there's been a misunderstanding." when East made the face-down lead. East disputed this. After further questioning, the players agreed that South did say that before East had faced the lead. On his turn to play, West asked what 3♦ should be and was now correctly told that it should be a transfer.

How would you rule?

This post has been edited by Rossoneri: 2011-April-20, 18:45

[blackshoe]

Failure to alert when an alert is required is MI. So yes, there was MI. Was there damage? Did EW claim they'd have defended differently with the correct information? (The MI could only have affected the opening lead, since West had the correct info before he played to the first trick).

There is more to it, though. Law 75B requires South to call the TD and to provide the correct explanation after the final pass (which means before the opening lead is chosen). South did neither of these things; instead, he simply suggested there might have been an irregularity. Now all four players are responsible to call the TD. Nobody did. All this merits at least a lecture on proper procedure. The use of "must" (South "must correct the explanation") suggests that NS be issued a PP.

There is also the question of UI. South expected an alert, but didn't hear one. So South has UI. But I think the UI suggests bidding on, not passing, over 3NT, so there's been no infraction based on UI.

I would let the result stand. I would issue NS a PP, probably just a warning.

[paulg]

I'm diving under the table because bluejak will be walking into the saloon soon with his guns blazing. Have to call the TD when MI is possible.

[Cyberyeti]

South has UI. The key question is what does 3N mean over the transfer ?

Do they ever break transfers with a fit ?

If this shows some sort of 4 card heart fit, he really ought to be bidding 4♥ which will also make 12, but it's not clear that N can pass this so it's anybody's guess where this auction is going, probably to a making game or slam, I'd guess 5♥.

EW have butchered the defence as it's trivial to hold this to 11 tricks even after the spade lead. With correct info, would E have led a diamond ? not clear, can be polled, but this is only sufficient to hold the contract to 9 tricks, no big deal at butler.

The biggest adjustment EW are likely to get are something like 50%-600, 50%-690 which is probably a whole IMP v a room -680.

If I was going to adjust, I'd adjust to -680 for 5♥+1 if NS did play transfer breaks.

The improprieties have been dealt with by other posters.

[Fluffy]

what about NS having no agreements on this sequence? if your agreements stop in the 2♦ bid, should you alert bids aftr when you haven't made agreements about them?

[bluejak]

Might West have doubled an alerted 3♦ for a diamond lead against 3NT?

[Rossoneri]

bluejak, on 2011-April-21, 08:06, said:

Might West have doubled an alerted 3♦ for a diamond lead against 3NT?

West didn't say he would. East's main contention was that she would have led a ♦ had she known it was a transfer.

[lamford]

Rossoneri, on 2011-April-21, 15:52, said:

West didn't say he would. East's main contention was that she would have led a ♦ had she known it was a transfer.

Indeed, being told that there has been a misunderstanding has not negated the MI. East is also entitled to know that not only was 3D a transfer, but also that North bid 3NT over it without knowing it was a transfer (the failure to alert is AI for E-W only). There was presumably no systemic agreement for 3NT. I would lead a diamond against 3NT on this auction, but we should poll similar Easts and find out what they would do. I don't think West would double an alerted 3D - he would not want partner leading from Kx against a likely 4♥.

And we also have the UI to consider, and presumably 3NT is undiscussed, so South will probably bid 4H as Cyberyeti states. North might interpret that as diamonds and hearts, and will probably pass, but we should poll Norths with the auction with 3D as natural - although very few would play that method. North has too much in the black suits to press on in my view.

I see it is Butler, and 3NT is always cold. So some percentage of 3NT = and some of it making overtricks. I have no idea what weighting, but it is not that critical.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-April-21, 08:06, said:

Might West have doubled an alerted 3♦ for a diamond lead against 3NT?

Rossoneri, on 2011-April-21, 15:52, said:

West didn't say he would. East's main contention was that she would have led a ♦ had she known it was a transfer.

A legally sophisticated West would immediately point out that he might have doubled 3♦. An honest expert wouldn't mention the possibility if he judged it unlikely for him. An ordinary player might lack the legal knowledge and imagination to trawl through all the hypothetical auctions.

Nevertheless, IMO the director should explore such possibilities, even when nobody mentions them.

[barmar]

Maybe it's not relevant to this case, but shouldn't EW be happy that NS didn't find their cold slam in either major because of their bidding misunderstanding?

[bluejak]

Of course.

How does that affect the ruling?