[lamford]

---

EBU teams qualifier. All four players of a good standard. 2NT was alerted and according to the system file, natural, but North thought it was two places to play. South did not alert 3D, which was systemically a transfer to hearts, as he "thought this would help his partner". NS were able to show that 3NT over 3D was, typically, 1-2 hearts and a desire to play there. South also failed to call the director after the final pass to state that "in his opinion, there was an incorrect alert of 2NT". He was not aware that this was the rule.

West led a top spade, and declarer won with the ace, played a diamond which West ducked and then finessed the club. West continued spades and so the contract made. The TD stated that he polled a number of players and one seriously considered bidding 3H over 2NT. He adjusted the score to 3H-4. Do you agree with the ruling?

[Thanks for fixing, mods; I have clarified that 2NT was alerted]

[Cyberyeti]

Can you also put the hands in not in diagram form so we can comment ?

[Gerardo]

I am to be blamed for the hand not to appear. I think it is fixed now.

[helene_t]

Presumably, the polled players considered accepting the transfer?

No, that doesn't make sense as 3NT was the systematic bid.

But EW may have gotten the defense right if told that the alert was incorrect.

So 3NT-4.

[Tramticket]

There is clearly mis-information, as helene-t notes.

3♦ should have been alerted even if 2NT had been two places to play. But I don't think that North has any real UI.

The alert and explanation of 2NT has created UI for south. Is completing the transfer a logical alternative? The poll suggests that maybe it was a LA, but these type of polls can be problematic if the players polled do not play the methods used. Was the player who would have bid 3♥ made fully aware of the system and its implications and understood that a 2NT transfer break would deny heart support. The trouble is that if you over-emphasise this possibility when polling, you are in danger of leading the response. But assuming that we are happy with the poll, the adjustment to 3♥-4 is a reasonable ruling (particularly as it would lead to a similar ruling as the mis-information - see helene-t's response).

[sanst]

I do agree with 3♥ or 3NT -4, but I won’t stop there. The non-alerts from both N and S are serious offences, which merit a PP on top, at least a warning and a sermon.

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2018-August-22, 02:34, said:

I do agree with 3♥ or 3NT -4, but I won’t stop there. The non-alerts from both N and S are serious offences, which merit a PP on top, at least a warning and a sermon.

The OP says that North alerted 2NT. This alert doesn't merit a PP since he mistakenly thought it was artificial. You don't get a PP for forgetting your system.

I don't understand how the defense could fail to find the heart switch, though. They were told (correctly) that the transfer break implies short hearts, so West knows that his partner has 5-6. The switch would only be fatal if South holds specifically AQ.

[barmar]

BTW, someone needs to take South aside and give him a lesson in disclosure rules.

First, full disclosure trumps avoiding UI. So "thought this would help his partner" is not a valid excuse for failing to alert. It's partner's responsibility to ignore any potential UI from this, not his responsibility to avoid sending it.

Second, if you become the declaring side, you must correct any misinformation before the opening lead is faced. The OP isn't totally clear -- did he fail to correct the MI, or just fail to call the TD before doing so? The latter is quite common; while it's against the Laws, it's not (IMHO) as serious as failing to correct at all. Typically, if the opponents feel that the MI impacted them, they call the TD then and you get the same result as if the TD had been called first.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2018-August-22, 08:47, said:

The OP says that North alerted 2NT.

Unfortunately not, it only says that "North thought it was two places to play."
I too took some time to realise that this must have been an erroneous explanation following an alert.

[helene_t]

 barmar, on 2018-August-22, 08:47, said:

I don't understand how the defense could fail to find the heart switch, though.

