[mr1303]

My partner has a severe problem in remembering our 1NT structure. We play 4 suit transfers, so that Stayman followed by 2NT is the natural invite, non-promissory.

The trouble is that she always forgets that 1NT - 2NT is a transfer to diamonds. She forgets this so much that I can't remember the last time she actually had diamonds when making this bid.

As a result, we have the auction 1NT - 2NT - 3C/D - 3NT on average once per night. I now have taken to alerting the 3NT bid as "oops I forgot" rather than a mild slam try with diamonds.

Surprisingly I haven't had a director call on this one. Any suggestions on what the correct thing to do in this situation is?

[helene_t]

"Oops I forgot" is fine but if you know she forgets more often or not, it is not correct to explain 2N as a transfers to diamonds.

I would scrap the convention btw. It is not essential, and conventions which one p is prone to forget surely don't pay off.

[jdonn]

Regardless of your legal obligations, just do yourself a giant favor and stop playing them.

[blackshoe]

Does she remember to alert 1NT-2♣-2any-2NT?

I see 3 options:
1. Work with partner on her memory problem. Not sure how best to go about that.
2. Don't play four suit transfers.
3. Don't play with this partner.

At some point, you have to recognize that whatever you think your agreement is, she thinks 2NT is natural. And probably always will. Since (in most places, anyway) you can't have different agreements depending on who is bidding, you might as well just take option 2 and forget about four suit transfers. When this first started happening, you got to a point where explaining "she forgot" was the right thing to do, but it sounds like you're beyond that point now.

[Phil]

This is a common problem with my partners.

Switching back to 2N as natural isn't an automatic solution, since she may forget the other way.

1N - 2N (from you)

um, er, alert. I can't remember but I think this is diamonds.

[blackshoe]

Phil, if that did happen, it probably wouldn't last. Either way, if the system card is clearly marked, it should be less of a problem. If it did become a lasting problem, then I think my option three is the only viable one.

[NickRW]

If you want to continue with this partner, I recommend the partnership bidding facility on line.

[EricK]

Can you and your partner not take an afternoon to just practice your NT structure? There are programs available which can easily generate a large number of hands fitting the auction 1NT (P), keep bidding them (half with her as the 1NT bidder, half with her as the responder) until your partner remembers the structure.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Regardless of your legal obligations, just do yourself a giant favor and stop playing them.

i agree with Josh. why expose your partner to the stress of forgetting this part of the system (when the gain isn't likely that big) and frustrate yourself at the same time. Simplify your methods.

[jdonn]

Btw quick story. In the 2004 world junior pairs championships, I played one round against Joel Wooldridge who had agreed to play with a beginner. Joel opened 1NT and his partner bid 2NT which Joel alerted. Joel bid 3NT all pass, and when the lead was on the table we asked what it was he said it was a transfer to diamonds but his partner forgot. Sure enough dummy was a balanced 8 count or so. I asked how he knew, and he flashed me the AKQJTx of diamonds.

[Echognome]

Just play 1N - 2N as either a transfer to diamonds or a natural invite. It's not a very good system, but covers you in either case.

If your partner forgets often, I would alert her 2NT as "transfer to diamonds, but partner often forgets, so may be a natural invite." Then as she hears that explanation enough, she may tell you that she hasn't forgotten in awhile and to start explaining it as a transfer to diamonds.

[quiddity]

Echognome, on Jun 10 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

If your partner forgets often, I would alert her 2NT as "transfer to diamonds, but partner often forgets, so may be a natural invite."

Yes, public humiliation is so often the right answer to partnership difficulties.

[blackshoe]

I suppose that if partner has forgotten often enough to change your implicit agreement you could say "nominally transfer to diamonds, but probably natural" or some such, thereby avoiding the dread words "partner forgets", but if the opponents ask for more info, it's probably going to come out anyway.

More I think on it, the more I think that as soon as it gets to the level of implicit agreement I'm gonna sit down with partner and decide what we're going to do about it. If we decide not to play four suit transfers, then there's no problem (unless partner forgets that, as someone suggested up thread). If partner insists he won't forget again, I'll warn him that if he does, I will thenceforth inform the opponents of that tendency in future explanations. If he finds that humiliating, it's his own fault.

[Cascade]

I think you have a legal obligation to accept the slam try on suitable hands.

As an aside, after you do this a few times your partner will start remembering or suggest changing your agreements.

[the hog]

I definitely don't think you should say that partner forgot. However, if you have a suitable hand then I agree that you should do as Wayne suggests in the above post.

[gnasher]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

I think you have a legal obligation to accept the slam try on suitable hands.

Under which Law?

[Cascade]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 07:57 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

I think you have a legal obligation to accept the slam try on suitable hands.

Under which Law?

Law 16 - but it appears that I have forgotten or not caught up with the new laws on this matter.

Although when I looked this up it appears to have had a major revision in the 2007 which makes partner's tendancies to be authorized - information known before the start of the hand.

"A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board
(including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by
unauthorized information from another source; or
( it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see D); or
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be
authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal
procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1
following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand
from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this
information."

This was as follows in the 1997 laws:

"Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls
and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other
extraneous information may be an infraction of law."

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

I think you have a legal obligation to accept the slam try on suitable hands.

I don't think so (and I wouldn't interpret the old law so either).

Partner's tendencies is not extraneous information. It is a (possibly undisclosed) de-facto agreement.

However with some partners I have often received UI that p forgot an agreement by means of a facial expression in reaction to my alert, in that case of course I would have to bid on after 3NT.

[gnasher]

The knowledge of partner's habits, ability and memory isn't "extraneous", so under the old laws you would also have been entitled to play for partner to have misbid, provided that you disclosed the implicit agreement properly.

By way of corroboration, consider this: The English Bridge Union sometimes penalise a player for intentionally fielding a misbid. They justify this by assuming that such fielding results from an implicit agreement, saying that the agreement hasn't been properly disclosed, and penalising the partnership for having a concealed partnership understanding. If there were a Law that said you can't intentionally field a misbid, there would be no need for such sophistry.

[y66]

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Btw quick story. In the 2004 world junior pairs championships, I played one round against Joel Wooldridge who had agreed to play with a beginner. Joel opened 1NT and his partner bid 2NT which Joel alerted. Joel bid 3NT all pass, and when the lead was on the table we asked what it was he said it was a transfer to diamonds but his partner forgot. Sure enough dummy was a balanced 8 count or so. I asked how he knew, and he flashed me the AKQJTx of diamonds.