[pescetom]

Vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable, my partner in North [edit: was erroneously written South] opens a strong 1NT. East interferes 2♥, alerted and explained by West as "transfer to spades" - to East's evident consternation. Holding a weak hand with 5 clubs, I pass. West now looks very uncomfortable and after a long pause he passes too. I consider calling the TD, but it's the last game of an uninspired night and TD is in a foul mood, so I leave it up to partner who passes too. They go on to make 2♥ where 2♠ would have gone down and 3♣ on our side might have made.

I was wondering what should have happened here in a more orthodox setting. I assume I could reserve my rights about the UI supplied by East and the pass of West which was demonstrably suggested over the LA of completing the transfer. I also think that East would be obliged to call the TD at the end of the auction, and imagine that after the game we would be entitled to an adjusted score. But could/should I call the TD myself before even bidding over 2♥? If I were to call the TD at that moment, could/should he discover the real agreement of EW in the presence of NS and give any indications about successive bidding to West and East?

More in general, is it legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation then any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement?

[blackshoe]

Law 16 says that when a player has done something that might convey unauthorized information to his partner, either opponent may ('may' means he doesn't have to, and if he doesn't do that, he has done nothing wrong) reserve his right to call the director later. Many people feel that saying "I reserve my right to call the director later" is rude or confrontational, and will use and recommend a different procedure: ask the opponents if they agree that UI may have been passed. I don't agree that following the correct procedure to the letter is rude or confrontational, but I've recommended it myself. I'm all for keeping the agita to a minimum. Continuing, if the opponents do not agree, they are supposed to call the director. But they don't. :-(

Reserving a right does not mean that not reserving it gives it up. You always have the right to call the director if later you perceive damage to your side through possible use of UI. But the problem is this: if you don't say anything at the time, and later call the director, and the opponents insist that whatever thing you think passed UI never happened, the director is kinda stuck. "He said, she said" situations are very hard to adjudicate, and whichever way the director rules, somebody is going to think he got screwed. The lawmakers decided that it's better to resolve this question when it first pops up, rather than later, and to put the onus on the alleged offending side to call him. I emphasize that last because it implies that if they don't call, they don't disagree with the allegation. So now, when he's called later to rule on "did they use UI?" he can rule, because they didn't call, that the alleged UI-passing action did happen. But almost nobody understands this. What usually happens is that when the opponents do not (willfully or through ignorance, it doesn't matter) comply with the law, the onus in practice (and wrongly IMO) shifts to the "non-offending" side. If I were directing, I wouldn't allow that, but other directors will.

In the instant case, it seems evident that East believes that West's explanation of East's call is incorrect. In that case, he is obliged by Law 20F5 to call the director at the appropriate time, which for the declaring side is "after the final pass of the auction".

If the TD is called (whoever calls him) at the time the UI is allegedly passed, he will rule on that question, and if he rules that it was, will explain the ramifications of that to East (see Law 16B1{a}), specifically that he cannot choose a call or play if that choice is demonstrably suggested by the UI and there is a logical alternative. That is the only "indication about successive bidding" he will give to EW.

It is not legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement. They may play some kind of super accept. Note that a super accept would generally require an alert (that's a matter of regulation, not law, and will vary according to jurisdiction).

[weejonnie]

"More in general, is it legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation then any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement? "

Also, of course, the partner of the player making the transfer could have a large number of cards in the suit called and a void in the suit to be transferred to.

I think Blackshoe has given a pretty thorough explanation of the appropriate parts of law 16 and law 20.

A few other comments.

When there is Misleading Information (MI) there is almost always unauthorised information (UI). In this case whether there is MI depends on the partnership agreements. If 2♥ = transfer to spades is the partnership agreement then there is no MI - and your side would have no right for an adjusted score under this section of the law. If the call is not a transfer then East "must call the Director" - after the final pass of the auction. (If West realises he has given an incorrect explanation then he "must summon the director" before the end of the clarification period and correct it (he can do so earlier but is not obliged to do so). The director can give the defender who made the last pass the opportunity to change his mind, if the director believes that the decision to do so as a result of receiving the correct information. Regrettably there is nothing that you can do in the auction at the table - but the TD should find out (before the play period) whether you would have changed your call had you been given the correct information. Atthat moment you have no idea whether 3♣ would score better - and just because opponents make an infraction does not give you automatically the right to the optimum contract.

(Now you can see why directors can get grumpy. MI and UI cases take a lot of sorting out)

The laws of bridge define various words used in procedures e.g. "may = not to do so is not wrong", "should - a breach may prejudice a player's right, but not often penalised", "shall - a breach of which should result in being penalised", and "must - the strongest word, a serious matter indeed".

