[McBruce]

Scoring: IMP

---

ACBL offline team game.
South opened 1NT in third seat.
West doubled (equal or better).
North bid 2♥ (transfer to spades, but South forgot).
East passed and South raised to 3♥.

West now asked about the 2♥ call and South confirmed his belief that it was "to play." West chose to bid 3♠.
North passed and East bid 3NT.
South now realized his error and explained 2♥ as a transfer.
TD (me) was called.

3♠ cannot be retracted, but 3NT can (L21B1a), so I gave East that option, first informing everyone that whatever East chose to do, there was a good chance of some adjustment on this board, with the misinformation clearly a factor in East's decision to bid 3♠. East chose to pass and the auction ended in 3NT, which made after South was found, not too surprisingly to have the K♦ for his 1NT opener.

However, the non-offenders think they will get 1100 against 3♠ doubled, which is the most likely contract if West has the correct information from the start and South doesn't wake up until 3♥ is doubled and North bails. West is certainly going to double 3♥ with correct information instead of bidding 3♠. Do we adjust? (It's the ACBL, so the ACBL version of L16C1e is what we're instructed to do here. We'll leave the fact that L16C1e is slightly different here than in the rest of the world for another thread.)

Or perhaps you think that North is not entitled to bail, that he must sit 3♥ doubled which seems to go for 1400 or so!

On the other hand, West's cards give him a pretty good clue about what is really going on, and maybe the 3♠ is too much of an attempt at a double shot for an adjustment to be made. (If so, you need to make a case that 3♠ is wild or gambling, because 'double shot' is nowhere to be found in the Lawbook.)

Other table result is +90 to E-W (we're not sure how). E-W has 7 IMPs on the board as it stands. Should they be entitled to more?

[Sven Pran]

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠, so 3♠X in South is IMHO never a contract to be considered.

Now I don't immediately see how 3♠X can go five down. However, assuming that this is verified I would adjust to 800 E-W for 2♠X -4.

regards Sven

[gordontd]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

[iviehoff]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠, so 3♠X in South is IMHO never a contract to be considered.

That is not the correct way to make a MI ruling. It is only EW who have the right to correct information about the 2H call, not South. EW might get that information, for example, by reading the system card. South did raise 2H to 3H, so he must be assumed still to do so.

[campboy]

Did anyone ask West why he bid 3♠? In particular, does he not have a penalty double available?

If he can't make a penalty double here, why is he so sure he could with correct info?

[Sven Pran]

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥?

I indeed suspect a double-shot from West here.

Sven

[mink]

3♠ is a reasonable bid if West assumes that opps have a ♥-fit. If West knows the NS-system, he will of course not bid 3♠ but double. Though North has the UI that South thinks the 3♥ was natural because 2♥ was not alerted, he knows that 3♥ doubled cannot be a good contract, so he is allowed to run in 3♠, which for sure West will double. So this is the contract to adjust to.

Karl

[Phil]

The only way West is creating a double shot is if he thinks his opponents have messed up. While its possible, I don't think its 100% clear. Why couldn't his pard have a heart void and a weak hand? I would be curious if EW have a agreement about a forcing pass here too.

I don't like the way South is behaving here. 3♠, if anything, should make it clearer that North's 2♥ is natural, if there was any doubt in the first place.

I would give EW their 1100. If South 'woke up' and alerted before West bid 3♠, West would have an easy double of 3♥.

I don't think North should have to sit for 3♥ x'd. I would ask NS what a transfer break of 3♥ meant, assuming they had an agreement, but in any case, sitting for 3♥ doesn't make sense.

[bluejak]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥?

That is not the way MI rulings are done. You assume E/W have correct information, but N/S do not, for the purposes of adjustment. So, no, of course South does not bid 2♠.

For ruling purposes think of four players each in their own little box who cannot see or hear anyone else but have full information about opponent's agreements.

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

I indeed suspect a double-shot from West here.

So? Are you saying the double shot is illegal? Please quote a Law.

[gordontd]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 03:14 PM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥?

South is not entitled to that information. EW are.

[bid_em_up]

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥?

I indeed suspect a double-shot from West here.

Sven

Pretend the scenario is:

1N - (x) - 2H - P -
3H -

West: what is 2H?
South: Oh crap, it is a transfer but I forgot.

Now West has the correct information, and will take a different action other than bidding 3S.

[Mbodell]

bid_em_up, on Jul 21 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

gordontd, on Jul 21 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Sven Pran, on Jul 21 2009, 08:20 AM, said:

I have a very strong feeling that if East-West have correct information from the beginning then South will indeed complete the transfer and bid 2♠,

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently?

If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥?

I indeed suspect a double-shot from West here.

Sven

Pretend the scenario is:

1N - (x) - 2H - P -
3H -

West: what is 2H?
South: Oh crap, it is a transfer but I forgot.

Now West has the correct information, and will take a different action other than bidding 3S.

West isn't entitled to that information. West is entitled that it is a transfer but isn't entitled to the fact that South forgot. What would happen if the explanation was:

Quote

1N - (x) - 2H - P -
3H -

West: what is 2H?
South: It is a transfer.
West: what is 3H?
North: It is a super accept with heart values (or with heart shortage or whatever their agreements about this bid really is)

So, yes, EW are entitled to know the agreements, but they aren't necessarily entitled to know that there is an accident in progress.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with the principle that EW are entitled to a large penalty, but life is a bit complicated.

How do EW play double in the sequence 1NT x 2H (natural) x ?
If it is penalties, then I am happy with the suggestion that West will double 3H for penalties, because East is clearly not the aggressive bidder in the partnership.

