[Antrax]

The jurisdiction is Israel, the relevant rule is that you announce "transfer" for major-suit transfers over NT.

1NT - X - 2D - P
2H  - P - P  - X
P   - P - 3D - AP

2D was not announced as a transfer. The 1NT opener had 4♦ and 3♥. The ♦ bidder had 3♥ and 5♦. Their agreement was that transfers are off in competition.
Has any foul play likely to have taken place?

[blackshoe]

On the evidence presented, no.

[Vampyr]

 Antrax, on 2013-February-09, 23:02, said:

The jurisdiction is Israel, the relevant rule is that you announce "transfer" for major-suit transfers over NT.

1NT - X - 2D - P
2H  - P - P  - X
P   - P - 3D - AP

2D was not announced as a transfer. The 1NT opener had 4♦ and 3♥. The ♦ bidder had 3♥ and 5♦. Their agreement was that transfers are off in competition.
Has any foul play likely to have taken place?

Well. The opening bidder has no UI as such; his partner's 3♦ bid "woke him up" as to their actual agreement, but I think that you can be "woken up" if you have no UI.

Does responder have UI? The lack of announcement makes this a bit strange, but it is equally strange for a 1NT opener to bid 2♥ over a 2♦ weak takeout. However, it is not impossible -- opener has 5 super hearts and a small doubleton diamond (or maybe he opened just this once with a singleton?) and thought hearts would play better, as he might not be able to enjoy the hearts in a diamond contract. Also maybe it was matchpoints and he wanted the higher-scoring partscore if it made. Of course the fact that opener bid 2♥ very strongly suggests that partner thought it was a transfer, but information from the legal auction cannot be UI. There is also AI from the double being left in...

Anyway responder acted as if he were taking UI into account, certainly, when he corrected to diamonds at a higher level.

So, yes, I believe that something fishy is going on here. Why was the presumed transfer not announced? Was opener not sure and wanted to hedge his bets, and was trying not to give his partner UI? I don't know what the ruling is, but it is obviously unjust to give the OS a more favourable ruling because they did NOT announce what they treated as a transfer.

Too bad the opponents doubled, which is what makes the whole thing confusing.

[Antrax]

Quote

Why was the presumed transfer not announced?

Because almost nobody follows procedure here (either the country or the club, not sure yet). It's not uncommon for pairs to not announce what they consider obvious. The corollary is that pairs often explain without being asked if their bids are "surprisingly natural".
The balancing X was takeout, I passed with AQTxx of hearts and a fair idea of what's going on. The result was good enough as it was, so no real damage was inflicted.

[Vampyr]

 Antrax, on 2013-February-09, 23:41, said:

Because almost nobody follows procedure here (either the country or the club, not sure yet). It's not uncommon for pairs to not announce what they consider obvious. The corollary is that pairs often explain without being asked if their bids are "surprisingly natural".
The balancing X was takeout, I passed with AQTxx of hearts and a fair idea of what's going on. The result was good enough as it was, so no real damage was inflicted.

Fair enough. Perhaps a procedural penalty will convince this pair that if you and partner aren't even on the same wavelenghth, it is not "obvious".

[barmar]

This raises an interesting question. The Law says that UI comes from an "unexpected" alert or non-alert. Apparently in this environment, either can be considered expected: alerting transfers is expected because it's the rule, but not alerting is expected because almost nobody follows the rule.

[blackshoe]

I suppose if almost nobody follows the rule, then an alert is only almost expected.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2013-February-10, 13:35, said:

This raises an interesting question. The Law says that UI comes from an "unexpected" alert or non-alert. Apparently in this environment, either can be considered expected: alerting transfers is expected because it's the rule, but not alerting is expected because almost nobody follows the rule.

This is a real problem. Player education seems to be called for.

[Cyberyeti]

I can see that you announce 1N-P-2♦(hearts) but are you sure 1N-X-2♦(hearts) is an announce rather than alert, I believe in the UK even though you announce the first auction it's an alert for the second.

It appears responder is removing a "known" 5-3 fit into a possible 5-2 (or 5-1), but there is no UI other than possibly by body language. Absent any suggestion of body language or tempo issues I can't see that you can adjust.

[helene_t]

If anything, the failure to announce suggests that opener understood that 2♦ was natural. So if responder has an ethical obligation is is to bid based on the assumption that 2♦ was understood as a transfer. This is going very far since their actual agreement was to play it as natural.

But I think that responder did exactly that. Assuming that 2♦ is understood as a transfer, it is best to pass 2♥ and hope it gets doubled (otherwise, "no double no trouble" might apply), then when you bid 3♦ partner will surely get the message. 3♦ immidiately is more dangerous, it might be taken as GF with red suits.

This is becoming a tweeked argument but the bottom line is that responder did the ethical thing.

[MickyB]

Presumably opener wasn't sure whether 2D was natural or a transfer. If he's not sure which it is, what is he supposed to do in terms of alerting/announcing? If he was supposed to alert, then hasn't he gained an advantage from ignoring the alerting regs? He's basically made sure the UI his partner has received permits him to correct back to 3D.

