[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2011-November-30, 17:53, said:

It took a bit of research, but:

I must agree that your example does use the word transfer as a verb in the meaning of "convert to" (which I find amazing), but the auction given in your example doesn't even contain a transfer bid (which I find amusing).

(Even if you would think that 3♦ is a transfer, which it isn't, you must agree that 3♥ is not a transfer to spades,)

Rik

[mrdct]

Trinidad, on 2011-November-30, 17:38, said:

Well, you are obviously biased. Look at your sig!

Rik

This thread has forced an amendment to my signature and I now vow to never utter the "T" word again!

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2011-November-30, 11:32, said:

I think it's reasonable to expect them to ensure their opponents have understood their explanation. Since the pair at the table, the TD's at the event, and David Stevenson and I among others, didn't, I think they've probably fallen short of that.

From this debate, it's clear that many players consider the meaning of "transfer to" unambiguous. But prior to this discussion, I doubt any of them realized that there were two camps, each with their own "unambiguous" interpretation.

The players in the original incident were apparently in the same situation. How could the explainer have known that the opponents didn't understand the explanation until after the fact?

Do we really require players to be mind readers?

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2011-November-30, 19:51, said:

The players in the original incident were apparently in the same situation. How could the explainer have known that the opponents didn't understand the explanation until after the fact?

They probably had a fair idea when East bid 4♠, at which moment it was not too late for a L21B1a change of call.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2011-December-01, 03:07, said:

They probably had a fair idea when East bid 4♠, at which moment it was not too late for a L21B1a change of call.

I don't see why. 4♠, being a bid of an opponent's suit, sounds like a cue-bid to me. South might find that a bit surprising given the vulnerability and his overall strength, but the obvious explanation from South's point of view is that EW have had a misunderstanding about the strength implied by the double of 4♣ (as, in fact, they had).

This deal isn't a very good advertisement for the EBU's alerting rules, is it?

[gordontd]

mrdct, on 2011-November-30, 19:43, said:

This thread has forced an amendment to my signature and I now vow to never utter the "T" word again!

I didn't understand what your original sig was trying to convey

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2011-December-01, 03:07, said:

barmar, on 2011-November-30, 19:51, said:

The players in the original incident were apparently in the same situation. How could the explainer have known that the opponents didn't understand the explanation until after the fact?

They probably had a fair idea when East bid 4♠, at which moment it was not too late for a L21B1a change of call.

Why would NS have a fair idea when East bid 4♠?

If I would be sitting South, I would think that East was trying to show a control (void) in spades and telling his partner to pick a contract (in a minor) at the 5 or 6 level. If West is somewhat of an overbidder (which he can afford, since the double of 4♣ is 'free'), the auction makes sense and is perfectly possible. I wouldn't hear any alarm bells.

If I would be sitting North, I would think that East has a good hand (just not good enough to act immediately over 2♦) and a spade control. From North's point of view, South could easily have a preemptive hand. Again, I wouldn't hear any alarm bells.

Now, if NS would have known that East bid 4♠, intending it to be natural, then they would have a fair idea that there was something going on. But NS didn't know that. In fact, it is pretty clear that East did not even bid 4♠ as a natural bid. Who would voluntarily bid a 3 card suit at the four level as a suggestion to play there? (Which shows that East understood perfectly well that North had a spade suit.)

The main point of this whole deal is that East-West were not on the same wavelength regarding the double of 4♣. West thought it just showed something in clubs. (This shows that it is likely that West indeed misunderstood the explanation, because the double was probably meant as lead directing. And as West would be on lead himself, after the ask for a transfer, this confirms that West didn't understand the 4♣ bid.) East, on the other hand, thought that the double of 4♣ showed a good hand.

The fact that EW were not on the same wavelength regarding the double of 4♣ was what got EW in this mess. They couldn't stop below 5♣ and went for a number. That's what happens if you are not on the same wavelength with your partner.

The best case that EW can make for the TD is to claim that East understood the explanation whereas West didn't. West could then say that he would never have made a lead directing double, since he would be on lead himself. And that "obviously" meant that the requirements for a double would be much stricter. But it is for EW to come up with this line of argumentation, not for me.

Rik

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2011-December-01, 03:40, said:

This deal isn't a very good advertisement for the EBU's alerting rules, is it?

Yes, it does show up the problem with not alerting above 3NT, as many authorities decree, but we always knew there were circumstances when this might cause trouble.

Personally, although I might make a few more exceptions to it, I think the rule has more advantages than disadvantages. I like that I'm able to make my best guess in murky slam auctions, without having been constrained by UI from partner's alerts.

