[hirowla]

---

1NT is 12-14 points
2♦ alerted as a long major
2♥ intended as natural, but alerted as a transfer to ♠. Later it is agreed they have no agreement (one played transfers, one didn't!)

This is a typical club session.

Given the misinformation and UI present, is 3♥ a legal bid? Is pass a logical alternative to 3♥? Are there other logical alternatives to 3♥ which may disallow a subsequent 3♥ bid?

Does your answer change if the 2 ♠ bid is not doubled?

Thanks,

Ian

[Cyberyeti]

If you've made a wto to 2♥, and partner bids, then he has a heart fit so 3♥ is automatic with only a doubleton spade, even more so if you break the wto with shortage rather than length.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if the 2H bidder assumes his partner agrees with 2H as natural and to play,
than 2S should show a max. hand with a good fit.
They have shown a long major, the 2H bid say, they have spades.
The double does not change this assesment.
This logic assumes a certain playing strength, but if we talk about Beginners,
than anything is mood.
-----------
Now given Qx in spades means, the 2H does not hold a max., move the Queen to
another suit, then I would you have to decide between 3H / 4H, ..., and going
with 3H may use the UI.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hirowla]

P_Marlowe, on 2017-July-26, 12:59, said:

Hi,

if the 2H bidder assumes his partner agrees with 2H as natural and to play,
than 2S should show a max. hand with a good fit.
They have shown a long major, the 2H bid say, they have spades.
The double does not change this assesment.
This logic assumes a certain playing strength, but if we talk about Beginners,
than anything is mood.
-----------
Now given Qx in spades means, the 2H does not hold a max., move the Queen to
another suit, then I would you have to decide between 3H / 4H, ..., and going
with 3H may use the UI.

With kind regards
Marlowe

The players weren't beginners but not great players.

I just couldn't think of any bid that the heart bidder could make over 2♠ apart from pass that wasn't suggested by the UI - 3♥ is definitely suggested by the UI but unless there are other possible alternatives you have to allow the call. I know those players wouldn't have been using what you were suggesting.

[barmar]

This seems to come up every time we have a thread about transfer/natural misunderstandings. While experts may use a new suit by opener as some kind of super-accept, the players involved are practically always less experienced and have no such agreements in any analogous auctions. It seems wrong to impose that they interpret this bid that shouldn't even exist in this way. For players like this, if you make a close-out bid and partner bids on, the only possible explanation is that partner didn't understand it, and the UI is superfluous.

[hirowla]

barmar, on 2017-July-27, 23:53, said:

This seems to come up every time we have a thread about transfer/natural misunderstandings. While experts may use a new suit by opener as some kind of super-accept, the players involved are practically always less experienced and have no such agreements in any analogous auctions. It seems wrong to impose that they interpret this bid that shouldn't even exist in this way. For players like this, if you make a close-out bid and partner bids on, the only possible explanation is that partner didn't understand it, and the UI is superfluous.

Hadn't thought of it this way and probably the best explanation I've heard. I will put this in the memory bank for future occurrences, especially because it's happened multiple times and I highly doubt any of the involved pairs would have such an agreement.

Thanks,

Ian

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-July-27, 23:53, said:

This seems to come up every time we have a thread about transfer/natural misunderstandings. While experts may use a new suit by opener as some kind of super-accept, the players involved are practically always less experienced and have no such agreements in any analogous auctions. It seems wrong to impose that they interpret this bid that shouldn't even exist in this way. For players like this, if you make a close-out bid and partner bids on, the only possible explanation is that partner didn't understand it, and the UI is superfluous.

I don't think it is a good idea to rule this way, because it is encouraging people to play things they can't remember. This often damages the opponents, as the explanations are deemed to be correct even when the players have never actually got the method right.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-July-29, 04:54, said:

I don't think it is a good idea to rule this way, because it is encouraging people to play things they can't remember. This often damages the opponents, as the explanations are deemed to be correct even when the players have never actually got the method right.

"Convention disruption"?

Barmar's right. Ruling that a pair have an agreement that they don't have, because they've forgotten their methods, is not right.

The ACBL General Conditions of Contest includes "A partnership is responsible for knowing its methods." Okay, but it specifies no rectification or penalty, so the director is left to his own discretion. IMO a pair trying to learn a new method should be cut some slack, particularly in a club game. Eventually, though, if they continue to have problems, I would suggest to them that they consider dropping it from the card, and warn them if they can't get it right in future, they will receive PPs. And then I would give those PPs.

[barmar]

Right. If we overly penalize players for forgetting conventions, it will dissuade people from trying out new things and growing as bridge players. While there are some LOLs who still play the same as they did 50 years ago, most of us would like the opportunity to experiment. When I play with a new partner, I try to adopt some of their methods, and like to introduce them to some of mine.

[johnu]

blackshoe, on 2017-July-29, 09:16, said:

IMO a pair trying to learn a new method should be cut some slack, particularly in a club game.

IMO, ruling against them or giving them a penalty will help them remember their agreement and that would be a good thing. If a penalty doesn't help them remember, keep on giving them penalties until they remember or go back to something they can remember.

Since I am feeling generous, I would not give them a penalty if they get a bad result after forgetting.

[hirowla]

johnu, on 2017-July-31, 14:10, said:

IMO, ruling against them or giving them a penalty will help them remember their agreement and that would be a good thing. If a penalty doesn't help them remember, keep on giving them penalties until they remember or go back to something they can remember.

Since I am feeling generous, I would not give them a penalty if they get a bad result after forgetting.

But the issue is, you can't penalise them on this auction unless there is a logical alternative to bidding 3H. Otherwise they have done the right thing.

Mind you, on this hand, 3H goes down 1!

[helene_t]

For a good pair, pass is obviously an LA because you have already told partner that you have five hearts, and you have nothing to add.

But for the pair in question, Barmar is probably right.

Have a chat with the two players about their ethical obligations in general. But they got away with it this time.