[Chris3875]

---

South opened 1NT showing 9-14 HCP, 4 of a Major and 5+ clubs. It was not alerted, but West asked about it at his turn to bid and was told
by North 16-18 HCP, balanced. North then bid 2D which was alerted as a transfer to hearts, East inserted 3D and South bid 3H. I'm not sure
what happened after that - I think they ended up in 5H making. I was just asked the question about the legality of the 3H bid after the session
was over. Their system is that the 1NT overcall is as South bid it, North just forgot. The reply to the enquiry by North should have been
UI to South - did he take advantage of it? A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently.

[Chris3875]

Bugger ! South didn't open - he overcalled !

[campboy]

Chris3875, on 2012-November-17, 00:02, said:

The reply to the enquiry by North should have been UI to South - did he take advantage of it? A 2D response by North is impossible in their system apparently.

Then he should have said that it was impossible in their system, not that it was a transfer. Opponents are entitled to know N/S real agreements.

As to the UI issue, I'm not sure what to expect from an "impossible" 2♦ here but it sounds like partner wants to know what my major is and doesn't want to make a non-forcing bid. I would therefore bid 3♥ as South. I guess we need to poll players to find out if pass is an LA (if it is, 3♥ is suggested). There is also the issue of whether there is damage. You do not say how the auction continued, but presumably N/S made a heart game; if we decide that South's 3♥ bid is illegal then North will certainly bid again -- the auction might well continue 3♠ from North, 4♣ from South, 4♥ from North, leading to the same result, though doubtless other outcomes are possible (is 12C1c available?).

[blackshoe]

Players are required to explain their actual agreements. If their agreement is that 1NT shows clubs and a major, and that 2♦ by North has no defined meaning, then those are the correct explanations, and so both N and S have given MI to opponents, and N has given UI to S, and S has illegally avoided giving UI to N. Also, I suspect the latter was deliberate.

Whether 3♥ is legal depends on whether S had an LA, and whether 3♥ could demonstrably have been suggested over any LA by the UI that N thinks S has a balanced strong NT type hand. Without knowing more about their system, I'm not prepared to speak to that question. How would they bid Stayman, for example (if 1NT is natural)?

[c_corgi]

As if it were not messy enough already, I suspect East's 3D is also an infraction: Pass looks like an LA and acting rather than passing is suggested by partner's question.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-17, 08:40, said:

Players are required to explain their actual agreements. If their agreement is that 1NT shows clubs and a major, and that 2♦ by North has no defined meaning, then those are the correct explanations, and so both N and S have given MI to opponents, and N has given UI to S, and S has illegally avoided giving UI to N. Also, I suspect the latter was deliberate.

I am sure that South deliberately tried to avoid giving UI to North. However, I don't see any indication that South deliberately (i.e. knowingly) illegally avoided giving UI to North. Absent any evidence, I would assume either that South doesn't know the laws very well or that South is Herman de Waele. I would not assume out of the blue that South deliberately breaks the laws.

Rik

[lalldonn]

I know I'm inferring or guessing, but despite you saying 2♦ doesn't exist for them, wouldn't it have to be asking for the major? That just seems completely normal so I would think 3♥ by south is a normal bid given his extra playing strength. I could believe they haven't discussed it but it's hard to believe they have actually agreed to never bid 2♦, so I wouldn't bar south from using normal bridge logic. Of course I would want south to tell me that's why he bid it, but on it's face I certainly wouldn't consider 3♥ taking advantage of anything (but I would expect south to make the same 3♠ bid with his majors reversed or else I might then think he was taking advantage!)

That is all aside from the other issues of the explanations and whatever, that I will leave to all the genius directors here to comment on.

I wonder if east would rather go back to -800 in 3♦X. What kind of bid was that? (Sorry for the slight rant)

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-17, 12:45, said:

I am sure that South deliberately tried to avoid giving UI to North. However, I don't see any indication that South deliberately (i.e. knowingly) illegally avoided giving UI to North. Absent any evidence, I would assume either that South doesn't know the laws very well or that South is Herman de Waele. I would not assume out of the blue that South deliberately breaks the laws.

Rik

Yes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-17, 16:06, said:

Yes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now.

As of September, he had not.

[mr1303]

It is possible to rule result stands, but to give NS a procedural penalty for blatant disregard of the UI laws?

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-17, 16:06, said:

Yes. I did not intend to imply that South was deliberately and knowingly breaking the laws. Although I think even Herman has probably given up the de Wael school by now.