Now we come to the UI aspect:As mentioned above if you suspect that the opponents have UI then you may mention it at the time (or call the TD if your RA insists on it) - this is not an accusation of cheating, it is to let the other side know that you consider the position to be one in which there is UI. Assuming you do this and the TD accepts there is UI then he will ascertain.

"What was the UI?" - in this case East's grimace
"What does the UI demonstrably suggest?" - in this case that the 2♥ call is intended to be natural and that passing may work to the advantage of the pair.
"Is there a logical alternative?" - in this case (Unless West has lots of hearts) there is a clear logical alternative in completing the transfer (or making a super-accept, if that is available and appropriate).

If all those apply then the TD will consider what would happen without the UI - he might decide that the final contract would be 2♠, he might decide that you might compete to 3♣ (or give a bit of the result for each option). He may find out that (after 2♥ : P : 2♠ East should raise partner's presumed spade suit and the final contract might be 3♠ or 4♠, possibly doubled. Without the hands all this is speculation.

[axman]

pescetom, on 2018-November-21, 11:12, said:

Vulnerable vs. non-vulnerable, my partner in South opens a strong 1NT. East interferes 2♥, alerted and explained by West as "transfer to spades" - to East's evident consternation. Holding a weak hand with 5 clubs, I pass. West now looks very uncomfortable and after a long pause he passes too. I consider calling the TD, but it's the last game of an uninspired night and TD is in a foul mood, so I leave it up to partner who passes too. They go on to make 2♥ where 2♠ would have gone down and 3♣ on our side might have made.

I was wondering what should have happened here in a more orthodox setting. I assume I could reserve my rights about the UI supplied by East and the pass of West which was demonstrably suggested over the LA of completing the transfer. I also think that East would be obliged to call the TD at the end of the auction, and imagine that after the game we would be entitled to an adjusted score. But could/should I call the TD myself before even bidding over 2♥? If I were to call the TD at that moment, could/should he discover the real agreement of EW in the presence of NS and give any indications about successive bidding to West and East?

More in general, is it legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation then any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement?

1N-nc-nc-2H-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P
which rule book are you using?

[barmar]

axman, on 2018-November-21, 15:28, said:

1N-nc-nc-2H-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P
which rule book are you using?

Which is why it's generally best to use the hand diagram tool rather than describing the auction in text.

[pescetom]

axman, on 2018-November-21, 15:28, said:

1N-nc-nc-2H-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P-nc-nc-P
which rule book are you using?

1NT-(2♥)-P-(P)-P is the bidding, partner in North, sorry.

Thanks to blackshoe and weejonnie for exceptionally clear replies.
Some comments follow.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-21, 13:51, said:

Law 16 says that when a player has done something that might convey unauthorized information to his partner, either opponent may ('may' means he doesn't have to, and if he doesn't do that, he has done nothing wrong) reserve his right to call the director later. Many people feel that saying "I reserve my right to call the director later" is rude or confrontational, and will use and recommend a different procedure: ask the opponents if they agree that UI may have been passed. I don't agree that following the correct procedure to the letter is rude or confrontational, but I've recommended it myself. I'm all for keeping the agita to a minimum. Continuing, if the opponents do not agree, they are supposed to call the director. But they don't. :-(

My feeling (and perhaps that of others) is not that saying "I reserve my right to call the director later" is rude or confrontational, but rather that it is cryptic and reticent: a player not versed in the laws might not recognise that I am effectively asserting that he made UI available or that by not summoning the Director he tacitly agrees to this assertion. So I would first ask if they agree and if they say yes then reserve my right, otherwise decide whether to call the Director or let it drop.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-21, 15:20, said:

When there is Misleading Information (MI) there is almost always unauthorised information (UI). In this case whether there is MI depends on the partnership agreements. If 2♥ = transfer to spades is the partnership agreement then there is no MI - and your side would have no right for an adjusted score under this section of the law. If the call is not a transfer then East "must call the Director" - after the final pass of the auction. (If West realises he has given an incorrect explanation then he "must summon the director" before the end of the clarification period and correct it (he can do so earlier but is not obliged to do so). The director can give the defender who made the last pass the opportunity to change his mind, if the director believes that the decision to do so as a result of receiving the correct information.

