[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

.P..2♣(1)..P..2♦(2)
.P...2NT....P..3♥(3)
.P...4♥.....P...4♠
.P.....P.....P

---

(1) Acol, 23+ or GF, alerted
(2) Relay, alerted
(3) Transfer to spades, not alerted

Result: 4♠(S)-1, NS -50

West called the TD at the end of play and contended that had he been given a correct explanation that 3♥ was a transfer he would have doubled 4♠. He hadn't doubled because he had assumed 4♠ had been a cue-bid.

NS are playing transfers in this situation, North said she had forgotten, but remembered when South bid 4♠.

What's your ruling?

[dburn]

What would it have meant if West had doubled a cue bid? Or did he contend that because it was a cue bid, it was therefore more likely to make?

Mind you, South had easily enough not to sign off facing a 4♥ bid that is supposed to be a slam try in spades (especially if North, who thought 3♥ was natural, needs more than that to offer a slam try in support of partner's major). Score adjusted so that everyone gets a bottom, and as many players as possible get fined.

[jdonn]

That's hard to believe by west. But it gets better. South obviously took advantage of the non-alert when he has a clear slam try (or force?) over any sort of super acceptance.

If south cuebids 5♦ then north will think it's a slam try in hearts but that a spade control is lacking and bid 5♥. South will take this as a further slam try in support of spades and may bid 6♠. So I would give that auction to some of west's peers to determine approximately what percentage would double that and use it to give an adjusted score to both sides between 6♠ and 6♠X, down 3 in either case.

[campboy]

dburn, on Apr 20 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

What would it have meant if West had doubled a cue bid? Or did he contend that because it was a cue bid, it was therefore more likely to make?

Why should West want to double a 4♠ cue-bid? He is going to be on lead, after all.

Of course, all this could have been avoided if North had corrected his failure to alert once he realised. He's my first choice for a fine

[campboy]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

That's hard to believe by west. But it gets better. South obviously took advantage of the non-alert when he has a clear slam try (or force?) over any sort of super acceptance.

Except one which denies both minor suit aces, as 4♥ would for many players.

[gordontd]

campboy, on Apr 20 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

That's hard to believe by west. But it gets better. South obviously took advantage of the non-alert when he has a clear slam try (or force?) over any sort of super acceptance.

Except one which denies both minor suit aces, as 4♥ would for many players.

Maybe we should be trying to find out what methods they play, rather than trying to foist on them methods we think they should play

[jdonn]

Sure of course try to find out what they play. But why do I have this feeling that if they can't even remember they play transfers then they probably don't have specific definitions for superaccepting by bidding a new suit (which aside from being a much more advanced situation is also a situation that occurs only after a transfer)?

[peachy]

gordontd, on Apr 20 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

Maybe we should be trying to find out what methods they play, rather than trying to foist on them methods we think they should play

Good luck with that... I expect this pair inexperienced and don't remember what 4H is, regardless of what their system card may or may not say. The failure to alert was UI to South, he used it to get back to the spade suit, instead of going on to slam in spades when he has the needed aces and kings to continue opposite an encouraging 4H bid (whatever 4H is, a cuebid, a superaccept, a second suit, slam try, doesn't matter). I think education is appropriate for this pair and the best education comes from the law that IMO requires score adjustment to 6SX-3.

[RMB1]

Posters are still imposing agreements on NS, or their peers, who may not have such understanding. We need to talk to NS to find out their understanding (or lack of it) of this sequence (or 2NT-3♥-4♥ or 1NT-2♥-3♥). From this we can ask the peers of NS what they understand about the sequence at the table, and discover whether there are logical alternative to 4♠.

[Phil]

Agree with Josh about the adjustments. South has a clear move forward in light of North's 'slam try'. But why split the score between 6♠ and 6♠ x'd?

I'm quite sure if you ask NS what 4♥ means they will either respond 'it means I forgot the transfer silly' or 'look like deer staring into headlights'. That doesn't give them the opportunity to correct back to 4♠

West's comment is equally idiotic; the double should allow 4♠ to be made - and it also gives NS the option to pull to 4N.

I'm pretty sure EW are getting about an 80% board here already.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Agree with Josh about the adjustments. South has a clear move forward in light of North's 'slam try'. But why split the score between 6♠ and 6♠ x'd?

Because we are not in the ACBL and west may not double (if you think it's automatic to double then of course make it 100% of 6♠X). But someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Score adjusted so that everyone gets a bottom, and as many players as possible get fined.

Finally he is worth his place on the Laws and Ethics Committee.

