[bluejak]

A correspondent has sent this one to me from a Swiss Pairs in Guildford.

Scoring: MP [Swiss]

W . N ... E .... S
.... 1♦. 1NT . Dbl
2♥ 3♦ . 3♥ .. Dbl
3♠ .P.. ..P ... Dbl
.P. .P. ...P

---

Result 3♠ X + 2

2♥ was not alerted by East as West was responding to a 1NT overcall doubled and East thought that transfers only applied to a 1NT opening bid
South's second double was for take-out according to the N/S agreement

South complained that if she had known that 2♥ was a transfer to spades she would obviously not doubled as she was sitting under the spade bidder. By the failure to alert she assumed that West had hearts and spades and was trying to get out of a doubled contract.

What should the ruling be?

[awm]

Did E/W explain that 3♠ was a transfer at the end of the bidding? As the declaring side, it is their responsibility to point out the failure to alert or announce at that time. South's claim that she would not have doubled after the result of the hand seems dubious and somewhat self-serving (what did she think was going on?) but if this statement was made before the opening lead it carries a lot more weight.

Really there are two potential things going on here:

(1) MI case. South's statement about the double is dubious though, and it seems like south could have at least an inkling of what's going on between the bidding and her own hand. I'd tend not to adjust here, especially if E/W explained the transfer at the end of the bidding and South didn't call the director until the end of the play.

(2) UI case. If they're not behind screens, then West's 3♠ pull may be influenced by East's failure to alert/announce. While 3♥ might be taken as a super-accept for spades in any case, west still has the LA of passing the auction to east so that the hand can be declared from the strong side. Again, assuming no screens, I think there is a strong case that E/W should be playing 3♥X here.

[MFA]

These cases can be a little uncomfortable to handle in print only, since one has to get a feel about if the actual south was damaged.

I'm pretty far from awarding compensation here though.

South's explanation tells us that she either stopped thinking or just assumed that W had gone completely mad. Hearts was bid and raised, it makes no sense that west should run if he indeed has a heart suit. At least she could inquire.

The offending side is not liable for the bad results of the nonoffending side that is due to such unreasonable play. In law terms the nonoffending side has to be innocent of their own bad score. Which south is not.

[bluejak]

I do not see that asking for a ruling at the end of the hand affects whether it is reasonable to adjust. As for South's statement being self-serving, of course it is. When the non-offending side explains that it has been damaged, it is incredibly rare that they include no self-serving statements.

[awm]

bluejak, on Oct 2 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

I do not see that asking for a ruling at the end of the hand affects whether it is reasonable to adjust. As for South's statement being self-serving, of course it is. When the non-offending side explains that it has been damaged, it is incredibly rare that they include no self-serving statements.

We need to make some decisions here though. One of them is "do we believe that South would not have doubled if it had been explained that 2♥ was a transfer?"

My inclination is not to believe it. However, it is much more believable if South had made this claim before seeing the dummy or the result.

[MFA]

awm, on Oct 2 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 2 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

I do not see that asking for a ruling at the end of the hand affects whether it is reasonable to adjust.  As for South's statement being self-serving, of course it is.  When the non-offending side explains that it has been damaged, it is incredibly rare that they include no self-serving statements.

We need to make some decisions here though. One of them is "do we believe that South would not have doubled if it had been explained that 2♥ was a transfer?"

My inclination is not to believe it. However, it is much more believable if South had made this claim before seeing the dummy or the result.

You are right, of course, that it would be more believable. But it is not normal procedure to state what one would have done differently in situations like this (apart from a final pass that can actually be changed).

It's before the play and one can't be expected to disclose the content of the hand. That would help declarer (and hurt partner, who would have UI).

[Trinidad]

The irrelevant part (MI):
When was the TD called? By whom? (Presumably by West, before the opening lead, since that is what the laws tell him to do.)
Did the TD give North the option to change his last pass?

The relevant part (UI):
Was there UI available to West? I agree with Adam that there was.
Was pass an LA to 3♠? Yes, it was.
Was 3♠ suggested by the UI? Yes, it was. The 3♠ bid is an irregularity.
Were NS damaged? Yes, they could have gotten +2000 in 3♥X on a trump lead. (I don't think there will be a need for weighing the score, 3♥X-n will be a bottom for any realistic value of n. )

Did NS contribute to their bad score subsequent to the use of UI? Should there be a split score? Now that is the tough question... Either way, EW get a bottom. I wouldn't give EW a PP for the use of UI. At the table West may easily have missed that he could have passed "to allow East to play the hand".

