[McBruce]

Scoring: IMP

---

Club level Swiss Teams.

South opens 1NT in second seat and West overcalls 2♣, promising clubs and a higher suit. North bids 2♦ which is alerted and explained as a transfer when East asks. East passes and South bids 2♥. West continues with 2♠ and East corrects to 3♣ which goes three down.

During the play of the hand it is discovered that North does not have a transfer and South has rather good support for hearts. North-South are a first time partnership, but their card clearly states that systems are on over double and over 2♣ after a 1NT opener.

1) West claims that his decision to introduce his second suit was based on the expectation of finding partner with short hearts and therefore more likely to fit one of the black suits. Do you adjust?

2) West also claims that South has no right to secretly assume that North has misbid and should compete to 3♥ with five-card support. There is no mention of any UI to indicate that North has made an error. Do you adjust based on this?

3) A question for offline directors. When you arrive at the table, the hand is over and the cards are in the slots. The players want to give you the whole auction with the various alerts and explanations before giving you the slightest hint what sort of problem this is. Once they've recited the three-minute auction in ten seconds, they then proceed with the arguments as you are still trying to get the auction straight in your mind. This is a sure way to lead to difficulties and in this case the difficulty was that I left the table with the board and a misunderstanding: I thought that it was a mistaken explanation and not a mistaken bid. As a result, my initial ruling was not the same as my eventual ruling when my mistake came to light. Is there a good way to avoid this problem?

[kenrexford]

I have nothing to add as far as rulings. But, South is plain dumb, IMO, to get into this situation. With KQ10xx, I'd rebid 3♥. Two ways to win. First, partner might actually have hearts. Second, partner might have Hx or xxx in hearts.

[campboy]

1. No. There is enough evidence that North has misbid, so no MI.

2. Yes. It's a fielded misbid which is a breach of Law 40A3. The EBU procedure for dealing with this is probably not the same as the ACBL's, though, so I can't give an exact ruling.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Jan 21 2010, 01:29 AM, said:

3) A question for offline directors.  When you arrive at the table, the hand is over and the cards are in the slots.  The players want to give you the whole auction with the various alerts and explanations before giving you the slightest hint what sort of problem this is.  Once they've recited the three-minute auction in ten seconds, they then proceed with the arguments as you are still trying to get the auction straight in your mind.  This is a sure way to lead to difficulties and in this case the difficulty was that I left the table with the board and a misunderstanding: I thought that it was a mistaken explanation and not a mistaken bid.  As a result, my initial ruling was not the same as my eventual ruling when my mistake came to light.  Is there a good way to avoid this problem?

Sometimes you have to bully players when it is for their own good. I would have stopped them, and asked what the problem is.

But of course the real solution is that you should have a notebook and write down what they tell you.

[McBruce]

campboy, on Jan 20 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

2. Yes. It's a fielded misbid which is a breach of Law 40A3. The EBU procedure for dealing with this is probably not the same as the ACBL's, though, so I can't give an exact ruling.

Which partnership understanding has been undisclosed? South doesn't know for sure that North has made an error; passing 3♣ may get him a bad result if they have a partscore in hearts or a decent save. 3♥ could easily go for 200 or more against nothing if partner has four jacks and 3=5=2=3 distribution.

[Mbodell]

campboy, on Jan 20 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

2. Yes. It's a fielded misbid which is a breach of Law 40A3. The EBU procedure for dealing with this is probably not the same as the ACBL's, though, so I can't give an exact ruling.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. It isn't like S passed the 2♦, they bid 2♥. Just because they didn't compete over 3♣ doesn't seem like it is automatically bad. It is IMP scoring and they are red. Letting the opponents play 3m doesn't seem too bad if you weren't going to game anyways. And while you have 5 hearts, you only have 15 HCP and some of those are wasted in hearts where you have your theoretical 10+ card fit.

[campboy]

McBruce, on Jan 21 2010, 09:02 AM, said:

3♥ could easily go for 200 or more against nothing if partner has four jacks and 3=5=2=3 distribution.

Even assuming that partner would bother to take action over 2♣ with such a poor hand (and he also knows we are vulnerable), it's difficult to reconcile that hand with the opponent's bidding. East must have good diamonds, but didn't bid them or double 2♦, and he has made a mistake in preferring 3♣ to 2♠.

[aguahombre]

South fielded the misbid. He did so with nothing in the later auction to make him believe 2D was a misbid. The system cards and south's transfer announcement are consistent. Therefore, something unauthorized allowed him to field the misbid.

Whether the opponents can point to something (body language, etc.) or not, something happened --unless South is a raw novice without a clue who would never bid 3H.

Someone can look for an obscure reason why, with half the deck and a ten-card fit, one might sell out to 3 clubs --but it doesn't wash. Of course, we are too gentile to ever accuse anyone, but this screams for penalty or adjustment.

[hotShot]

aguahombre, on Jan 21 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

South fielded the misbid. He did so with nothing in the later auction to make him believe 2D was a misbid. The system cards and south's transfer announcement are consistent. Therefore, something unauthorized allowed him to field the misbid.

Whether the opponents can point to something (body language, etc.) or not, something happened --unless South is a raw novice without a clue who would never bid 3H.

Someone can look for an obscure reason why, with half the deck and a ten-card fit, one might sell out to 3 clubs --but it doesn't wash. Of course, we are too gentile to ever accuse anyone, but this screams for penalty or adjustment.

Perhaps South can just count!
South knows that this is a first time partnership, System on over 2♣ is unusual and the probability to find 5♥ opposite your own 5 card length is only about 6%.

After

1NT 2♣(♣ and a higher) 2♦ Pass

the higher suit seems to be ♦ or ♠. RHO passed, there is no need to rush in 3♥ now.

