[mr1303]

---

When 3D gets passed out, the 3D bid is explained as not a transfer, just hearts. The 2D bid was announced as per EBU regulations.

East calls the director and claims he would have doubled 2D for take-out had he been told it was diamonds rather than hearts.

How do you rule?

[TylerE]

What is the actual NS agreement?

[RMB1]

TylerE, on 2013-September-30, 19:10, said:

What is the actual NS agreement?

In these circumstances, it is often the case that the explicit agreement is 2♦ shows ♥ but when this auction occurs opener understands that responder has ♦ and not ♥.

I am happy to rule that NS have an understanding that this sequence shows ♦ and not ♥ and that the announcement was misinformation and consider adjusting for damage based on misinformation.

[paulg]

The Blue Book specifically (4E3) says that the announcement of 2♦ showing hearts requires that it shows at least five hearts. So if the agreement is that it is a transfer or weak with diamonds then the 2♦ should be alerted and not announced, hence MI and potential for adjustment.

[Cyberyeti]

But what damage is there ?

I can't see N sitting for 3♥, he bids 4♦ and it's not unlikely 4♦ will be doubled by W and make with an overtrick if E leads A♥ or any other non spade.

[fbuijsen]

I agree with other posters that the explanation of the 2♦ bid is misinformation.
The question is: is there damage to EW? That is not so easy to answer. EW will make 8 tricks in a heart contract, and I note that:
(1) a dbl with the east hand is a possibility. but hardly automatic at this vulnerability.
(2) if it goes 1NT - p - 2♦ - dbl - 2♥ (south still thinks it's transfer) / dbl (penalty) - 3diamonds], will east bid 3♥? Will this get doubled for 1 down? Or will north continue to 4♦?

It's not easy to find a good assigned score here. You can give a small percentage to EW 3♥ -1 (maybe 20%), but it's quite unclear whether EW actually suffered damage.

[jules101]

paulg, on 2013-October-01, 01:40, said:

The Blue Book specifically (4E3) says that the announcement of 2♦ showing hearts requires that it shows at least five hearts. So if the agreement is that it is a transfer or weak with diamonds then the 2♦ should be alerted and not announced, hence MI and potential for adjustment.

What about this sequence in Scotland Paul?

It's a commonly used sequence by LOLs in bridge clubs....

[helene_t]

The announcement should be "hearts", not the possibly ambiguous "transfer to hearts". Yes, I know that the dictionary definition of "transfer" is that it shows the suits it transfers to, but not everybody knows that.

But yes, many of the life novices play a transfer followed by 3♦ as a sign off. It may be systemic or it may be improvised, sorta like an unusual 2NT followed by 3NT shows a 20-22 bal.

This also means that it is not 100% clear that there was misinformation. Possibly NS had the agreement that 2♦ is a "transfer to hearts" (whatever that means; their agreement does not go deeper than that) and it wasn't until the 3♦ bid that it occured to South that N might have diamonds rather than hearts. If North had been playing transfers she would probably never use the 3♦ rebid because it could be misunderstood by some partners.

[gnasher]

TylerE, on 2013-September-30, 19:10, said:

What is the actual NS agreement?

I agree that we should ask them, but the auction makes it pretty obvious what their implict agreement is. South passed 3♦, so one of the possible hands is clearly a signoff with diamonds.

I'm a bit sceptical about East's claim that he could have doubled 2♦ to show a takeout double of diamonds, or that he'd do it on such a weak hand in a live auction which might be a horrible misfit. Hence I'd ask EW about their agreements over this 2♦ bid.

I'd be more willing to entertain the idea that East would double 3♦ for takeout. This is reasonably safe, because NS's combined values are limited. West should understand that East is bidding the partnership's known combined values. However, if East didn't mention this possibility I wouldn't allow for it in my ruling.

If EW do get into the auction, I don't think it's clear for North to compete to 4♦. Especially not a North who plays that 2♦ followed by 3♦ is a signoff.

[paulg]

jules101, on 2013-October-01, 04:49, said:

What about this sequence in Scotland Paul?

It's a commonly used sequence by LOLs in bridge clubs....

No announcements in Scotland but assuming that the NS agreement is that it is a transfer to hearts or weak in diamonds, then the bid should be alerted in both England and Scotland and explained as "transfer to hearts or weak with diamonds".

The same would be true in the ACBL but, bizarrely, if the secondary meaning is forcing to game then it should be announced as a transfer. For example, 2♦ as a transfer to hearts or game-forcing with both minors has a number of followers, but the opponents are only alerted to this on the second round. Seems most unfair to me.

[VixTD]

gnasher, on 2013-October-01, 04:59, said:

I'm a bit sceptical about East's claim that he could have doubled 2♦ to show a takeout double of diamonds, or that he'd do it on such a weak hand in a live auction which might be a horrible misfit. Hence I'd ask EW about their agreements over this 2♦ bid.

