[kenrexford]

♠xxx ♥Qx ♦Q10xxxx ♣xx

♠KQx ♥xx ♦AKJx ♣AKQx


Last night, I opened the South hand 2♣. Partner bid 2♦ (waiting, with two Queens, one King, or better).

I rebid 2NT (22-23 or so).

Now, for some insane reason, at my local club NO ONE (including several silver life masters) seems to understand that this auction is functionally identical to 2NT-P-?, meaning that for some reason they never remember that systems should be on here. But, trusting that this SLM would remember, I trusted her 3♦ as a transfer. This was alerted.

I dutifully rebid 3♥.

She bid 3NT. Now, as fortune would have it, I only had two hearts, which meant that we played 3NT rather than 4♥. Moreover, as fortune would also have it, partner also only had two hearts and thus had no problem with her unauthorized information and could bid 3NT ethically.

So, I got a spade lead and won this trick, which was VERY good news. I ran off the entire diamond suit, and someone unguarded clubs. So, in the end, I scored up 6♦/1♠/4♣, for +660.

This was an average on the board. A wall of +660's.

[jonottawa]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-07, 10:04, said:

Moreover, as fortune would also have it, partner also only had two hearts and thus had no problem with her unauthorized information and could bid 3NT ethically.

I'm not sure that last bit is true.

[kenrexford]

jonottawa, on 2012-September-07, 10:49, said:

I'm not sure that last bit is true.

Partner just opened 2♣, and you showed your two Queens.

Partner now shows a balanced hand, after which you introduce your diamonds (you think, or more precisely you MUST think after the UI).

Partner now describes a handwith 5-3-3-2 shape (some unknown doubleton) and five hearts.

You only have two hearts and hence no fit except in diamonds. You showed the diamonds already, so no need to tell that story again. So, you bid 3NT.

How is that not accurate?

[kenberg]

I am no expert on rules, but if partner alerted my 3D and explained that was a transfer to hearts, or simply made the announcement that it was hearts, and if we had not discussed this, and if I intended 3D as natural, I would feel an obligation to inform opponents that my partner's explanation of my call is not in accordance with my understanding of our agreements (or lack thereof)

If the argument is "everyone knows it's a transfer, we haven't discussed it, but she should know" then I think the response is that apparently not everyone does know it. I am sympathetic with the problem, but I would be embarrassed to hear the explanation that the bid shows hearts and then silently put a diamond hand down on the table.

The 3NT call, itself, I have no trouble with.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2012-September-07, 11:27, said:

f the argument is "everyone knows it's a transfer, we haven't discussed it, but she should know" then I think the response is that apparently not everyone does know it. I am sympathetic with the problem, but I would be embarrassed to hear the explanation that the bid shows hearts and then silently put a diamond hand down on the table.

This is an issue that has engendered many long debates in the IBLF.

The fact that some people don't know something doesn't contradict that everyone should know it. Back when I used to play online pickup games frequently (in my OKbridge days), I would often sit down opposite someone and agree "SAYC". I knew that this meant Jacoby 2NT, but I lost count of the number of times partner didn't, and I eventually added a note to my profile about this. But that doesn't change the fact that 2NT is part of SAYC, and those players were not bidding according to the system they'd agreed to.

So just because some people don't know something, that doesn't mean it's not "standard". Those people are just wrong, and it's not much different from someone who has forgotten an agreement.

Strictly speaking, anything not explicitly discussed should be described as "undiscussed". But that seems disingenuous in the case of a pickup partnership that has had little discussion -- most players have enough understanding of what's "standard" that they can provide reasonable explanations for most situations.

The mistake Ken's partner made is something I would not be surprised to see in a flight C player, but in a Life Master (let alone Silver) it surprises me greatly. I've played with hundreds of pickup partners, and I think only a couple have ever felt the need to mention it specifically, and I don't think I've ever had confusion like this when not discussing it. A few might not have been sure if Puppet Stayman (versus ordinary Stayman) was still on, but transfers were always obvious.

[billw55]

I think partner has an ethical duty to clarify your agreements or lack thereof, after the auction is over but before the opening lead is made.

I also wonder if it is incorrect to alert 3♦ if you do not have a definite agreement about it with this partner. To me, the alert implies a level of certainty that you didn't really have. If the only reason for the alert is that a transfer is standard and everyone should know it - then shouldn't the opponents know it? Or look at it this way - the alert may have served to suppress a question that otherwise would have been asked. Let's say you did not alert, and they asked - wouldn't your explanation include something to the effect that you lack a definite agreement?

[kenrexford]

We had a definite agreement. The issue was that everyone strangely forgets. My trust was that she would remember.

[billw55]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-07, 12:21, said:

We had a definite agreement. The issue was that everyone strangely forgets. My trust was that she would remember.

Ah ok I see. A different matter then.

[kenberg]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-07, 12:21, said:

We had a definite agreement. The issue was that everyone strangely forgets. My trust was that she would remember.