They appear not to have been informed about South's heart shortness. Maybe Paul should make it clearer what exactly was said by NS, but if all EW "know" is that S has a two-suiter, it could be hearts and a minor.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2018-August-21, 10:42, said:

EBU teams qualifier. All four players of a good standard. 2NT was, according to the system file, natural, but North thought it was two places to play. South did not alert 3D, which was systemically a transfer to hearts, as he "thought this would help his partner". NS were able to show that 3NT over 3D was, typically, 1-2 hearts and a desire to play there. South also failed to call the director after the final pass to state that "in his opinion, there was an incorrect alert of 2NT". He was not aware that this was the rule.

West led a top spade, and declarer won with the ace, played a diamond which West ducked and finessed the club. West continued spades and so the contract made.

What exactly did N/S say to E/W about their agreements before the opening lead? Did E/W ask any questions or receive any information about the true N/S agreements about the meanings of 3♦and 3NT at this stage?

Quote

The TD stated that he polled a number of players and one seriously considered bidding 3H over 2NT. He adjusted the score to 3H-4. Do you agree with the ruling?

You say that the TD polled a number of players, but do we know roughly how many? Were they all told the actual N/S agreements? When you say that one seriously considered bidding 3♥, what did this person actually choose? What calls did the other polled players seriously consider?

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2018-August-22, 08:47, said:

I don't understand how the defense could fail to find the heart switch, though. They were told (correctly) that the transfer break implies short hearts, so West knows that his partner has 5-6. The switch would only be fatal if South holds specifically AQ.

In the OP there is a lot of thinking going on, but not talking. It says nowhere that EW asked anything, neither that NS explained anything. W would see the hand of N and there’s nothing in it that indicates a transfer to hearts, only a five card diamonds, which N has bid. So W has no reason to switch to hearts. It’s certainly not a serious error, even if you argue that E should have the ace of hearts to have six HCP. W can’t know whether E has any distributional values for his bid, neither that he has six hearts.

[lamford]

 jallerton, on 2018-August-22, 15:14, said:

What exactly did N/S say to E/W about their agreements before the opening lead? Did E/W ask any questions or receive any information about the true N/S agreements about the meanings of 3♦and 3NT at this stage?

Nothing was stated by N/S before the opening lead - a clear infraction. I established that E/W did not ask anything at that time. I think West asked before the spade continuation at trick four, but I don't know what they were told then.

Quote

You say that the TD polled a number of players, but do we know roughly how many? Were they all told the actual N/S agreements? When you say that one seriously considered bidding 3♥, what did this person actually choose? What calls did the other polled players seriously consider?

I don't have the poll results, don't know how many were polled, and don't know if these are on the AC form. I was told that one person considered 3H, but don't know what he or she chose. I don't know whether they were told the N/S agreements.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2018-August-23, 02:50, said:

In the OP there is a lot of thinking going on, but not talking. It says nowhere that EW asked anything, neither that NS explained anything. W would see the hand of N and there’s nothing in it that indicates a transfer to hearts, only a five card diamonds, which N has bid. So W has no reason to switch to hearts. It’s certainly not a serious error, even if you argue that E should have the ace of hearts to have six HCP. W can’t know whether E has any distributional values for his bid, neither that he has six hearts.

I agree there is no serious error, as the bar for that is very high. I can only guess a little at the gaps, but I do know that the adjustment was to 3H-4, and was appealed by NS, who lost their deposit and also NS were fined 1 VP.

If, and this is a big if, the facts are as reported (and I was not even present at the event), I do not agree with the adjustment to 3H-4. North polled 12 experts including Zia, all of who bid 3NT using those methods. However, I would have adjusted to 3NTx-4, with South announcing that, in his opinion, his 2NT should not have been alerted (he knew that it was natural and was able to show the system file which showed that). He should also have called the TD and told him that 3D should have been alerted. East would get his last bid back and would double to ask for a heart lead. I would still impose the 1 VP fine on NS, but, oddly, I would return the deposit because I would change the score from 3H-4 to 3NTx-4. Needless to say I would not have appealed as NS, unless I felt particularly masochistic, or thought that the TD had been unduly generous in awarding me 3H-4.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-August-23, 07:50, said:

I agree there is no serious error, as the bar for that is very high. I can only guess a little at the gaps, but I do know that the adjustment was to 3H-4, and was appealed by NS, who lost their deposit and also NS were fined 1 VP.