Vampyr, on 2012-November-17, 17:35, said:

As of September, he had not.

Then he's even more stubborn than I thought.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-17, 17:50, said:

Then he's even more stubborn than I thought.

Mmmm. The reasoning is that the opponents are not entitled to the information that you are having a misunderstanding; this, however, has no basis in law.

[blackshoe]

Oh, I understand the deWael School.Also that it has no legal basis — and that the WBFLC has said so. So... stubborn. Very stubborn.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-17, 18:40, said:

Mmmm. The reasoning is that the opponents are not entitled to the information that you are having a misunderstanding; this, however, has no basis in law.

You are entitled to correct explanation of opponents' understandings, period.

But if you have been given incorrect explanation during the auction and your opponents become the (presumed) declaring side then you are entitled to such explanation be corrected before the opening lead, and the auction can be continued (on certain conditions).

Now it is up to you, at your own risk, to deduce that opponents have had a misunderstanding and make use of that information.

[Trinidad]

mr1303, on 2012-November-17, 17:47, said:

It is possible to rule result stands, but to give NS a procedural penalty for blatant disregard of the UI laws?

That would certainly be possible, in general. But in this case there was no blatant disregard for the UI laws. I would say that 3♥ is the only LA.

I mean, you show a hand with a 4 card major and 5+clubs. Now partner bids the opponents' suit. What else could it possibly mean but "describe your hand partner?". OK, RHO comes in and you have to describe your hand 1 level higher. That means that you pass with a minimum 2425 hand. But with a 2407 hand, you will definitely bid.

So far, the only infractions have been MI (2x). The first one was because partner forgot the system, the second because you didn't understand the laws, but tried to do the best you could. This is not something that I would give PP's for. I would do some friendly educating instead.

Rik

[Fluffy]

2♦ is strong bid, and south really looks like blatantly taking advantage of UI.

I am not an expert on raptor, but 4♣ looks to me like a LA to 3♥

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2012-November-18, 07:00, said:

2♦ is strong bid, and south really looks like blatantly taking advantage of UI.

I am not an expert on raptor, but 4♣ looks to me like a LA to 3♥

Why?
South has already shown 5 of his 7 clubs. He has shown 0 of his 4 hearts. He has only shown a four card major. To me it makes sense that 2♦ is a forcing way to find out what the major is (rather then by making a pass or correct bid).

The only possible LA to 3♥ that I can imagine would be 4♥: showing the heart suit and logically implying extra club length. But since I would expect 3♥ to be GF too, I could imagine that you would require a maximum (or a minimum) for this kind of specific jump.

Rik

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2012-November-18, 01:05, said:

You are entitled to correct explanation of opponents' understandings, period.

But if you have been given incorrect explanation during the auction and your opponents become the (presumed) declaring side then you are entitled to such explanation be corrected before the opening lead, and the auction can be continued (on certain conditions).

Now it is up to you, at your own risk, to deduce that opponents have had a misunderstanding and make use of that information.

The problem is that you and your partner have a different opinion of your understandings. So you are asked for an explanation of 4NT, and say RKC; then they ask what 5♣ is, and are told that it is his better minor. According to the dWS, you alert and explain according to partner's agreement, but still bid according to yours.

After the auction you will correct the misinformation that both of you have given; the dWS applies during the auction.

[blackshoe]

The dWS is wrong. Period. If you know your partnership agreement regarding partner's call is X, then explaining that call as Y is an infraction of law, even though you suspect (or even know) that partner thinks the agreement is that it means Y.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-18, 11:23, said:

The problem is that you and your partner have a different opinion of your understandings. So you are asked for an explanation of 4NT, and say RKC; then they ask what 5♣ is, and are told that it is his better minor. According to the dWS, you alert and explain according to partner's agreement, but still bid according to yours.

After the auction you will correct the misinformation that both of you have given; the dWS applies during the auction.

I have never, ever considered dWS as anything but a very serious and deliberate (premeditated) violation of the laws.
Luckily WBF finally issued a statement to that effect.

I shall always explain my partner's calls as if I never heard any of his explanations during the auction.

Out opponents will probably from our differing explanations understand that we have a misunderstanding within our partnership and are free to use this information at their own risk. If they after the board is completed can show probable damage from whatever MI has been given (in spite of subsequent correction and/or the conflicting explanations) they are (of course) entitled to compensation in the form of rectification.