[pescetom]

I thought this was an amusing twist to Transfergate.

---

Director is called to table when NS have realized 5♥+2.
Opponents point out that 3♥ was alerted with delay (after Pass of East) and suggest that 4NT was a blatant attempt to wake up partner.
Director asks why 3♥ was alerted, South shows their system card stating that it is a transfer to spades and says that he replied 2 keycards without the Q.
Director assigns an artificial 4♠-3 citing Laws 75A and 16B with respect to North.
Your thoughts?

[Bad_Wolf]

One of the most egregious pieces of cheating I have seen in a while.

[smerriman]

In the other thread, you could make a case that 4♠ was an impossible bid, so you're allowed to wake up. 4♠ natural is perfectly plausible here, so there can be no doubt about the result being rolled back.

[jillybean]

 pescetom, on 2024-September-08, 15:06, said:

Your thoughts?

I want to play Bridge in Italy, Bravo to the Director. I hope NS were given PP and player write up.
Bantant C if you ask me, I think we should start calling it that.

[pescetom]

Bad_Wolf, on 2024-September-08, 19:05, said:

One of the most egregious pieces of cheating I have seen in a while.

But also ingenious, I thought - the spades queen makes 4NT a sure bet in bridge terms (pass opposite 2 keycards, jump to slam opposite 3) as well as best effort in terms of legal elusion.
I guess there's always a bit of Stockholm Syndrome between Directors and the most creative wrongdoers

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-September-08, 19:53, said:

4♠ natural is perfectly plausible here

But is it?
I wouldn't be surprised if North argued that it was not, and as TD I would want to know more about their agreements before deciding.

What alternative sequences does South have to show a hand that wants to play 4S opposite any weak two in hearts (already a small target)?
Very probably 2D-4S, at least.
At first sight the transfer response to 2NT gives no strength information, just suit.
Would their old version without transfers do the same? If so, what is the hand that would bid 2D-2N;3H-4S rather than 2D-4S?
Maybe the Multi has some strong option which is not inconceivable opposite South's hand?

I would want to know more, and I don't exclude a poll if it looks appropriate.

[mycroft]

I'd like to have all the responses to 2NT, please.

I'd also like to know the order of things.

Are we arguing that the delayed Alert woke up North? Or that it was asked about and explained as spades?

I'd also like to know what North thought his 3♥ call showed (I assumed "Max, hearts" looking at his hand, but you never know). And is that agreement Alertable?

But if South ever said that North showed spades, then all roads lead to 4♠-3 ("My spades are better than your hearts. On the off chance that you had spades as well, we were looking for 6." Or arguably "If you had a minimum, we'd play 3♠", depending on what North thought he was showing with 3♥.) Pity the spades are 4-3, because I think that after this auction, even I could find a spade lead if they're 5-2, and it's going down (not 3, but still).

However, if no explanation of the Alert was asked for, even delayed, and North would expect an Alert from his meaning of 3♥, then I am forced to ask "what's the UI"? It took a while for South, who asked, to remember her system of responses? It took a while to remember that it's Alertable?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-09, 09:16, said:

I'd like to have all the responses to 2NT, please.

I'd also like to know the order of things.

Are we arguing that the delayed Alert woke up North? Or that it was asked about and explained as spades?

I'd also like to know what North thought his 3♥ call showed (I assumed "Max, hearts" looking at his hand, but you never know). And is that agreement Alertable?

But if South ever said that North showed spades, then all roads lead to 4♠-3 ("My spades are better than your hearts. On the off chance that you had spades as well, we were looking for 6." Or arguably "If you had a minimum, we'd play 3♠", depending on what North thought he was showing with 3♥.) Pity the spades are 4-3, because I think that after this auction, even I could find a spade lead if they're 5-2, and it's going down (not 3, but still).

However, if no explanation of the Alert was asked for, even delayed, and North would expect an Alert from his meaning of 3♥, then I am forced to ask "what's the UI"? It took a while for South, who asked, to remember her system of responses? It took a while to remember that it's Alertable?