[Pig Trader]

Trinidad, on 2011-December-01, 03:57, said:

In fact, it is pretty clear that East did not even bid 4♠ as a natural bid. Who would voluntarily bid a 3 card suit at the four level as a suggestion to play there? (Which shows that East understood perfectly well that North had a spade suit.)

East bid 4♠ because she had the idea that South could be bidding pre-empively at the vulnerability and because she thought that partner's double showed a good hand and so they may well be getting talked out of something. East competed because she had some values herself. She chose 4♠ because that was a cheap bid and she didn't have any other suit that was much better. There are certainly flaws in the line of reasoning, which is why I ruled for EW as I did, but that is the reason why she bid 4♠. It is no good saying that East understood perfectly well that North had a spade suit when that is not true.

Trinidad, on 2011-December-01, 03:57, said:

.... this confirms that West didn't understand the 4♣ bid.)

West didn't enquire about the 4♣ bid. East subsequently did.

Trinidad, on 2011-December-01, 03:57, said:

The best case that EW can make for the TD is to claim that East understood the explanation whereas West didn't.

That would be weaving tangled webs. The best case that EW can make is whatever the truth happens to be.

Barrie

[Trinidad]

Sorry that I simply overlooked the possibility that East's 4♠ bid could have been intended as natural.

If the level of some of the players in the Tollemache qualifier is such that they voluntarily introduce three card suits at the four level, wouldn't it be much better to ban the use of the Multi there?

Rik

[Jeremy69A]

Like Pigtrader I have been following this thread with interest. I was the appeal chairman.

1. We would all have liked to ask EW some questions to clarify what was said and why neither of them checked about 4H. They chose not to attend.
2. Both of the pair concerned are experienced and have played in tournaments for a long time but I am quite prepare to believe they haven't come across this method before. Judging by the part of the auction that took place before the disputed call they hadn't spent much time discussing such sequences. Those who don't either play the Multi nor spend time discussing any defence to it often have a problem with sequences such as 2♦No 2♥ 3♥ and the like.
3. At the time we all thought the explanation had been quite clear. EW by their presence might have been able to persuade us that it was not that clear. Whilst I think the Bluejak interpretation is wrong and his objections overstated I now think there is more ambiguity than I did at midnight on Saturday.
4. To me the phrase he "asks me to transfer to my suit has only one interpretation and the number of posters who think it has a second astounds me. In the end it probably comes down to an explanation being given that most would accept to be clear and if the other side stick fingers in their ears and just refuse to listen or understand then that is their own lookout(not that I am suggesting this pair did)
5. It is still my view that the side bidding 4H made a reasonable(but not perfect) effort to explain. Maybe it could have been improved and some suggestions on here might help if they see/read this thread. EW are sufficiently experienced to do some checking and I think they were the architects of their own misfortune.
6. Although it is true that the Tollemache has weaker counties it is the premier county event and the players in it, in my view, should be judged according to that standard even accepting some are clearly better then others.
7. Whatever one thinks of no alerts above 3NT and there are downsides as well as upsides if you KNOW that it is not alerted whatever it means except by misguided souls like Gnasher who say "Don''t care what your rules are I'll do as I want and believe best" then you have, in my view, an additional obligation to do some checking. This is just common sense.

[gnasher]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-December-01, 10:36, said:

misguided souls like Gnasher who say "Don''t care what your rules are I'll do as I want and believe best"

Actually I do very much care what your rules are.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2011-December-01, 11:30, said:

Jeremy69A, on 2011-December-01, 10:36, said:

misguided souls like Gnasher who say "Don''t care what your rules are I'll do as I want and believe best"

Actually I do very much care what your rules are.

I have never met gnasher (at least not as far as I know). But I usually read his contributions with interest. Despite the fact that gnasher and I seem to be on opposite sides of this discussion, I would not accuse him of not caring what the rules are (and I am aware of what he wrote about alerting).

I know some people on this forum who would fit that description, but, IMHO, gnasher is not one of them.

Rik

[dburn]

Only yesterday a very experienced tournament player at my table said of a bid of 2NT that "it asks me to transfer to clubs". Curiously enough, this did not mean that it asked him to bid spades or no trumps in order to show clubs - no, he was meant to bid clubs.

I thought at the time that his usage was a little odd, but I didn't have any trouble accepting it as entirely valid - just as I would accept as entirely valid a request to "transfer to the District Line" as a request to get on a District Line train.

