[VixTD]

At a club teams event:

---

EW haven't played together before, but they've discussed their system, and are playing Acol with a 12-14 NT, multi-2♦ and Lucas twos, opening one-bids all show at least four cards in the suit.

When East bid 2♦, West announced "transfer to hearts". East immediately said words to the effect of "How can that be a transfer?", and West corrected his mistake.

North called the director, and asked for a ruling. The TD told East he shouldn't have said anything, and ruled that all comments by East and West (the announcement and the comment by East) were unauthorized information and care had to be taken to avoid taking advantage of them, and asked them to continue playing.

West made 10 tricks on the lead of ♣10 for a loss of 1 IMP (against 3NT+2 at the other table).

What should the TD do at the end of play? Do you see any reason to award an adjusted score?

Under EBU regulations (which the club follows), transfers to the majors are announceable only after 1NT and 2NT opening bids and an intervening pass. Other transfers would require an alert, but I doubt these two players have even heard of playing transfers over suit bids.

[barmar]

This takes me back. 15-20 years ago I was playing with a pickup partner at an NABC, I made a bid which partner alerted, and when asked he explained it with a convention name. I'd never even heard of it (I don't remember what it was, so I have no idea if I would recognize it now), and I reflexively blurted out something like "What!?!". I don't remember if a TD was called or not, and if so what the ruling was.

[RMB1]

West has UI. There are logical alternatives to 3NT, 3NT is suggested by the UI because it could end the auction.

If West bids something else, EW will probably find their heart fit and play 4H. 4H probably makes, so little damage.

[barmar]

I'm just guessing that West thought he'd opened 1NT when he announced the transfer. Maybe he plays strong NT more frequently, and while he remembered not to open 1NT, he was still in that mindset when he saw partner's bid.

It looks like EW make a game in anything but clubs, and can make a diamond slam.

But if there were no UI to remind West of his error, and he bids 2♥, would EW necessarily find their game? It looks like East has a minimum for his 2♦ bid, although it sounds to him like they have a double fit in the majors, and he has a side void, so he should upgrade. If he bids 3♥, West will certainly go to 4.

I think the only way there would be damage from the UI would be if West raised diamonds and they found the slam.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on 2018-June-22, 09:00, said:

West has UI. There are logical alternatives to 3NT, 3NT is suggested by the UI because it could end the auction.

If West bids something else, EW will probably find their heart fit and play 4H. 4H probably makes, so little damage.

This was what I thought, although I'm sure this sort of thing has been posted before in this forum, and I have a vague recollection that the majority view was that while we might make West respond to the transfer, we don't believe he'll continue to believe he's opened 1NT for the rest of the auction (if that's indeed what happened). He might pull the 2♥ bid out and be unable to change it, but he may be able to recover later, as he'll surely see what's happened now.

barmar, on 2018-June-22, 09:20, said:

But if there were no UI to remind West of his error, and he bids 2♥, would EW necessarily find their game? It looks like East has a minimum for his 2♦ bid, although it sounds to him like they have a double fit in the majors, and he has a side void, so he should upgrade. If he bids 3♥, West will certainly go to 4.

North tried to argue that they might stop in a heart part-score, but I don't believe it.

[ahydra]

Yep, they should be in 4H after the 2H that West is meant to bid without UI, and a raise by East - probably making 10 tricks, so no damage here.

I once made a similar exclamation after opening 2H (weak two) and partner announced "spades". Opponents weren't happy, but I argued it was not a valid announcement for that opening bid - cf. if he'd said "strong", where I certainly would have kept my mouth shut. This is similar, in that there are no announcements prescribed in this situation. But I guess it's not up to East to assume that West has had a slip of the tongue, not the mind, and he shouldn't have said anything (same for me and that 2H announcement).

ahydra

[blackshoe]

West has UI from East's reaction, and 2♥ is certainly a LA, but it's not clear to me that the UI suggests bidding 3NT over bidding 2♥, so it's not "demonstrable," at least not by me. Even if it is, I don't see how there's damage. So I would rule result stands.

Should I give EW a PP for breach of proper procedure? I don't think so.

Relevant Laws: 16, 90.

[weejonnie]

It is not merely a question of 'UI' demonstrably suggests an action (Law 16B) - it is carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. (73C). Bidding a gratuitous 3NT is not IMHO carefully avoiding making use of the UI. It is telling partner to shut up. Even though I don't think there is damage - since 4♥ appears to make, I am applying a PP as per 73C2. (Breach of a 'must not' condition - a serious matter indeed.)

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-June-23, 09:32, said:

It is not merely a question of 'UI' demonstrably suggests an action (Law 16B) - it is carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. (73C). Bidding a gratuitous 3NT is not IMHO carefully avoiding making use of the UI. It is telling partner to shut up. Even though I don't think there is damage - since 4♥ appears to make, I am applying a PP as per 73C2. (Breach of a 'must not' condition - a serious matter indeed.)