Rik

P.S. My answer to the tough question: There shouldn't be a split score and NS should get a top. But I am willing to listen to people who would argue in favor of a split score.

[Sadie3]

A South that isn't drooling over the 3H bid has fallen asleep at the table in my opinion. I can't imagine anyone making a double at that point especially since 1NT had been bid by East. South unquestionally knows what has happened. I wouldn't wake anyone up by doubling but I might bid 5 diamonds as an attempt to stop the opps from finding their spades. I just would never buy south's attempt to tell me he didn't know what was going on. I think south was hedging the bet by pleading ignorance. (If this doesn't work and the opps run into the right contract I'll call for protection.)

[Cyberyeti]

A bad player will not even consider passing 3♥x and will just bid 3♠ every time even without the UI. It simply will not occur to him to let partner bid 3♠.

I've found from experience that where I have some unexpected length or shape, it can be better to keep the weak distributional hand concealed rather than the larger flat one, so I would also bid 3♠ or 4♠ opposite my partner's transfer break without any UI, particularly when I'm expecting most of the enemy points to be under the big hand as in this case (and the takeout double meaning partner's heart cards are likely to be working).

I think it's extremely harsh to penalise a bid that many people would make semi automatically.

As to the MI, South's comment about sitting under the spade bidder is utter nonsense, what difference does it make if 876 are over or under.

For me, score stands, S has taken 2 eccentric decisions by making a takeout double of 3♥ with AJ10xx and then doubling 3♠ without a trump holding although admittedly he has enough points to think it might be going off.

If what was going on was not explained before the lead, I might adjust to 10 tricks as the defence should appreciate the need to cash out if alerted to the fact that declarer is likely to have 5+ spades.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 3 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

I think it's extremely harsh to penalise a bid that many people would make semi automatically.

It may be harsh, but
- adjusting the score is not penalising
- the question is not whether many people would make the bid semi automatically. The question is whether there are LA's and what LA's would be suggested by the UI. Maybe conceiling the distributional hand is good tactics but making the strong hand declarer is certainly an LA.

Rik

[campboy]

I agree with Cyberyeti that there is a class of player for whom pass is not an LA. The TD will have to use his judgement to decide what this player's peers might do.

Personally, I would be more likely to redouble than pass -- by analogy with other situations I would expect redouble to ask for the transfer to be completed. But then I wouldn't play transfers after a double anyway, so I don't really know what anything should mean. The 3♥ bid doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

[MFA]

Cyberyeti, on Oct 3 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

A bad player will not even consider passing 3♥x and will just bid 3♠ every time even without the UI. It simply will not occur to him to let partner bid 3♠.

Strongly agree with this.

A ruling based on 3♥X would not be reasonable.

[bluejak]

My correspondent added the following:

What should the ruling be? The directors were split as to the options:

• a] Withdrawal of the last penalty double Result 3S +2
  
• b] Assign contracts in diamonds or hearts to N/S
  
• c] A split score via a combination of various contracts

I do realise that West has taken advantage of UI (from the failure of East to alert his 2H bid) by bidding 3S over 3H X

The actual ruling given at the table was to allow S to withdraw her final double with the result to N/S of 3S + 2 i.e. +200. Both pairs were happy to accept this ruling.

I expect when he says 'split score' he means 'weighted score'.
Anyway, my reply was:

It is important to decide whether there was misinformation [MI]. Do E/W

• [1] play transfers over the 1NT, or
  
• [2] not play transfers over the 1NT, or
  
• [3] not agree whether they play transfers over the 1NT

Note that [1] and [3] are equivalent: if the TD cannot decide then he assumes MI.

Whether there is MI or not, I am not sure about the 3♠ bid. I do not think TDs or ACs really agree whether such a bid is legal. West has unauthorised information [UI] from the failure to double, so the question is whether pass is a logical alternative. Some people think partner's 3♥ shows hearts, but most people think it unambiguously shows he did not realise 2♥ was a transfer. If the latter is the case then he will never pass 3♥.

To be honest, I really do not believe any player would pass 3♥ doubled unless he was absolutely sure of what he was doing - and possibly not even then. So I think I might allow the 3♠ bid.