[lamford]

mrdct, on 2011-November-29, 14:28, said:

but it is now evident that amongst lower-skill players in the UK, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book, so it does seem that some extra care is warranted in that part of the world.

I think it is evident that amongst lower-skill players and bluejak, "transfer" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book. Just as it is evident from other threads that amongst lower-skill players and bluejak, "strong" does not have the same meaning as set out in the Orange Book.

[jallerton]

mamos, on 2011-November-28, 18:59, said:

Reluctant as I am to debate rulings and appeals here I do feel that I am moved to comment.

Why are you so reluctant to comment? We would value being able to read your views on Laws & Rulings more often.

[jallerton]

Pig Trader, on 2011-November-29, 09:48, said:

It took a little longer to decide what to do about the score for EW. The double of 4♣ had been intended as lead-directing but East had taken it to show a good hand. East argued that North had shown a weak hand and it was quite possible that South was making some pre-emptive raise. I didn’t consider that the 4♠ bid was WoG but instead that a serious error had occurred. But was this serious error related to the infraction? There was no doubt anywhere that the 4♣ bid was artificial, but that was not the infraction. There is also error by East in that the clear part of the explanation of the 4♣ bid was that South, if he didn’t hold a strong hand, held length in both majors to want to play for 10 tricks in either major. The effect of applying Law 12C1(b) was that EW kept their –1100. One TD at the event and one contributor on this thread suggested that the serious error may be argued to be related to the infraction, and that I was a bit harsh on EW. I did advise EW and their captain of their right to appeal and mentioned that the other side had already appealed and at least one team would have to lose an appeal if they both appealed! The EW team accepted the ruling. As the result of the appeal would not directly affect them, they did not feel the need to represent themselves at the appeal hearing.

You decided that there was an infraction and that East would not have bid 4♠ had the infraction not incurred. On this basis East's bid was directly related to the infraction. Thus it can't possibly be a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". I don't think having a misunderstanding over a sequence your partnership has never seen before can count as "wild or gambling" either.

By the way, South hasn't promised particular length in both majors. He could be 2-2 in the majors with a strong hand if a weak 2 typically delivers a 6-card suit.

[jallerton]

gordontd, on 2011-December-01, 05:56, said:

Yes, it does show up the problem with not alerting above 3NT, as many authorities decree, but we always knew there were circumstances when this might cause trouble.

Personally, although I might make a few more exceptions to it, I think the rule has more advantages than disadvantages. I like that I'm able to make my best guess in murky slam auctions, without having been constrained by UI from partner's alerts.

Did you mean to use the plural of "advantage"? The L&EC minutes did not record why the decision was taken to stop alerting over 3NT. I presume that the rationale was to reduce UI to the bidding side when it has had a misunderstanding (I cannot think of any other advantages, but maybe Gordon or Jeremy can enlighten us). However, this unfortunate practice can give (different) problems to their opponents. If the rules cannot protect both sides, why should they favour the side that does not know its own methods?

[jallerton]

As to the ruling itself, it's always worthwhile looking at the relevant Laws.

Law20F said:

Law20F. Explanation of Calls

1. During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

Law21 said:

LAW 21 - CALL BASED ON MISINFORMATION

A. Call Based on Caller’s Misunderstanding

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

2. When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1 preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

3. When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score.

As there was no instruction to the contrary by the Director, Law 20F required explanations to be given by the partner of the bidder.

Whilst, it is commonly agreed that East didn't understand everything North meant by his explanation of South's 4♣ bid, I believe that East understood (correctly) the meaning of South's bid: that 4♣ was an asking bid which did not show anything in particular. North's duty is to explain the meaning of South's calls. It is not North's duty to explain the meaning of his own prospective calls.

The problem in this case arose because East did not know or understand the meaning of North's 4♥ bid. This was principally because:

(i) a single-suiter in hearts was one of the likely hand types for a 2♦ opener, so it is natural (especially for those who do not play complicated conventions themselves) to assume that a subsequent 4♥ bid shows hearts.

(ii) 4♥ was not alerted.

(iii) East did not ask South to explain the meaning of North's 4♥ bid.

Perhaps one of the L&E members in favour of not alerting surprising conventional bids can confirm, but it appears that there is an onus on East to ask about all calls above 3NT if the meanings thereof may affect her actions. If this is the case, then it seems that it East is the only person who could have acted differently to ascertain the meaning of 4♥, so we have to rule no misinformation from South and no adjustment.

[AlexJonson]

I would have been a sceptic on your Committee, but I think the committee job was done well and I'm surprised it has been accepted(?) with so little grace by some of our TD community.