[jillybean]

---

Director was called after I saw dummy. We were told to play the hand and call again if we thought we were damaged.
We called again after the hand, director took the details and left to consult with other directors. What should happen?

[WellSpyder]

You may need to be more specific, rather than simply labelling 3♥ as a transfer. Was it alerted/announced as such by South? If so, North will have UI. But it is not clear that this was used - what logical alternatives to 3NT were there?

Sure, it is odd that South passed 3N rather than playing in ♠ if they really believed 3♥ was a transfer, but there is no indication that I can see that South had any UI, so they can bid what they like.

OK, what about MI? If South wasn't going to bid as if 3♥ was a transfer and North didn't mean it as a transfer, then perhaps it wasn't systemically a transfer? If EW were informed that it was, then they may have been misinformed. Is there any suggestion that EW would have acted differently in either the bidding or the play if they had not been told 3♥ was a transfer? That would be the only grounds for adjustment I can see....

[jillybean]

3♥ was announced as a transfer, isn't it logical to play in your 9 card fit rather than 3N with ♥ xxx?

[jillybean]

deleted response to Paul's post

These were not strong players, this was a side game. 2♣ was standard 22+, the director asked only about transfers after 2n/2♣

[RMB1]

There is a case for UI if 3♠ "should" be a slam try (agreeing hearts).
Is 2♣ normally a six loser 19 count?
What does 2NT show: 8-10 balanced?
If so, North may be knows enough to reject all slam tries.

But if 4♥ is a logical alternative to passing 3NT then it is difficult to see the auction stopping below 6M, North will continue to be constrained by UI and South will continue to think North has transfered to spades.

The outcome in 6♥ or 6NT will depend on the other hands. They will defend on the basis that the explanation of 3♥ is corrected at the end of the auction, so might lead spades if it is to their advantage.

Not so simple.

[paulg]

Looks like a case where I would expect the director to ask a number of questions.

Firstly, what does the 2♣ opener show? What does 2NT show? And what are their agreed methods after the 2NT response? Did North correct his partner's explanation prior to the opening lead?

If North thinks (or did think) that they play natural over 2NT, then his 3NT bid looks reasonable presuming he is minimum. Three spades would have to show a suit, in case North were 4-5 (and does not have to be a cue bid as I mentioned in my deleted post).

I would ask South about their transfer break options over 3♥. Is it normal to break with 4-card support, etc.? I would also ask South why he passed 3NT when he has a known 5-4 fit. There are a number of arguments that would make sense. but in my experience only strong players tend to do this.

But I can imagine ruling that the table result stands. You have not made any allegation of North showing any discomfort in the auction and passing UI. But I'd like to hear about their methods and South's reason for passing before ruling.

[jillybean]

I don't know the answers to those questions, they were never asked. I can only say that this pair were 'C' players and were not using any advanced agreements.
There was no audible discomfort from North, I wasn't watching North after transfer was announced so I don't know if there was any grimace or rolling of eyes.

The director didn't get back to us after the 2nd call so I tracked him down after the game. He said it was 'rub of the green', N/S had 'no master points' and had a bad auction.
When I pointed out that I thought 4♠ was an obvious call for South after the transfer, the director said he hadn't looked at that and would look into it. I'm still waiting.

[blackshoe]

"C players", "no master points" (I wonder how the TD knew that), "2♣ was standard 22+" (on 19 HCP).

You sure these weren't D players? Or maybe E?

They do seem clueless to me, but it also seems the TD did not fulfill his duty to ascertain the pertinent facts.

[WellSpyder]

jillybean, on 2010-November-30, 08:16, said:

When I pointed out that I thought 4♠ was an obvious call for South after the transfer, the director said he hadn't looked at that and would look into it. I'm still waiting.

4♠ may well be the obvious call. But there is no constraint on South to make obvious calls or to avoid bad bidding if they do not have UI. If North is the only player with UI then South's bids do not need looking at by the director, however bad they might be.

[pran]

This is the very first time ever that I have stumbled across anybody allegedly using transfers in order to make the stronger hand dummy.