Yes, the question we need to ask is whether East would double a 2♦ bid that could either show hearts or a takeout into diamonds. I'd doubt whether many pairs have an agreement about double here.

gnasher, on 2013-October-01, 04:59, said:

I'd be more willing to entertain the idea that East would double 3♦ for takeout. This is reasonably safe, because NS's combined values are limited. West should understand that East is bidding the partnership's known combined values. However, if East didn't mention this possibility I wouldn't allow for it in my ruling.

I agree with this too, although I might help an inexperienced East by perhaps inviting him to say if there's any other way he might have been damaged. This won't wash, of course, with those who don't think there's any onus on the non-offenders to say how they've been damaged.

[blackshoe]

If the agreement is "hearts or diamonds" then 1) it should be alerted, not announced, and 2) it may be an illegal agreement (I haven't checked).

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-01, 08:28, said:

If the agreement is "hearts or diamonds" then 1) it should be alerted, not announced, and 2) it may be an illegal agreement (I haven't checked).

The EBU does not regulate responses to opening bids, so any agreement is legal.

[mycroft]

Ah, forget transfers, how lovely.

So, their real agreement is "hearts, or diamonds (if he forgot again)". If that's a legal agreement for 2♦ over 1NT in the EBU, then it must be Alerted. If it was Alerted, and explained correctly, do you double? 90% of the time it's hearts, and you don't really want to have partner take out 2♥ on the 5-1 split into your effective 1 trick, do you? And how do you make a takeout double of hearts (yes, I know there are several reasonable answers, but I do think that East "isn't clear about the Law" ("if I had been told it was diamonds, I would have doubled." "well, you wouldn't have been told it was diamonds, you would have been told it was 'hearts, or diamonds if they're rebid'. Doubling now?").

So, take a poll. Don't tell them that 2♦ showed diamonds - because it didn't, that's just what he had - say it showed hearts or diamonds by agreement, and see what people do. Now, don't rely solely on that poll, because they are the NOS after all, but it's not as easy as it looks when "it just shows diamonds".

I hate forget transfers, and I want to punish NS so that they will fail to forget in future (because that's the only way they will remember, is if they get a few bad scores. I know these types). So I like about 30% 3♥-1, 50% 3♦+1, 20% 4♦=, and a warning that either:

• they never treat this sequence as "diamonds only" again, or
  
• they start Alerting 2♦ and explaining it as "hearts, or diamond runout", or
  
• they're going to start getting automatic PPs for misinformation if I'm ever called to the table about this again.

[Zelandakh]

VixTD, on 2013-October-01, 06:45, said:

This won't wash, of course, with those who don't think there's any onus on the non-offenders to say how they've been damaged.

Which is completely ridiculous of course. Many weaker players are simply not able to put themselves in the alternate situation and reallign their thought processes. While some players have figured out that they need to say "I would have done something" to have a better chance of an adjustment. Besides, I seem to remember some Law saying Directors should take account of what was said but not be limited by that. Do you really think a club level East is thinking ahead to the second round after a pass when they say they doubled on the first round? Saying that an East who did make this suggestion under these circulstances loses any possibility of that action being considered seems to me highly suspect.

[VixTD]

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-01, 11:02, said:

Which is completely ridiculous of course. Many weaker players are simply not able to put themselves in the alternate situation and reallign their thought processes. While some players have figured out that they need to say "I would have done something" to have a better chance of an adjustment. Besides, I seem to remember some Law saying Directors should take account of what was said but not be limited by that. Do you really think a club level East is thinking ahead to the second round after a pass when they say they doubled on the first round? Saying that an East who did make this suggestion under these circulstances loses any possibility of that action being considered seems to me highly suspect.

You're greatly exaggerating the argument for effect. I'm not suggesting that we never adjust the score unless the non-offenders can prove they've been damaged by explaining in great detail what would have happened and showing that they would have known all this at the time of the infraction etc.

An expert should be expected to put a convincing case as to how they've been damaged, what they would have done differently and why. A basic club player should be invited to say what they can about what they might have done, listened to sympathetically and given the benefit of any reasonable doubt. As I said, I would even prompt a weak player to think about certain positions where they would have had to make a decision at the table, but perhaps don't realise would be crucial when looking back at a different hypothetical auction later.

But if the player cannot say how they've been damaged and the director doesn't believe they would have acted differently then they haven't been damaged, so no score adjustment should be made.

[Zelandakh]

VixTD, on 2013-October-02, 06:54, said:

You're greatly exaggerating the argument for effect. I'm not suggesting that we never adjust the score unless the non-offenders can prove they've been damaged by explaining in great detail what would have happened and showing that they would have known all this at the time of the infraction etc.

You did not suggest this but you mentioned that there are some who would rule this way. And Andy suggested it explicitly.