BBO Discussion Forums: A kind director - BBO Discussion Forums

sfi, on 2020-January-02, 15:47, said:

Similar to comment of Cyberyeti, but somehow I don't buy it here. First, it sounds like a more advanced agreement than these players (who don't even agree on a transfer) would have or imagine and second, what was 2H trying to achieve? There is no hope of game and no hurry to bid 3D.

pescetom, on 2020-January-02, 10:37, said:

IMO, without the UI from the alert, EW were likely to get into a mess and the TD should rule against them. When offenders are beginners, then the director should be as diplomatic as possible but, in the long term, he does them no favours by letting them get away with infractions.

barmar, on 2020-January-02, 10:58, said:

Not so sure about that. What logical alternative calls over 2!H exist, given South's understanding of their system without the alert or explanation? Which of these is demonstrably suggested over whatever call it is that South wants to make at this point? Those are the calls South must not make. If the set of such calls is empty, he can do whatever he wants.

FelicityR, on 2020-January-02, 12:34, said:

It is ludicrous. Players don't get to tell other players, or the Director, what those other players must bid.

blackshoe, on 2020-January-02, 16:38, said:

That's not what was meant. It's just short for saying that the director should adjust the score to what it would have been if South had passed 2♥.

barmar, on 2020-January-03, 10:40, said:

A player who calls for the director should state the relevant facts and leave the ruling up to the director, not express his opinion of what the ruling should be.

blackshoe, on 2020-January-03, 10:48, said:

I think this is a relevant fact. They think they were damaged by South not passing 2♥, which is the reason they called.

Now, the interference plays games with my memory, but a long long time ago...

This club didn't use bidding boxes, because "the players don't like change". In particular, 2 or three tables of "players'. They didn't seem to have an issue at tournaments, of course.

A very frequent(*) auction was (opponents silent) 1NT (**)-2♦ "transfer"; 2♥-3♦; pass. Now, if you're wondering if there was any special emphasis in the 3 *diamond* call, I wouldn't deny it. Partner always got it right, anyway.

These days nobody forgets transfers. They might forget what they play over interference, and they might have differing ideas on which major 1NT-X-p-2♥ shows, though.

But the law says that South has to bid the same way he would if the auction went 1NT-2♣!-2♦-wait for Announcement, don't get it, ask, get told "natural and to play" P; 2♥-p to them. And if it's possible in their world that AQ9 AJT85 T3 KQ8 is a 1NT opener, then the "obvious" bid in that auction is PASS. If they've ever had the situation where they hold ♠AQ9 ♥AJ85 ♥T3 ♣KQ85 before, then the "obvious" bid is PASS. If they're more advanced, and think that AQ96 AJT85 A J84 or AQ96 AJT8 A JT85 is a 1NT opener, then the "obvious" bid is PASS. If the thought of opening 1NT with these kinds of hands gets the kind of shock that leads to "close your mouth before the flies get in", or induces vomiting, then the obvious bid is 3♦.

Of course, if, when the TD asks why with KTx support, they rebid their diamonds, he is told "because he announced transfer, so I had to show him he forgot", then that's a whole other ruling - again, we might say the only LA for them is 3♦ (or not), but a stern talking to, or a disciplined quarter-board penalty, for violating Law 72 is in order anyway.

(*) So frequent that one of my partners of the time suggested we should change our system so that 1NT-2NT was "GF, 5+hearts and 4+diamonds", and 1NT-2♦ was "hearts, or weak with diamonds". We would have Alerted it properly, and (of course) explained properly, and it was (and is) legal in our jurisdiction. We never ended up doing it, but it would have been amusing.
(**) No announcement, because it was in that weird couple of years where only non-15 to 18 NTs were Announced (previously Alerted, with its own problems), and before people learned that the defence to weak NTs that was so effective in the Alert days was just as effective against unAlerted strong NTs. For those who keep wishing (or believing) that "you shouldn't have to Announce 15-17, everybody plays it", remember that the defence is *still* just as effective, and it's *still* played.

And I agree that we should investigate whether there was UI passed (see the 3 *diamonds* above) by South and why North passed it. Highly unlikely that we'd have a case, and very likely the reaction to "you know, if 2♦ was really a transfer, 3♦ normally shows GF with both red suits" would be the shock mentioned above; but it is worth checking.