Was there MI? If I was convinced [2] above was right, I would now let the result stand.

Assuming [1] or [3] is correct, I do not believe that South will double 3♠ if he knows. He might pass, he might bid 4♦, he might bid 4♥. Both 4♦ and 4♥ make.

So I would give a weighted score, a percentage of each, maybe

. . 35% of 4♥=, NS +420
+ 35% of 4♦=, NS +130
+ 30% of 3♠+2, NS -200

[Cyberyeti]

There's no point in assigning a part of the score to 4♦, if S bids that, E will bid 4♠ as Axxxx and a stiff diamond is potentially sufficient to make it.

N might well then bid 5♦ so a part of 5D(x or not) -1 could be involved.

I'd love to know what E was thinking when he bid 3♥. If he thinks 2H is a wto in hearts, raising on his hand is suicidal.

[bluejak]

I think your reply is inconsistent: the level of player that makes this sort of mistake is the same level of player that would not bid 4♠ with only four points.

Ok, I might have included more results in the weighting, but I do not think 4♠ over 4♦ is automatic.

[awm]

Suppose that when west bid 2♥, east had announced "transfer" or that east had alerted and been asked about the call, and said "shows five or more spades."

Thus east obviously knows the meaning of the 2♥ bid. When he bids 3♥, how is west passing not a logical alternative? Certainly it may not be clear what 3♥ means, but:

(1) If east has hearts, west has three-card support and an ace and a singleton.
(2) If east has spades, he knows west has spades with him and will correct to 3♠. This will right-side the contract.

I think it's quite likely that after east's alert/explain of 2♥, west would pass 3♥X.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on Oct 7 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

I think your reply is inconsistent: the level of player that makes this sort of mistake is the same level of player that would not bid 4♠ with only four points.

Ok, I might have included more results in the weighting, but I do not think 4♠ over 4♦ is automatic.

I was suggesting E would take this auction at face value and play his partner for Axxxx, xxxxxx, x, x or similar and bid 4♠ not W.

Even if partner has Jxxxx, xxxxxx, x, x 4♠ is potentially a good save against 4♦.

[nigel_k]

On the issue of reverting to 3♥X, isn't 3♥ a superaccept? As in this case when other bids are unavailable, it's spade support and a better hand than a 3♠ bid. Even if East happened to have five hearts why on earth would he bid 3♥ without spade support? So West passing 3♥ is not a logical alternative.

As to the final double, South clearly had enough information to work out what had happened. But that doesn't end the matter as the opposition actions made it more difficult for N/S. If the transfer had been alerted and completed it is easier for South to bid 3♥ over East's 2♠ and if East jumps to 3♠ then 4♥ is still a more attractive choice than on the actual auction.

I think N/S were damaged and if E/W cannot establish that the explanation was correct I would probably adjust to 5♥X-1.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 7 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

Suppose that when west bid 2♥, east had announced "transfer" or that east had alerted and been asked about the call, and said "shows five or more spades."

Thus east obviously knows the meaning of the 2♥ bid. When he bids 3♥, how is west passing not a logical alternative? Certainly it may not be clear what 3♥ means, but:

(1) If east has hearts, west has three-card support and an ace and a singleton.
(2) If east has spades, he knows west has spades with him and will correct to 3♠. This will right-side the contract.

I think it's quite likely that after east's alert/explain of 2♥, west would pass 3♥X.

This type of reasoning always looks very logical. But I have seen probably dozens if not hundreds of misunderstandings about transfers in auctions like this. But how many times have I seen something like the auction given where 3♥ was natural? None? One? Even if 1NT was tactically bid on some hand with hearts he wouldn't jump in over 3♦ at that point, partly since he is off the hook, and partly since he would be worried his partner would misunderstand.

People just don't make bids like that in real life, and no one passes 3♥X playing for their partner to be doing that either. They know, for a fact, they have either had a transfer misunderstanding or partner is superaccepting in some way, and let's be honest partner can't be superaccepting, the opponents are trying to nail us and it would have to be a 55 point deck anyway. Passing 3♥X is not a possibility for west.

[jdonn]

BTW now that I look, I know not every player is a world beater, but what in the world was east doing even raising a natural 2♥ bid? And we think it's the players who do that who will pass 3♥X here? Good grief...