Given this, nothing needs to be said . Or so I think. I certainly would bid 3NT over 3H, I cannot see any reason at all not to. I believe that as I spread the dummy, I would say "Our agreement is as partner described it, I simply forgot". I don't lie about such things, and I expect to be believed, at least tentatively. Still, the opponents might then call the director, I would take no offense, and the director would rule as the director believes right. I plead ignorance of the legalese, but probably the opponents are stuck with whatever lead was made. One can hope that they are not prone to violence if in fact W has a natural heart lead if the auction had not promised hearts.
These things do happen. I once opened 1NT, partner bid 3C, opponents asked, I simply could not recall how we were playing it (5-5 weak, it turned out). Embarrassing, but I would be very happy if I could say that this was the dumbest thing that I have ever done.

[kuhchung]

Well, I enjoyed the story.

[trevahound]

I enjoyed the story also, thank you. It reminded me of an auction where opps had a system crash and ended in 5 something rewound, non-vul (we were vul), down 2, for an absolute average, as there were a sea of +600's our way.

Brian Zaugg

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on 2012-September-07, 10:04, said:

Now, for some insane reason, at my local club NO ONE (including several silver life masters) seems to understand that this auction is functionally identical to 2NT-P-?, meaning that for some reason they never remember that systems should be on here. But, trusting that this SLM would remember, I trusted her 3♦ as a transfer. This was alerted.

I dutifully rebid 3♥.

She bid 3NT. Now, as fortune would have it, I only had two hearts, which meant that we played 3NT rather than 4♥. Moreover, as fortune would also have it, partner also only had two hearts and thus had no problem with her unauthorized information and could bid 3NT ethically.

jonottawa, on 2012-September-07, 10:49, said:

I'm not sure that last bit is true.

"It isn't true, but it's accurate." — Sally Field, in "Absence of Malice".

The question is whether there is an LA to 3NT, given the AI responder has. I don't think there is. So actually, Ken's "last bit" is true.

@Ken: why did you alert, rather than announce (announce is correct, btw)?

kenberg, on 2012-September-07, 11:27, said:

I am no expert on rules, but if partner alerted my 3D and explained that was a transfer to hearts, or simply made the announcement that it was hearts, and if we had not discussed this, and if I intended 3D as natural, I would feel an obligation to inform opponents that my partner's explanation of my call is not in accordance with my understanding of our agreements (or lack thereof)

If the UI wakes you up to the correct agreement, and you have misbid, you are not required, legally or ethically, to say anything. If you still believe that you are right and partner's explanation is wrong, you are legally and ethically bound (the law uses the word "must") to call the director and explain your understanding of the correct agreement at the appropriate time (after the final pass if your side declares, after the play if your side defends). The problem arises with players who think "Oh, partner must be right" for whatever reason (partner is the better player, has a better memory, will kill me if I say anything, or just "I'm Caspar Milquetoast").

billw55, on 2012-September-07, 12:14, said:

I think partner has an ethical duty to clarify your agreements or lack thereof, after the auction is over but before the opening lead is made.

I also wonder if it is incorrect to alert 3♦ if you do not have a definite agreement about it with this partner. To me, the alert implies a level of certainty that you didn't really have. If the only reason for the alert is that a transfer is standard and everyone should know it - then shouldn't the opponents know it? Or look at it this way - the alert may have served to suppress a question that otherwise would have been asked. Let's say you did not alert, and they asked - wouldn't your explanation include something to the effect that you lack a definite agreement?

Regarding partner's "ethical duty" see my comments above.

If you believe you have an agreement that might require an alert, you should alert. If you are in doubt whether your agreement requires an alert, you should alert. So says the alert regulation.

kenrexford, on 2012-September-07, 12:21, said:

We had a definite agreement. The issue was that everyone strangely forgets. My trust was that she would remember.

Then announcing was correct (red suit transfers to the next higher strain over any NT, including those after an artificial sequence, require an announcment).

kenberg, on 2012-September-07, 12:48, said:

Given this, nothing needs to be said . Or so I think. I certainly would bid 3NT over 3H, I cannot see any reason at all not to. I believe that as I spread the dummy, I would say "Our agreement is as partner described it, I simply forgot". I don't lie about such things, and I expect to be believed, at least tentatively. Still, the opponents might then call the director, I would take no offense, and the director would rule as the director believes right. I plead ignorance of the legalese, but probably the opponents are stuck with whatever lead was made. One can hope that they are not prone to violence if in fact W has a natural heart lead if the auction had not promised hearts.
These things do happen. I once opened 1NT, partner bid 3C, opponents asked, I simply could not recall how we were playing it (5-5 weak, it turned out). Embarrassing, but I would be very happy if I could say that this was the dumbest thing that I have ever done.

Owning up to your misbid as you spread your dummy I would consider more as an apology to partner than an explanation to opponents, but doing it is fine.

Yes, the opponents are stuck with their lead. In this case I would not rule that there has been misinformation, but in a different case where there had been, I would adjust the score if the defenders were damaged (for example, by choosing a bad opening lead) by the MI.

[nigel_k]

Possibly a case could be made that 4♥ is a logical alternative to 3NT.

