[Chris3875]

North opens 1NT and partner bids 2H - North reaches over to circle the 2H and gets about a quarter of a circle drawn when South says Uhhhhh NO ! When I was called to the table I said that North must ignore South's comment and continue as though the South bid was a transfer to spades (their system).

He bid 2S and South then bid 3H - all passed - and made only 7 tricks.

1. At what point can North legitimately realise that the 2H was not a transfer? (assuming that South has made no comment).

2. Is it logical for North to pull out of the bidding after partner bids 3H - with this sequence (without the mistake) would South be showing a stronger hand forcing to game?

[Cascade]

Normally a transfer followed by a new suit is forcing. This is standard.

However:

Some play it as a game try.

I have played it as a non-forcing game try.

We have some inexperienced players who seem to play transfer followed by a repeat of the transfer suit is weak with that suit cancelling the transfer meaning. Although this normally would only apply to diamonds as you can transfer to hearts and get out at the two level.

If they pass they better have some convincing evidence that their agreement is that it is not forcing.

[nigel_k]

A transfer to spades then bidding hearts is forcing and shows spades and hearts and North has to bid accordingly.

If North has four hearts he can raise 3H, but not pass it. Otherwise North is stuck except he could pass after 2S-3H-3S/NT-4H with better hearts than spades. But with 3-3 in the majors and a maximum North should bid 4S, not 3S, over 3H. He can't go slow just to give his partner a chance to bid hearts again.

[Chris3875]

OK thanks - that certainly answers some of my questions - except it raises one other point - if South had both hearts and spades, she would have used Stayman - so at any point could North LEGITIMATELY realise that South has forgotten that they play transfers and after the 3H bid say - oh, well obviously that was a genuine heart bid ? That didn't happen, he just passed - I am just wondering.

[mrdct]

Chris3875, on Jul 11 2010, 08:36 PM, said:

1. At what point can North legitimately realise that the 2H was not a transfer? (assuming that South has made no comment).

I don't think the 1NT opener would be allowed to field this misbid until the 5-level as:

1NT : 2♥ = transfer
2♠ : 3♥ = natural and forcing
3♠ : 4♥ = slam-try cue
4♠ : 5♥ = i forgot we were playing transfers*

*it would be unreasonable to treat this as a further cue after the sign-off in 4♠ and nobody cueing anything in the minors.

It's hard to rule without seeing all the hands (I wish people would post the hand diagrams with these sorts of problems) but it seems likely that if the 1NT opener were to treat the 3♥ bid as natural and forcing, there is a decent chance EW will wind up in 4♥x or worse. I'll reserve judgement until I see the hands.

[mrdct]

Chris3875, on Jul 11 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

if South had both hearts and spades, she would have used Stayman - so at any point could North LEGITIMATELY realise that South has forgotten that they play transfers

Why would a responder with 5-5 in the Majors bid stayman? The normal way of handling such hands is to transfer to ♠ and then bid ♥ naturally. If they play Smolen they would go via stayman with 5-4 in the Majors, but not with 5-5.

Obviously it would be useful to know their systemic agreements and the hand. Did the TD ask the 1NT opener why he passed 3♥? Do NS have a partnership agreement to play a change of suit after a transfer as non-forcing (I would want to see real evidence of this in the form of systems notes or something on their convention card)?

[Chris3875]

Yes, sorry I realise I should have had the hand (and usually do) - but thanks, as you have answered the concerns I had.

[bluejak]

Why did responder bid 3♥? Because 2♥ was alerted? But that is UI! So there are UI concerns.

However, several of the posts say something like 'this sequence shows so-and-so'. Well, maybe for the poster, but not every one bids their way. I know some poor players who think you can only use a transfer with that suit, or a balanced hand. If partner changes suit after a transfer they have no idea what is going on. To suggest they are playing it as natural and forcing is just wrong. When you are ruling on what a sequence means it is what it means to that pair, not to better players who post here.