If it would be takeout (which is why East passed), then how to EW play double in the sequence 1NT x 2H (transfer) x ? If it shows hearts, is South really going to raise to 3H? Of course this may depend on the alert rules... in England double of 2H transfer to spades shows hearts and is not alertable, while double of 2H natural is take-out and not alertable, so South learns nothing, bids 3H and they go for their penalty (in 3Sx I imagine).

[bid_em_up]

Mbodell, on Jul 21 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jul 21 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

Pretend the scenario is:

1N - (x) - 2H - P -
3H -

West: what is 2H?
South: Oh crap, it is a transfer but I forgot.

Now West has the correct information, and will take a different action other than bidding 3S.

West isn't entitled to that information. West is entitled that it is a transfer but isn't entitled to the fact that South forgot. What would happen if the explanation was:

Quote

1N - (x) - 2H - P -
3H -

West: what is 2H?
South: It is a transfer.
West: what is 3H?
North: It is a super accept with heart values (or with heart shortage or whatever their agreements about this bid really is)

So, yes, EW are entitled to know the agreements, but they aren't necessarily entitled to know that there is an accident in progress.

Blah Blah Blah.

I realize that E/W isn't "entitled" to this information.

The poster was claiming that if South *knew* 2H was a transfer, he never would have bid 3H but would have correctly bid 2S instead.

That's why I said "Pretend".

[McBruce]

Oops.

A discussion with the West player tonight shows that I had the auction wrong, absent a single round of bidding. West passed over 3♥ and so did North, and East doubled. South passed, and West asked the question about the 2♥ call. Hearing that it was to play, he assumed partner was doubling primarily to find a competing spade fit, so he bid 3♠.

So, back to the start, and my apologies. Is an adjustment in order now?

[Sven Pran]

McBruce, on Jul 23 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

Oops.

A discussion with the West player tonight shows that I had the auction wrong, absent a single round of bidding.  West passed over 3♥ and so did North, and East doubled.  South passed, and West asked the question about the 2♥ call.  Hearing that it was to play, he assumed partner was doubling primarily to find a competing spade fit, so he bid 3♠.

So, back to the start, and my apologies.  Is an adjustment in order now?

Well, well, an entirely different situation.

Correct procedure would have resulted in West (in response to his question) becoming informed that 2♥ was transfer to spades. Now, before West makes any call the Director should be summoned to the table and he would first of all offer East to change his last call.

East could now change his double to PASS in which case the contract would be played by North in 3♥ undoubled.

But East would probably decide not to change his call and then West would pass instead of bidding 3♠. The only question is now whether North will have the "pleasure" of playing in 3♥X or 3♠X, either contract probably resulting in a four-digit score to East/West.

The result on the board should be adjusted correspondingly.

regards Sven

[Cyberyeti]

Am I right in thinking that N has UI in that his transfer over the double should have been alerted ? And that presumably the 3H bid by S should also have been alerted as it shows spades opposite a transfer and some sort of heart holding whether xx, or a long suit.

N seems to have taken advantage of his partner's non alert and knowledge that a wheel has come off by passing 3H and opting to go for a lot of 50s.

Also EW will not bid spades if given the correct info, W will pass the double of 3H, N will bid 3S and this will dial however many it dials which I don't think on practical defence is as much as 1100. I don't feel EW have done anything out of the ordinary here, and should get their adjustment, but I'm not sure what to.

[blackshoe]

So:

N...E...S...W
P...(P)...1NT...(X)
2♥...(P)...3♥...(3♠*)
P...(3NT)

* Before bidding, West asked the meaning of the 2♥, and was told "natural".

After the 3NT bid, and before calling(?) South called the director and informed him (and the opponents) that he had MI opponents (twice!) as to the meaning of 2♥.

The 2♥ transfer bid requires an announcement, even after the double.

1. TD offers E the chance to change his 3NT bid. East declines. S, W, and N pass, ending the auction.
2. 3NT makes (NS -400).
3. EW call the director at the end of play and suggest that with correct information, West would not have bid 3♠, and the auction would have ended in 3♠X by North which, they say, would have resulted in NS -1100.

Sven's hypothetical situation bothers me. South correctly called the director and explained his error when he realized he'd made one. If we're going to adjust, I think we have to adjust on the basis that South had never made the error (failure to alert 2♥) in the first place, not that he had realized it and called the TD after the second instance of MI, but before he actually realized it. If this is correct, then the question is what would have happened had South correctly announced "transfer" when N bid 2♥. I'm not sure of the answer to that, but I suspect it's not 3♠X by North. It does occur to me that in the ACBL, the OS should get the worst result "that was at all possible", so perhaps a split score is appropriate.

In the actual auction, I don't think North used UI in passing - he didn't pass 3♥, he passed his opponent's 3♠.

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

N...E...S...W
P...(P)...1NT...(X)
2♥...(P)...3♥...(3♠*)
P...(3NT)

no, the OP corrected himself

N...E...S...W
P...(P)...1NT...(X)
2♥...(P)...3♥...(P)
P...(X)...P...(3S)
P...(3NT)

So N did pass over 3H.

My problem is that say W passes and north XXs for rescue, not unreasonable if partner has a 5 card minor then 4C or 4D might be cheaper than 3S opposite a doubleton, now 2 things can happen, S can bid 4C which is only booked for 500, or 3S which may be booked for 800 on best defence, but in practice will get out for 500 a lot of the time.

[blackshoe]

Meh. Okay. North knows that his 2♥ bid is a transfer to spades. So what does 3♥ mean in that context? Good spade fit, maximum, game (or slam?) try? N has UI from the failure to alert that 3♥ probably means good heart fit, maximum. Does this suggest passing 3♥? I dunno. If it doesn't, there's no infraction. Does it suggest redoubling for rescue? No, 3♥ hasn't been doubled yet. You can't sanction North for using UI on the basis he might have done so had the auction been different.