To me the whole auction is consistent with 3♥ and 3♠ being natural bids, and the contract 3NT seems reasonable.

Which leaves the "transfer" announcement as misinformation, and that is what I would initially suspect in this case. Yes, I have noticed that the bid was announced as transfer, but honestly I find that announcement hard to believe (even before seeing the cards).

[RMB1]

pran, on 2010-November-30, 08:43, said:

To me the whole auction is consistent with 3♥ and 3♠ being natural bids, and the contract 3NT seems reasonable.

There is no doubt that bidding 3NT is reasonable, but that is not the test. If North has UI, we need to know if there is a "reasonable" alternative to 3NT (and ...).

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2010-November-30, 10:18

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2010-November-30, 09:51, said:

There is no doubt that passing 3NT is reasonable, but that is not the test. If North has UI, we need to know if there is a "reasonable" alternative to 3NT (and ...).

True. Your earlier post talked about 4♥ as an LA to passing 3N, but I accept that a more relevant question is whether there is an LA to bidding 3N - and your earlier suggestion that 3♠ could be a slam try over a natural 3♥ is clearly relevant in this context. I'm not convinced this is a very likely interpretation for a class C pair, but it would be nice to know that both N and S would expect this to be a natural call in the context of a natural 3♥. It is not entirely clear to me what question to ask to get this information given that they don't seem to have an agreement that 3♥ is natural. I wonder whether they might play 1N - 3H as natural and forcing, in which case one might ask what 3♠ would mean over this, I suppose....

[RMB1]

On reflection, I think my initial reaction (before I posted) is right: no infraction. It is probable that if you polled North's peers they would all bid 3NT and would not consider anything else.

There is still misinformation that should only affect the play and is not an issue if North corrected the explanation at the end of the auction or if EW did not believe the explanation in the first place.

[campboy]

The auction suggests that South had realised that the explanation was wrong by the time he passed 3NT, so it's worth investigating whether this is the case and informing him of his responsibilities to correct his own explanation in a timely fashion.

[nigel_k]

North appears blameless. The director would need to ask him some questions but probably it is logical to treat 3♠ as natural over a natural 3♥, especially for the class of player involved.

Bad players often bid the way South did 'in case partner has forgotten'. So I wouldn't necessarily conclude that South realized his misexplanation or did anything else wrong unless he has UI. You could still get an adjustment if there was a misexplanation and the opening lead was affected. Or maybe South was woken up by North's reaction to the alert. I would be a little surprised if an inexperienced North failed to react at all but obviously the director would need actual evidence that it happened.

Overall, without more information I agree with the ruling that the result stands despite South's apparently illogical pass.

[mycroft]

If the agreement is "transfer unless he forgot, and I have ways of finding out if partner forgot", then "transfer" is MI.

I would certainly consider South's hand evidence that their implied agreement is closer to the former than the latter, and would need evidence to the contrary to be convinced otherwise.

But I'm preternaturally suspicious of forget transfer auctions of any type.

[Phil]

In my experience when this happens, there is a noticeable sign of unhappiness of the partner who alerted. Was there?

[nige1]

South announced 3♥ as a transfer, bid 3♠ and then, holding ♠Kxxx, passed 3N. My guess is that South correctly disclosed the partnership agreement but then, for some reason, suspected that a wheel had come off. The director may suspect that this reassessment could be due to UI from North's demeanour during the alert and explanation. Hence her pass of 3N. The director is in an difficult predicament requiring diplomacy.

[blackshoe]

The way most people around here play this sequence, 3NT is "choice of games" with some 5-3-3-2 hand. North may have heard or read somewhere that with a 4-3-3-3, he should elect the NT game. It may not have occurred to him that with a nine card fit, perhaps 4♠ is the right spot in spite of his flat hand. I would ask them both why they bid the way they did. I might be convinced to adjust the score, I might not. Depends on what they say.

[JoAnneM]

I think south alerted the 3H bid forgetting that he was responder, not opener. Then, suddenly waking up, he passed 3nt. This kind of thing is not uncommon with new players and if the director is called at all it should be to give the reminder about correcting the MI before the opening lead.