[sanst]

---

None of the bids was alerted, which should have been done under the Dutch regulations, but after the auction N explained 2♥ as transfer for spades and S said to have forgotten the agreement. N also explained that he understood that because of the 3♥. Asked what his partner would have bid with 5 spades and 4 hearts he said that such a hand is much rarer than a forgotten agreement, so he assumed the latter. If S didn't show in any way that he had forgotten the transfer, I think it's legal for N to draw that conclusion. But what if there was a slight hesitation, admittedly a minor one? BTW, the result of NS was 0%, so EW didn't complain, but in IMP's 4♠ would have been doubled and also 5♥.

[wank]

north is entitled to try to guess what his partner has. most people wouldn't guess their partner had messed up on such a simple auction though, so perhaps south has history of this mistake which north should disclose (i would guess he does since north didn't alert 2H).

if south tips north off with his reaction, north has UI and legally must continue to assume south has what he's shown. of course it's very difficult to say what type of reaction would be enough to tip north off with enough certainty as to create a UI problem.

[Trinidad]

North does have UI, albeit weak: South didn't alert 2♠. (It is weak since North didn't alert 2♥ either, so NS may be habitual non alerters.)

But no matter how weak the UI. It is UI. Obviously, 4♠ is an LA over 4♥, and, equally obviously, the UI suggests 4♥ over 4♠.

So, I would assign an AS based on 4♠, and, since I used the word "obviously" to describe the LA and the suggestion, I think a PP is in order.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I'd be asking North, in particular, why he didn't alert 2♥, and South what he thought 2♠ meant.

[StevenG]

How strong are the players? In my experience, life intermediates do not understand the sequence 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ to show 5 spades and 4 hearts, and a player of this calibre automatically assumes that 3♥ is a forgotten transfer. It's further complicated here by virtue of the fact that the 1NT is an overcall and this sort of player (or indeed any player in an unfamiliar partnership) will be unsure as to whether sytems are on or not.

So, if the players are competent, then 4♠ is automatic and penalties are in order. But if they are not, I wouldn't penalise without further investigation. If the sequence 1NT-2♥-2♠-3♥ actually means, in their methods, that responder has hearts and didn't mean to transfer, then there are disclosure issues, but I don't know what the solution should be.

[Phil]

When I directed around 5 years ago I had an almost identical situation with almost identical hands. The North hand had a nice 4-2 in teh majors and the south hand had a stiff spade, T-6th of hearts and an outside Ace. North was a club pro and South was a nice LOL. Apologies if I had posted this previously.

The auction went:

North: 1N

East: Double (alerted by West as either one minor or both major)

South: 2H (announced as a transfer by North)

West: Pass

North: 2S

East: pass

South: 3H. At this point South says, "it looks like we ALL have a suit, doesn't it".

West: pass

North: 3N (!!!!?????).

----

So EW call me over and I look at the hand. They play it out and i adjust to 5H x'd -2, which is where they would likely end up.

Naturally North was pretty teed off about this and tried to lawyer his way out of the situation, explaining how his LHO's call makes bad breaks in the majors likely.

[ggwhiz]

The combination of not alerting 2♥ and "guessing" correctly after 3♥ is pretty blatant and if n/s even know each others last names shows enough history for me to at least consider a PP.

Against inexperienced opponents you would probably do them a favour by calling the Director, not for an adjustment but to have him explain to them what was wrong here, from failure to alert to fielding and to establish the fact that this has either happened before or will be dealt with rather severely if it happens again.

The claim that a forgotten agreement is more common than a 5-4 major suit hand is such total bs they need to be read the riot act.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2017-January-07, 10:03, said:

North does have UI, albeit weak: South didn't alert 2♠.

Why would 2♠ have been alertable? Do Dutch regulations require alerting both the transfer and opener's bid in the suit being transferred into?

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2017-January-07, 15:27, said:

Why would 2♠ have been alertable? Do Dutch regulations require alerting both the transfer and opener's bid in the suit being transferred into?

Yes. Even more so since 1NT was an overcall. Anyway, transfers and the answers should be alerted, but it's quite common, especially amongst weaker players, to 'forget' about that. And, to answer another question, these are not very good players.

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2017-January-07, 16:18, said:

Yes. Even more so since 1NT was an overcall. Anyway, transfers and the answers should be alerted, but it's quite common, especially amongst weaker players, to 'forget' about that. And, to answer another question, these are not very good players.

OK. In the US we announce the transfer (when used over both NT openings and overcalls), but not the normal acceptance of the transfer. I've heard some people suggest that if you have artificial super-accepts available that you should alert the normal acceptance (because it denies any of the "super" hands). But the general understanding in ACBL is that such negative inferences do not require alerts.

[mycroft]

I bet there was no hesitation, in fact, I bet it 3♥ hit the table very emphatically - probably pressed down and then released. That's how players show "no, I actually have *this* suit" around here. Last one I remember was p-1♠; 2♦-(X)-p; *3*♠ bid in the manner above. If at first you don't get the "limit raise with spades" across, there's always a second chance!

With spoken bidding it's easier of course.

Again, ask why North thinks that forgotten agreement is more common than 5=4 INV+ (or 5=4 GF), especially with this partner. I bet the answer is "it's happened before", in which case their agreement is "spades, or hearts if he forgot again". Now that might be a legal agreement (it is over here), but it was not described correctly, so the opponents didn't get the chance to compete correctly.

Note that it was so bad out east (although only with diamonds) that my partner and I joked that we were going to actually play 1NT-2♦ as "hearts, or diamonds" (and play "4-suit transfers" 1NT-2NT as "5 hearts, 4 diamonds, game force") because it was legal, and to get the point across. But it wouldn't have, of course.

[johnu]

 mycroft, on 2017-January-09, 12:40, said:

I bet there was no hesitation, in fact, I bet it 3♥ hit the table very emphatically - probably pressed down and then released. That's how players show "no, I actually have *this* suit" around here.

+1

Maybe with a glare at partner just daring him to bid spades again.