The real agreement was no agreement, in that they hadn't discussed it. West had no reason to expect a transfer except that he had that agreement with some other partners. East is notorious for a very natural bidding style and West should have known this. I imagine that this situation is equivalent to having an agreement that it is natural.

weejonnie, on 2018-November-21, 15:20, said:

Regrettably there is nothing that you can do in the auction at the table - but the TD should find out (before the play period) whether you would have changed your call had you been given the correct information. Atthat moment you have no idea whether 3♣ would score better - and just because opponents make an infraction does not give you automatically the right to the optimum contract.
.....
.....
"What does the UI demonstrably suggest?" - in this case that the 2♥ call is intended to be natural and that passing may work to the advantage of the pair.
"Is there a logical alternative?" - in this case (Unless West has lots of hearts) there is a clear logical alternative in completing the transfer (or making a super-accept, if that is available and appropriate).

If all those apply then the TD will consider what would happen without the UI - he might decide that the final contract would be 2♠, he might decide that you might compete to 3♣ (or give a bit of the result for each option). He may find out that (after 2♥ : P : 2♠ East should raise partner's presumed spade suit and the final contract might be 3♠ or 4♠, possibly doubled. Without the hands all this is speculation.

Makes sense, and it is intriguing what might have happened. Unfortunately I don't have the hands and some time has passed too - I'll see if I can find them tonight.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-21, 13:51, said:

It is not legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement. They may play some kind of super accept. Note that a super accept would generally require an alert (that's a matter of regulation, not law, and will vary according to jurisdiction).

It seems reasonable to me not to alert the fact that a transfer may be super-accepted: it's a common agreement and doesn't change the opponent's options much anyway. But maybe the inferences available from a transfer completed without super-accept should be divulged - people look puzzled if you do, though.

weejonnie, on 2018-November-21, 15:20, said:

Also, of course, the partner of the player making the transfer could have a large number of cards in the suit called and a void in the suit to be transferred to.

In which case he can pass? And they can still just call it "transfer", like a transfer to a balanced hand known to have some support? I guess one can recognise the different context, but I still think it would be better to explain "transfer to xxx, non-forcing" or similar.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-November-23, 09:09, said:

It seems reasonable to me not to alert the fact that a transfer may be super-accepted: it's a common agreement and doesn't change the opponent's options much anyway. But maybe the inferences available from a transfer completed without super-accept should be divulged - people look puzzled if you do, though.



In which case he can pass? And they can still just call it "transfer", like a transfer to a balanced hand known to have some support? I guess one can recognise the different context, but I still think it would be better to explain "transfer to xxx, non-forcing" or similar.

No doubt some hands can be constructed where the fact that a player does NOT make a super-accept materially affects the auction - A player might be more willing to make a borderline penalty double if they know that there definitely isn't a super-accept opposite. I do alert my partner's completion of transfers, stating that we have a super-accept available, if asked.

To quote Terence Reese, "A convention is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents." - If a player passes a transfer then that is a private matter between him and his partner. (Unless there is UI of course). Since players are entitled to full details of partnership agreements then I would agree (providing that IS the agreement) that if any bid potentially unexpectedly is or isn't forcing should be declared. That still does not prevent partner from passing a forcing bid, of course (again assuming no UI) - this often happens after a psych.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-November-23, 08:30, said:

The real agreement was no agreement, in that they hadn't discussed it. West had no reason to expect a transfer except that he had that agreement with some other partners. East is notorious for a very natural bidding style and West should have known this. I imagine that this situation is equivalent to having an agreement that it is natural.


Makes sense, and it is intriguing what might have happened. Unfortunately I don't have the hands and some time has passed too - I'll see if I can find them tonight.

Actually the laws are clear: If there is no agreement (West thought they played transfers, East thought the bid was natural) then, if the fact isn't announced, the TD makes a ruling based on what the opponents would do if they knew there was no agreement, so the situation isn't equivalent to having an agreement that it is natural. (Law 75D which was added last year as an aid to TDs handling this situation). (This is the MI aspect of the problem, not the UI which is dealt with separately.)

[blackshoe]

I think that if you play super-accepts, and you transfer, whatever partner bids probably should be alerted. For example, this set of agreements: completing the transfer says either "I have two card support" or "I do not have a maximum 1NT opener"; bidding 2NT says "I have a maximum and three card support"; bidding 3M says "I have a maximum and four card support". All three of these bids arguably should be alerted (under ACBL rules).

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-November-24, 00:48, said:

I think that if you play super-accepts, and you transfer, whatever partner bids probably should be alerted. For example, this set of agreements: completing the transfer says either "I have two card support" or "I do not have a maximum 1NT opener"; bidding 2NT says "I have a maximum and three card support"; bidding 3M says "I have a maximum and four card support". All three of these bids arguably should be alerted (under ACBL rules).