2♥ 2♠ pass 3♣

Now South knows that West hast 4-5+♣ and 4-5♠ and 3-5 red cards.
A 3-0 split for the missing 3♥ is about 10% so you can assume that West has at least 1♥ 90% of the times.
Now South counts that there are 5-6♠, 7♥, 7-8♦, and 5-6♣ left for North and East.
If East had ♠ why did East correct to 3♣?
If East does not have 3+♠ than North has 3+♠.
If North has 3♠ and 5♥ East would have 2-3♠, 2♥ and 8-9 minor cards.
Why did not East raise 2♣ at once or doubled 2♦ holding 4-5cards there?

So South has (good) reasons to suspect that North forgot the agreement.

[campboy]

Only if he is using the knowledge that partner's bidding is less reliable than the opponents'. It is pretty pointless making complicated deductions about opponents' distribution from their auction while refusing to make the very simple deduction that partner has 5 hearts from the fact that he has transferred to hearts.

[bluejak]

... which all leads up to why the EBU has regulations for dealing with fielded misbids. The reason some people assume their partners have misbid is nothing to do with body language: it is because they have seen it before, but they do not disclose it under Law 40, which is illegal.

[McBruce]

Where does Law 40 say that a first-time partnership must disclose that system forgets may occur?

We're not in the business of inventing UI when nobody cites any, so you'll just have to believe me when I say that South had no UI from North after giving the explanation. The idea that South made a strange judgment not to continue to 3♥ so therefore there must have been UI is like the cop planting the evidence when the search reveals nothing. Trust me, the players were firing arguments around willy-nilly as I tried to assimilate the auction and nothing once was said about South having any idea that North had made a mistake.

[campboy]

Eh? According to the first post:

Quote

West also claims that South has no right to secretly assume that North has misbid

and this is the point we are answering. I accept that there was no UI on this board, but if South knows that North is likely to forget, and is going to act on that, then he should disclose it. South used his knowledge that they were not on firm ground to take an unusual action, but he concealed that knowledge from E/W.

[TimG]

Let's assume that South did field the misbid and failed to compete to 3♥ as a result. Let's further assume that there is no partnership history and no UI from north's reaction to south alert and explanation (pretend they were behind screens if you need to).

It seems that the EBU has a regulation that calls for an adjustment in the case of such a fielded misbid. Does the ACBL have similar? (I don't think so.)

If you are inclined to adjust under the above conditions (in a jurisdiction that does not have an EBU-type regulation), upon which Law would you base your ruling?

[campboy]

Law 40 (concealed partnership understanding) or law 21 (misinformation) if you like. The problem with treating fielded misbids as MI, though, is that in some cases the concealed understanding would not be a permitted agreement even if disclosed.

[edit] I didn't read the last post carefully enough. If there was no partnership history of partner forgetting -- or perhaps I should say if there is partnership history that partner does not forget -- then that is evidence that there is no CPU. But the onus is on the players to provide that. No partnership history is not necessarily enough; there are certainly players of my acquaintance whom I know to be likely to mess up agreements despite never having partnered them.

[TimG]

campboy, on Jan 22 2010, 09:12 AM, said:

If there was no partnership history of partner forgetting -- or perhaps I should say if there is partnership history that partner does not forget -- then that is evidence that there is no CPU. But the onus is on the players to provide that. No partnership history is not necessarily enough; there are certainly players of my acquaintance whom I know to be likely to mess up agreements despite never having partnered them.

Isn't this a case of general bridge knowledge? 99.9% of bridge players, especially those in new partnerships, mess up agreements from time to time. You don't need any partnership history or prior knowledge of the player to know this.

[bluejak]

McBruce, on Jan 22 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

Where does Law 40 say that a first-time partnership must disclose that system forgets may occur?

If my partner does a transfer and I hold KQTxx I jump rebid.

Now, if I do not because I know that this partner does this sort of thing with other partners, then I have an implicit agreement that when he transfers he may have forgotten, and the Law says

Law 40A3 said:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

If a player does not bid 3♥ because of such an implicit understanding he has breached this Law. The EBU has regulations for fielded misbids merely to make life easier for TDs and ACs: they believe they are based on Law 40.

McBruce, on Jan 22 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

We're not in the business of inventing UI when nobody cites any, so you'll just have to believe me when I say that South had no UI from North after giving the explanation.  The idea that South made a strange judgment not to continue to 3♥ so therefore there must have been UI is like the cop planting the evidence when the search reveals nothing.  Trust me, the players were firing arguments around willy-nilly as I tried to assimilate the auction and nothing once was said about South having any idea that North had made a mistake.

Most of the replies assume there was no UI, but that South's actions were illegal anyway.

[TimG]

bluejak, on Jan 22 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

If my partner does a transfer and I hold KQTxx I jump rebid.

If my partner transfers to a suit in which I hold KQTxx, I do not automatically jump in the suit (or otherwise break the transfer). Perhaps this makes me a bad player. Does it matter if the south who actually held the hand is a similarly bad player?

[jdonn]

TimG, on Jan 22 2010, 01:10 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 22 2010, 10:59 AM, said:

If my partner does a transfer and I hold KQTxx I jump rebid.

If my partner transfers to a suit in which I hold KQTxx, I do not automatically jump in the suit (or otherwise break the transfer). Perhaps this makes me a bad player. Does it matter if the south who actually held the hand is a similarly bad player?

I do not automatically jump either. If my agreement is only to jump with a maximum hand and I don't have one then I don't jump. It's not an auction where it is imperitive to preempt since for all the opponents know you have as little as a 7 card fit so they have no reason to believe they have a fit themselves.

[hotShot]

What is the lower limit for partner to transfer over 1NT?

The way I play it, it can be very low, even after opps interference.

So I don't think it's mandatory to jump.