The bigger problem is that partner almost certainly should clarify before the opening lead whether the opponents have been given the correct explanation. It's not a situation where they clearly know they forgot the agreement and misbid. They genuinely weren't sure that transfers applied in that auction. If partner had spoken up before the opening lead, the opponents would have known their side most likely held nine hearts and would have led one.

[jonottawa]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-07, 14:23, said:

The question is whether there is an LA to 3NT, given the AI responder has. I don't think there is. So actually, Ken's "last bit" is true.

I think determining what someone who has perpetrated the given auction thus far perceives as a 'logical alternative' is quite tricky. If the hand had been qxx xx qtxxxx xx I'd be willing to concede that 3N was the only logical alternative for this player. On the actual hand, I'm not so sure. It's analogous to the first case that Debbie R. presented recently, imo.

[ggwhiz]

An entertaining thread might be your favorite 50% or nothing results.

My first NABC in 1982 I q'ed for the finals of the Open Pairs with 50% and finished with..... 50% on the button.

Along the way, 1 round started with 4♦ doubled and making with all the bidding solo between me and my lho. Rho said nothing but smoke was coming out his ears.

Next hand I brilliantly maneuvered us into 7♥ on my AKQ tight opposite J10xx, down a few when they split 5-1 against. Our side suit was AKTxxx opposite xx in spades and when I asked rho what he held he said "double QJ" making any other grand cold. I said Oh well, just another average round and rho laughed.

Twenty Five years later I finished a match against this same rho and brought it up. He remembered it and had checked the scores to find a 51 mp's and a zero just like I did.

[Fluffy]

you can't tell a funny story without a host of secretary birds spoiling the fun

[kenberg]

Fluffy,

I suppose we are beating the story to death, ok, guilty as charged. I think the reason, in part, is that some of us are a little uneasy about it. Here we have KenR playing at a club where, he tells us, several of the players are unaware of the fact that after 2C-2D-2NT, a 3D bid is a transfer. Without ever encountering Ken at the table, I think we can all agree that he is a shark among guppies. So sometimes things get a bit weird. No kidding.

I had to look it up, but it seems that I, like Ken's partner and opponents, am a Silver Life Master. I currently play on some Thursdays, when we are free, at a club where my partner and I almost always come in first. I think most everyone at this club knows 3D is a transfer, so I am a bit astounded by Ken's club.

After I had played at this club a few times, I approached the lady who runs it and asked if she would rather my partner and I played elsewhere. She said she was happy to have us, but I told pard that we had to vary the direction, sometimes NS, sometimes EW. Most players seem happy enough to see us, and some seek advice. I try hard to not have things happen in the manner Ken describes. If I am playing against Meckwell, they know how to defend themselves. Against the casual club player, we will get enough good boards without such extra gifts.

On the weirdness front, at the club I mentioned: rho opened 2S, I doubled, pass on my left, pard bid 3NT, pass to me. I have a spade void and a bit more than needed for my double, but I passed, followed by a pass on my left. Partner explained to opponents before the lead that 3NT should have been alerted. Huh? They asked, and he said that it shows a spade stopper.. Part of Lebensohl, he explained. I explained that I hope to kiss a duck that he has a spade stopper, and that as I play it the immediate 3NT says let me play 3NT, while 2NT followed by 3NT says I think I want to play 3NT but doubler is entitled to an opinion. I said I didn't alert because as far as I could recall we had no such agreement. Anyway, that's the hand he had. AKTx of spades, enough values to be in game, but that's it.

Lots of agreements are only sort of agreements. Online pickups want to play Bergen. Unless we have time to discuss when it is on, when it is off, etc I prefer not to. I don't like saying "undiscussed" in an artificial auction when I think I know from common knowledge what it actually is.

Oh well, probably I never should have posted. But I did find it more disturbing than funny.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2012-September-08, 11:28, said:

Lots of agreements are only sort of agreements. Online pickups want to play Bergen. Unless we have time to discuss when it is on, when it is off, etc I prefer not to. I don't like saying "undiscussed" in an artificial auction when I think I know from common knowledge what it actually is.

"We agreed to play Bergen, but did not discuss whether it's on in this sequence".

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-08, 11:57, said:

"We agreed to play Bergen, but did not discuss whether it's on in this sequence".

Sure, it's ok. Accurate anyway. But sort of embarrassing.

Generally I feel a responsibility to know the meaning of any artificial bid we are playing. IN the opposite direction, I feel very little need to elaborate much beyond "natural" when it is natural. Forcing, invitational or to play is fine, but beyond that, lacking a specific agreement, a natural bid is natural and we all do our best.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2012-September-08, 12:48, said:

Sure, it's ok. Accurate anyway. But sort of embarrassing.

Generally I feel a responsibility to know the meaning of any artificial bid we are playing. IN the opposite direction, I feel very little need to elaborate much beyond "natural" when it is natural. Forcing, invitational or to play is fine, but beyond that, lacking a specific agreement, a natural bid is natural and we all do our best.

Nothing in the laws protects you from embarrassment caused by your own side.

"Natural" is fine, usually, but don't leave out anything important.