Precisely. And the Laws say that the opponent is entitled to know about relevant alternative calls available that were not made and about inferences, at least when he requests an explanation, so the RAs would seem bound to make such bids alertable.
Our regulations currently maintain a good old-fashioned "anything not natural must be alerted" approach, so there should be no question, but in practice people rarely alert "normal" completion of a transfer even if it precisely defines HCP and suit length.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-23, 15:40, said:

Actually the laws are clear: If there is no agreement (West thought they played transfers, East thought the bid was natural) then, if the fact isn't announced, the TD makes a ruling based on what the opponents would do if they knew there was no agreement, so the situation isn't equivalent to having an agreement that it is natural. (Law 75D which was added last year as an aid to TDs handling this situation). (This is the MI aspect of the problem, not the UI which is dealt with separately.)

Oh dear, I missed that one. I can see that it might be a relief to TDs, but it seems rather unfair to the opponents - if I understand rightly, the most they can hope for is an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had they been informed that there was no agreement, rather than (say) the likely outcome had the miscreants passed or made another call that had an agreed meaning and was a logical alternative.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-November-23, 07:55, said:

My feeling (and perhaps that of others) is not that saying "I reserve my right to call the director later" is rude or confrontational, but rather that it is cryptic and reticent: a player not versed in the laws might not recognise that I am effectively asserting that he made UI available or that by not summoning the Director he tacitly agrees to this assertion. So I would first ask if they agree and if they say yes then reserve my right, otherwise decide whether to call the Director or let it drop.

You obviously have to explain what the issue is for which you're reserving your rights, so that they can potentially dispute it and call the director immediately. It should be something like "I think you made a very significant hesitation. If you agree, I reserve my right to call the Director if it seems to have affected the result."

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-November-24, 09:08, said:

Oh dear, I missed that one. I can see that it might be a relief to TDs, but it seems rather unfair to the opponents - if I understand rightly, the most they can hope for is an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had they been informed that there was no agreement, rather than (say) the likely outcome had the miscreants passed or made another call that had an agreed meaning and was a logical alternative.

Lamford has been discussing this elsewhere - you are entitled to know that there is no partnership understanding AND any information that has been communicated to you by the opponents - so if West bids 2H and East says it's a transfer to 2S then you are entitled to know not only that there is no agreement but that East will be taking it as a transfer. If there are screens then you don't know what East is taking the call as - just that there is no agreement as to what it actually means. (Or vice versa depending on where you and the screens are situated.)

This does not affect the UI position - The TD will look at all three scenarios (MI, UI & Combined) - if he has time. In this case it looks like the UI will be having a greater effect than the MI.

[VixTD]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-25, 16:48, said:

Lamford has been discussing this elsewhere - you are entitled to know that there is no partnership understanding AND any information that has been communicated to you by the opponents - so if West bids 2H and East says it's a transfer to 2S then you are entitled to know not only that there is no agreement but that East will be taking it as a transfer.

I think you're entitled to know that they don't have an agreement but there's some doubt about whether it might be a transfer. Just "no agreement" isn't enough because East must have some reason to suspect a transfer, whether this is from agreements in similar situations or agreements in common with other partners, or something else. You're entitled to know this.

You're not entitled to know that one or other player is taking it as a transfer. I've not been following Lamford's arguments on other pages, but it won't surprise me if he disagrees.

[pescetom]

VixTD, on 2018-November-26, 08:33, said:

You're not entitled to know that one or other player is taking it as a transfer. I've not been following Lamford's arguments on other pages, but it won't surprise me if he disagrees.

The player who alerts the bid explains it is a transfer and I'm not entitled to know if either of them are taking it as such?
Sorry but you've lost me here, please clarify.

[VixTD]

pescetom, on 2018-November-26, 16:18, said:

The player who alerts the bid explains it is a transfer and I'm not entitled to know if either of them are taking it as such? Sorry but you've lost me here, please clarify.

You are entitled to know you opponents' agreements, not what each member of the partnership is "taking them to be". That you can discern what each of your opponents thinks their agreement is is an accident of the (imperfect) means of disclosure at an open table. Playing online you would only know what the convention card says (I'm making assumptions here - I've never played online), and behind screens, you only find out what one member of the partnership thinks the agreement is.

When we give redress for damage from misinformation it's on the basis of what you were entitled to know, i.e. the partnership agreement.

[pescetom]

VixTD, on 2018-November-27, 09:22, said:

You are entitled to know you opponents' agreements, not what each member of the partnership is "taking them to be".

That is logical, thanks. What seemed strange to me is that an opponent provided an explanation of the agreements and therefore at least he is presumably "taking them to be" that way. But of course that may have been so only at the moment of the explanation.