But is it not relevant that the RA rules foresee this announcement only after 1NT or 2NT, whereas here the opening was 1♠?
Without the exclamation by East, NS would probably have realised themselves that this could not be an announcable transfer and would have called the Director, generating no UI. And had they not realised (or decided to keep quiet) then they wouldn't deserve much sympathy.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-June-23, 11:25, said:

But is it not relevant that the RA rules foresee this announcement only after 1NT or 2NT, whereas here the opening was 1♠?
Without the exclamation by East, NS would probably have realised themselves that this could not be an announcable transfer and would have called the Director, generating no UI. And had they not realised (or decided to keep quiet) then they wouldn't deserve much sympathy.

Well it is and it isn't.

When West announces - "Transfer to Hearts", then that is automatically UI for East. East should of course keep quiet. Since there is UI then NS are quite within their rights to call the TD. This call does not remove the UI, indeed the TD will impress on EW the importance of not making use of it.
When East blurts out "How can that be a transfer" then that communicates UI for West.

The UI around is completely independent of NS realisation that this could not be an announceable transfer.

Basically, if East said nothing and NS said nothing, the auction should start off with no UI and I suspect that EW would reach 4H as follows: -

West : 1 Spade
East : 2 Diamonds
West : 2 Hearts
East : 3 or 4 hearts
West 4 hearts (or pass over 4 hearts)

Because EW have ended up in a worse contract NS have not been damaged - nevertheless EW have been guilty of a breach of law 73C.

The law states that if a player has belief that an opponent has in their possession UI then they should either reserve their rights or call the director (I summarise). NS have applied this law.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2018-June-24, 13:16, said:

The law states that if a player has belief that an opponent has in their possession UI then they should either reserve their rights or call the director (I summarise). NS have applied this law.

Not exactly. It says that if a player believes that an opponent has UI, he should reserve his rights, and if the opponents disagree, they should call the director. I'm pretty sure less than 0.001% of players know this, even if they've been told it before.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-June-24, 13:16, said:

Well it is and it isn't.

When West announces - "Transfer to Hearts", then that is automatically UI for East. East should of course keep quiet. Since there is UI then NS are quite within their rights to call the TD. This call does not remove the UI, indeed the TD will impress on EW the importance of not making use of it.
When East blurts out "How can that be a transfer" then that communicates UI for West.

The UI around is completely independent of NS realisation that this could not be an announceable transfer.

Thanks.
The scenario I was thinking of is that NS seeing no alert and hearing the standard announcement phrase recognise that something is amiss and call the Director, and before he even arrives West has understood his own error, just like everyone else at the table. If I understand rightly, you're saying that he can't then simply say "Sorry, I thought I had opened 1NT, not 1S - the 2D bid is natural showing Diamonds" and end the whole affair, even in the presence of the Director and with South correctly informed before making his call.
Effectively, West still has to pay for his mistake even though it was noticed before it had any consequences. This is not the same spirit as the Laws about revokes or Declarer's play out of turn, for instance.

[blackshoe]

You can correct MI, and if that's done soon enough, it will eliminate rulings based on opponents having that MI. You can't correct UI. Once it's out there, it's out there, and its recipient has to deal with it, and may be subject to an adverse ruling.

[weejonnie]

If he says that "I thought that I had opened 1NT instead of 1 Spade" then that may also convey UI to his partner - that he has misbid. (His partner has bid so he can't correct the mistake.)

The problem that directors have is that even though West may have understood his own error on his own account (having a 'senior moment' and then recovering from it), it is impossible to prove that this wasn't because of the UI. Such statements tend to be dismissed as 'self-serving'. Had East kept quiet then if West had realised his error there would be no real problem (South might be given his last call back if he would have done something different, if West calls the director and corrects his misexplanation, although of course he need not until the end of the clarification period)

In the words of the ballad " Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs," - be quiet lads, keep your mouths closed: (appropriate as I live in Co Durham and play at Durham BC).

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-June-25, 14:37, said:

If he says that "I thought that I had opened 1NT instead of 1 Spade" then that may also convey UI to his partner - that he has misbid. (His partner has bid so he can't correct the mistake.)

The problem that directors have is that even though West may have understood his own error on his own account (having a 'senior moment' and then recovering from it), it is impossible to prove that this wasn't because of the UI. Such statements tend to be dismissed as 'self-serving'. Had East kept quiet then if West had realised his error there would be no real problem (South might be given his last call back if he would have done something different, if West calls the director and corrects his misexplanation, although of course he need not until the end of the clarification period)

Thanks, I think I finally got it.

weejonnie, on 2018-June-25, 14:37, said:

In the words of the ballad " Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs,"

Aa’ knaa' ‘boot the worm