To help out a little, nobody asked (or even complained, at the time) about the delayed alert... EW are almost as successful as NS (who easily won the tournament, despite this mishap on first board) and probably realized that jillybean would advise them to keep quiet.
The TD said that the UI was the alert itself, whether delayed or not - I imagine he assumed that 3♥ showing hearts must be natural, which I agree is rash in the circumstances.
And yes, an experienced player taking a while to remember that an expected response is artificial is always suspect in my book.
Glad to see that someone else thinks this is not as straight forwards as it might seem.

[mycroft]

Well, I'll trust the Italian for Italian alert procedures. The ACBL does not say this is Alertable, but it doesn't say "do Not Alert" either. And definitely in situations like this where I do play this as "natural, but..." I want to make sure the opponents know, at least at the end of the auction, assuming we're declaring. I am not sure that "Maximum, hearts" would be something that we'd get upset at people alerting - even though there's nothing saying to Alert it.

I certainly think that with UI (and if "Natural, but stronger than 3♣" would not be expected to Alert, we have UI), you don't just get to "guess right" if pass is logical (and I can't see it not being).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-09, 17:13, said:

Well, I'll trust the Italian for Italian alert procedures. The ACBL does not say this is Alertable, but it doesn't say "do Not Alert" either. And definitely in situations like this where I do play this as "natural, but..." I want to make sure the opponents know, at least at the end of the auction, assuming we're declaring. I am not sure that "Maximum, hearts" would be something that we'd get upset at people alerting - even though there's nothing saying to Alert it.

Well it's not completely black and white in the Italian alert procedures either, although more do than do not. We are told to alert if not natural, and though natural is not defined anywhere except as not artificial, there is a national consensus that it shall not be extended to include any weird stuff that most everyone plays. So there would be no question of not alerting a fit showing bid, for instance, or a 2H pass/correct response (which IIRC is a forbidden alert in UK). There is also an obligation to alert ostensibly natural bids which determine unusual conditions of forcing or strength, the second part of which arguably applies here. There is also an obligation to alert inferences from a call *not* made, in this case 3C, although that is not taken to the letter for obvious reasons. Finally we are also told to alert when in doubt, too, and that is taken seriously whatever problems it may create.

So yes, I would pretend an Alert here but I wouldn't expect all other TDs to do the same, and I would do my best not to make a ruling that depends only on lack of such alert.

[Cyberyeti]

It could be worse:

2N-3♥
4♥-4♠ "it was a transfer damnit"
P

And they got away with that at a Norfolk club

EDIT - I should have pointed out 3♥ wasn't alerted

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-September-10, 12:22, said:

It could be worse:

2N-3♥
4♥-4♠ "it was a transfer damnit"
P

And they got away with that at a Norfolk club

Of course they did. :-(

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-September-10, 12:22, said:

It could be worse:

2N-3♥
4♥-4♠ "it was a transfer damnit"
P

And they got away with that at a Norfolk club

EDIT - I should have pointed out 3♥ wasn't alerted

---

North had a maximum with 4 spades and 3 hearts, could have done a super accept in spades or cue bid at some point, but just took minimum spade preferences until they had a chance to pass 4♥.

Of course, partner had misclicked (this particular player misclicked more than normal) and had hearts. And there is no question that they were cheating, because I analyzed several hundred hands. They were perfect at underleading aces (and AK and even AKQ) against suit contracts, perfectly picking up other miscicks, amazing record balancing so always finding a fit, and staying out of the auction on a potential misfit.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2024-September-11, 01:27, said:

---

North had a maximum with 4 spades and 3 hearts, could have done a super accept in spades or cue bid at some point, but just took minimum spade preferences until they had a chance to pass 4♥.

If the natural 3H rebid established a game force then 3S shows a positive hand, in my book - but the Pass of 4H is egregious all the same.