[campboy]

gordontd, on Apr 20 2010, 06:56 PM, said:

campboy, on Apr 20 2010, 06:16 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

That's hard to believe by west. But it gets better. South obviously took advantage of the non-alert when he has a clear slam try (or force?) over any sort of super acceptance.

Except one which denies both minor suit aces, as 4♥ would for many players.

Maybe we should be trying to find out what methods they play, rather than trying to foist on them methods we think they should play

Of course. I didn't intend to suggest that we assume NS had that agreement, merely that it was a plausible agreement under which there is no LA to 4♠.

[peachy]

RMB1, on Apr 20 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

Posters are still imposing agreements on NS, or their peers, who may not have such understanding. We need to talk to NS to find out their understanding (or lack of it) of this sequence (or 2NT-3♥-4♥ or 1NT-2♥-3♥). From this we can ask the peers of NS what they understand about the sequence at the table, and discover whether there are logical alternative to 4♠.

I agree with what you are saying about foisting.
However, I don't know if I understand the usefulness of asking peers - peers being people who do not have an agreement. Finding them in the first place.

[dburn]

jeremy69, on Apr 20 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

Quote

Score adjusted so that everyone gets a bottom, and as many players as possible get fined.

Finally he is worth his place on the Laws and Ethics Committee.

Finally?

Almost the first ruling I gave as chair of an Appeals Committee, having recently been appointed to the L&E, occurred at the Brighton Pairs weekend during a century that was probably the twentieth, but these days I find it hard to tell.

North had cheated by removing a slow penalty double of 2♠ to 3♣, which was doubled by East-West who defended ridiculously to allow it to make. Both sides were awarded minus 670 (not surprisingly a bottom for all concerned), and the question of the deposit was resolved as follows:

AC Chair "What about the deposit?"
AC member 1 (a strong, not to say headstrong, player) "Was there one?"
AC member 2 (an equally strong player, but a more equable sort) "Well, there's a five pound note on the table."
AC member 1 "Who was appealing, anyway?"
AC Chair "Not sure - better have a look at the form."
AC members 1 and 2 in unison "Don't bother. Just keep it."

But that was then, and this is now. Since East-West didn't actually revoke in the course of the worst defence ever seen, they would not only have been awarded a lot of matchpoints instead of none, they would have been entitled to six months' worth of counselling by the EBU Advisory Committee on People Traumatised by Having to Play Bridge Despite An Opponent's Putative Infraction.

North-South, instead of forking out a fiver (a lot of money in those days, let me tell you) would have been awarded a grant of several thousand pounds by the "There, There, We're Sure You're Not Actually A Pair Of Cheating Bastards" sub-committee, in order that they might develop methods that could not be foisted upon them by bullies such as myself.

Twisted? Dead right. Bitter? Thanks very much - I'll have a pint.

[gordontd]

dburn, on Apr 21 2010, 01:28 AM, said:

Twisted? Dead right. Bitter? Thanks very much - I'll have a pint.

Bitter & lime? That really is twisted.

[VixTD]

RMB1, on Apr 20 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

Posters are still imposing agreements on NS, or their peers, who may not have such understanding.  We need to talk to NS to find out their understanding (or lack of it) of this sequence (or 2NT-3♥-4♥ or 1NT-2♥-3♥).  From this we can ask the peers of NS what they understand about the sequence at the table, and discover whether there are logical alternative to 4♠.

Good idea, Robin. This is how the conversation went:

Me: "How do you play 1NT (P) 2♥?"
NS: "It's a transfer to spades."
Me: "And what does opener do now?"
NS: "Bids 2♠."
Me: "Always?"
NS: "No, with a maximum and three to a top honour we would bid 3♠."
Me: "Would you ever bid anything else?"
NS: "No."

Now I know all these answers are self-serving so some of you are going to argue they should be disregarded or even warrant some kind of punishment, but this did not look like a partnership that plays any sophisticated methods. I was surprised they used even the most basic form of transfer breaks.

I ruled that pass was not a logical alternative to 4♠, so I did not adjust on that basis.

That just leaves the matter of West's double.

Quote

[Campboy] Of course, all this could have been avoided if North had corrected his failure to alert once he realised.

West had been listening to proceedings, and insisted that he would have doubled had he received a timely correction of the failure to alert (as required by law) as soon as South bid 4♠. I gave the West hand and the auction to several players and asked what they would do. I asked further if it would make any difference if North corrected the failure to alert. Not surprisingly I got no takers in either case, so no adjustment there either.

South did get a long talk on how to act when in receipt of unauthorized information, as she had had a narrow escape. I imagine that qualifies me for membership of a couple of Burn's sub-committees.

[MFA]

I think you made an excellent ruling, just as the other congress rulings you have posted seem to be of high quality.