[mrdct]

Hence, enquiries need to be made as to north-south's methods. However, if their methods aren't documented anywhere and they claim to play change of suit non-forcing after a transfer that would be a self-serving assertion that would surely need to be discounted. Given that playing 3♥ as forcing would be a feature of just about any natural system, probably even more so by weaker players who don't have more sophisticated methods to show their 2nd suit, I think it's probably quite reasonable to conclude that north acted on the UI.

I'd still love to know what north actually held.

[StevenG]

mrdct, on Jul 12 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

However, if their methods aren't documented anywhere and they claim to play change of suit non-forcing after a transfer that would be a self-serving assertion that would surely need to be discounted.  Given that playing 3♥ as forcing would be a feature of just about any natural system

It is probable that they don't play 3♥ as anything, i.e. it's an impossible bid.

[Bbradley62]

StevenG, on Jul 12 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

It is probable that they don't play 3♥ as anything, i.e. it's an impossible bid.

I don't see how this can be, but that's all part of the questions the director must ask. How would South bid with KQxxxx, KQxxx, x, x?

It also sounds like North/South need either a clear lesson on not giving and using unauthorized information, or a procedural penalty if they should already know the rules.

[bluejak]

Bbradley62, on Jul 12 2010, 02:49 PM, said:

StevenG, on Jul 12 2010, 08:27 AM, said:

It is probable that they don't play 3♥ as anything, i.e. it's an impossible bid.

I don't see how this can be, but that's all part of the questions the director must ask. How would South bid with KQxxxx, KQxxx, x, x?

It also sounds like North/South need either a clear lesson on not giving and using unauthorized information, or a procedural penalty if they should already know the rules.

How would he bid? 1NT p 4♠ I expect. You may not see how it can be, but over the years, when playing against a poorer player a new suit by partner throws them into shock. They have no idea what it means, except they assume it must be natural. They forget the first bid.

It is like the sequence (1NT) 2♣=majors - 2♥ - 3♣. A bridge player might think of 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5 or something: the poor club players have no idea what it means, but since he bid clubs, he must have clubs, so they pass.

One of my saddest memories was the really annoying sequence 1♠ - 1NT - 4♠. Of course the lady who bid this way was 5-5 in the majors. What really annoyed was that it was the correct contract.

I know it does not make any sense, but amongst the poorer players they do not have the concept of two-suiters at all.

Of course, this may not be a poorer player. But we are talking someone from an Australian country bridge club who is surprised when partner alerts a 2♥ response to 1NT: my guess is that it was not Bocchi. And I think PPs for misunderstanding UI are inappropriate at this level.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on Jul 12 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

And I think PPs for misunderstanding UI are inappropriate at this level.

Sorry, I didn't reaise that UI laws don't apply at "Australian country bridge clubs" - particularly after the TD has explicitly instructed you to "ignore South's comment and continue as though the South bid was a transfer to spades".

[blackshoe]

Nobody has said the UI laws don't apply. What's been said is that we should cut the palookas a little slack. I agree with that — up to a point. Without knowing more about the players involved and their agreements, I can't say whether that point has been reached here.

[jdonn]

mrdct, on Jul 12 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 12 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

And I think PPs for misunderstanding UI are inappropriate at this level.

Sorry, I didn't reaise that UI laws don't apply at "Australian country bridge clubs" - particularly after the TD has explicitly instructed you to "ignore South's comment and continue as though the South bid was a transfer to spades".

I didn't realize the UI laws say "PPs are required"?

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Jul 12 2010, 10:45 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 12 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

And I think PPs for misunderstanding UI are inappropriate at this level.

Sorry, I didn't reaise that UI laws don't apply at "Australian country bridge clubs" - particularly after the TD has explicitly instructed you to "ignore South's comment and continue as though the South bid was a transfer to spades".

UI laws do apply. PPs, which are not part of the UI laws, are inappropriate.