[Fluffy]

opener is suposed to alert if he doesn't know, since one of the possible meanings is artificial. I have this problem often when I partner godzilla and he bids whatever after they overcall my 1NT opening, from my experience he can have any suit, including the one opponents have shown on the overcall.

[Zelandakh]

I would alert because one of the potential meanings is alertable. An explanation along the lines of "A 2♦ bid without a double would be a transfer but we have not agreed anything here" should do he trick. And yes, this does seem to have controlled the UI that partner received to allow the correction. In effect, the non-alert and 2♥ bid told Responder that Opener was not sure of the agreement without giving UI, whereas playing strictly by the rules would send the message but add UI constraints. Looked at this way, it makes me a little uneasy.

[blackshoe]

Quote

OB 5B4: Alert or announce any of partner’s calls believed to be alertable or announceable even if the meaning cannot be explained.

Quote

OB5B10: A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player’s partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

Also

Quote

OB5C5: Red suit transfers, ie ♦ to ♥ and ♥ to ♠, are announced, but only in response to a natural 1NT opening where there has been no intervention, and where the transfer shows at least five cards in the major suit concerned.

[Vampyr]

 MickyB, on 2013-February-15, 08:30, said:

Presumably opener wasn't sure whether 2D was natural or a transfer. If he's not sure which it is, what is he supposed to do in terms of alerting/announcing? If he was supposed to alert, then hasn't he gained an advantage from ignoring the alerting regs? He's basically made sure the UI his partner has received permits him to correct back to 3D.

This is what I was trying to get at in my first post; I wish I had been able to state it as clearly and concisely as this.

The UI is "backwards" and so is more difficult to recognise, leading to comments like the following:

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-09, 23:24, said:

On the evidence presented, no.

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-February-15, 04:04, said:

Absent any suggestion of body language or tempo issues I can't see that you can adjust.

 helene_t, on 2013-February-15, 08:12, said:

This is becoming a tweeked argument but the bottom line is that responder did the ethical thing.

Opener was hedging his bets by manipulating the alerting process. Was he asked why he didn't alert, and yet accepted the "transfer"? Or how he felt about the PP he surely received?

[Antrax]

(I don't know if there's even such a thing as a PP here. I've never seen one being given, and this week I've been witness to someone telling their partner "no, don't alert this bid, it's natural" during the auction)

[bluejak]

 MickyB, on 2013-February-15, 08:30, said:

Presumably opener wasn't sure whether 2D was natural or a transfer. If he's not sure which it is, what is he supposed to do in terms of alerting/announcing? If he was supposed to alert, then hasn't he gained an advantage from ignoring the alerting regs? He's basically made sure the UI his partner has received permits him to correct back to 3D.

I never like the imputations made in various posts. Like many ethical players I alert as I believe correct at the time and presume my partner will look after his/her own ethics as far as UI is concerned. If you then tell me one of my alerts/non-alerts has made sure my partner has UI which allows him/her to get it right both my partner and I shall be seriously upset and feel deeply insulted.

There is no doubt in some situations an alert can help an unethical partnership. I would strongly prefer that posters here do not assume without some other evidence that such an alert is made for any other reason than that the player believes the call to be alertable.

[TimG]

 Antrax, on 2013-February-09, 23:02, said:

The jurisdiction is Israel, the relevant rule is that you announce "transfer" for major-suit transfers over NT.

1NT - X - 2D - P
2H  - P - P  - X
P   - P - 3D - AP

2D was not announced as a transfer. The 1NT opener had 4♦ and 3♥. The ♦ bidder had 3♥ and 5♦. Their agreement was that transfers are off in competition.
Has any foul play likely to have taken place?

I don't quite understand what the UI would be. The agreement is that 2D is not a transfer and there was no alert/announcement that would suggest to responder that opener had forgotten their agreement.

It appears to me that responder has used general bridge knowledge, perhaps specific to the locale, that the regulation to announce such transfers are often overlooked and opener may have done just that. The penalty double (or penalty pass) may well have added to the body of evidence. But, bottom line: I see no UI.

[Zelandakh]

Sorry David, I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you suggesting that Opener did indeed take the 2♦ bid as natural and decided to introduce a 3 card heart suit as a psyche or misbid? Or rather that they thought 2♦ was a transfer, or might be a transfer, but thought that this counted as a natural bid? I assume that you would rule that West should alert under EBU rules if they are going to bid 2♥, no? Obviously Israeli rules may well be different but it seems clear that either an alert or an announcement should be given if Opener thinks the agreement is that 2♦ shows, or may show, hearts.

[MickyB]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-18, 05:33, said:

I never like the imputations made in various posts. Like many ethical players I alert as I believe correct at the time and presume my partner will look after his/her own ethics as far as UI is concerned. If you then tell me one of my alerts/non-alerts has made sure my partner has UI which allows him/her to get it right both my partner and I shall be seriously upset and feel deeply insulted.

There is no doubt in some situations an alert can help an unethical partnership. I would strongly prefer that posters here do not assume without some other evidence that such an alert is made for any other reason than that the player believes the call to be alertable.

I would strongly prefer that posters here do not assume things which have not been said. While it is possible to read what I wrote in that fashion, and I could have chosen better wording, I would also be capable of making it much more clear if I wished to state that I felt opener had been deliberately unethical.