If, and this is a big if, the facts are as reported (and I was not even present at the event), I do not agree with the adjustment to 3H-4. North polled 12 experts including Zia, all of who bid 3NT using those methods. However, I would have adjusted to 3NTx-4, with South commenting that, in his opinion, his 2NT should not have been alerted (he knew that it was natural and was able to show the system file which showed that). He should also have called the TD and told him that 3D should have been alerted. East would get his last bid back and double to ask for a heart lead. I would still impose the 1 VP fine on EW, but, oddly, I would return the deposit because I would change the score from 3H-4 to 3NTx-4. Needless to say I would not have appealed as NS, unless I felt particularly masochistic, or thought that the TD had been unduly generous in awarding me 3H-4.

Do NS lose their deposit if the ruling is changed from 3♥-4 to 3N-4 and this is considered absolutely obvious ? When 3N is doubled for a heart lead, everybody in this world pulls to 4♣.

[barmar]

 pescetom, on 2018-August-22, 15:00, said:

Unfortunately not, it only says that "North thought it was two places to play."
I too took some time to realise that this must have been an erroneous explanation following an alert.

It says:

Quote

South also failed to call the director after the final pass to state that "in his opinion, there was an incorrect alert of 2NT".

I interpreted that as meaning that there was an alert of 2NT, but it was incorrect to alert it because he thought the agreement was that it's natural.

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-23, 08:02, said:

Do NS lose their deposit if the ruling is changed from 3♥-4 to 3N-4 and this is considered absolutely obvious ? When 3N is doubled for a heart lead, everybody in this world pulls to 4♣.

To pull would be using the UI from the alert that North does not have five hearts however. With a double spade stop, South might well survive a heart lead, say that North has xx JTxxx Qxx Kxx. But we would poll again with the information that partner did not alert 2NT, showed five hearts and passed 3NT. Maybe the adjustment should be to 3NTxx-4 if an expressing doubt redouble is an LA. That then has to be chosen to avoid taking ANY advantage of the UI.

For some reason, TDs and ACs never seem to adjust to redoubled contracts!

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2018-August-23, 08:39, said:

I interpreted that as meaning that there was an alert of 2NT, but it was incorrect to alert it because he thought the agreement was that it's natural.

That is correct.

[Cyberyeti]

 lamford, on 2018-August-25, 12:00, said:

To pull would be using the UI from the alert that North does not have five hearts however. With a double spade stop, South might well survive a heart lead, say that North has xx JTxxx Qxx Kxx. But we would poll again with the information that partner did not alert 2NT, showed five hearts and passed 3NT. Maybe the adjustment should be to 3NTxx-4 if an expressing doubt redouble is an LA. That then has to be chosen to avoid taking ANY advantage of the UI.

For some reason, TDs and ACs never seem to adjust to redoubled contracts!

Of course it isn't using UI, the implication is that N's 5 card heart suit is weak and E's is strong. More likely he has xx, Qxxxx(x), xx(x), Kxx(x) and 4♣ is = or -1 while 3N is -3 or 4

[lamford]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-25, 12:59, said:

Of course it isn't using UI, the implication is that N's 5 card heart suit is weak and E's is strong. More likely he has xx, Qxxxx(x), xx(x), Kxx(x) and 4♣ is = or -1 while 3N is -3 or 4

East might well be doubling because a heart lead is safe, and he does not have a spade honour - indeed he might well double with KJ of hearts so that his partner does not blow a trick on the lead. Anyway the correct method is to poll - a tiresome task indeed - to find out how many would double and how many would run. We can have a weighted score of 3NT-4, 3NTx-4. I think that if running from 3NTx is not the only LA, then it is demonstrably suggested.