[campboy]

Codo, on Jan 13 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

I had bid 2 ♦ undiscussed (as Transfer) and passed the double. To bid on the assumption that partner made a mistake or did not undertsand my bid is always dangerous. I agree that it is sometimes necessary but not in such a simple situation. Here I had full respect for my partner and his descission.

How can partner have made a mistake? We have no discussion, so it is not a mistake for him to interpret the bid differently.

I agree that if we had an agreement then East should not be playing for a misinterpretation, but that is a completely different scenario.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 05:17 AM, said:

Well, when an auction gives opponents an incorrect view of the hands involved there are but three possibilities:

1: There has been misinformation
2: There has been an accidental misbid
3: There has been a deliberate misbid - a psyche.

Why has the auction given them an incorrect view of the hands? There was no agreement, the lack of agreement was correctly disclosed.

Opponents are entiled to a description of your agreement. If you have no agreement and haven't told the opponents that you have, then there has not been misinformation (1). Misbids and psychs are deviations (intentional or not) from an agreement. If there is no agreement, then you cannot deviate from it, so neither (2) nor (3) apply.

You may not _like_ the fact that there are situations in which people do not have an agreement and hence everyone at the table is guessing, but it's not _illegal_ and it's not illegal for them to guess right, it's the rub of the green.

Please explain exactly how the (alleged) lack of agreement was properly disclosed?

Please explain how a misunderstanding on whether or not the agreed transfer system was on in this special situation translates into a situation of no agreement?


Do I understand you correct that it is perfectly OK for me to give opponents misinformation by not alerting an artificial call and then get away with it just by stating that I didn't think this call was artificial in the particular situation?

[campboy]

Quote

Please explain exactly how the (alleged) lack of agreement was properly disclosed?

It was not alerted. If there is no agreement, it is not alertable, in the EBU at least. No-one asked about it.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

Please explain how a misunderstanding on whether or not the agreed transfer system was on in this special situation translates into a situation of no agreement?

Opening post said:

They have not discussed this situation.

They had no agreement on this situation. the fact that they had an agreement in different situation - after a pass of partner's 1NT opening - does not alter the fat that they had no agreement.

Now, you can call it a "misunderstanding" if you like, but that is just words: they had no agreement.

[peachy]

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 07:41 AM, said:

Do I understand you correct that it is perfectly OK for me to give opponents misinformation by not alerting an artificial call and then get away with it just by stating that I didn't think this call was artificial in the particular situation?

Nobody here has suggested this is OK.
Had this question been addressed to me, I would find it offensive.

This question has nothing to do with the case at hand.

[Codo]

bluejak, on Jan 13 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

They had no agreement on this situation. the fact that they had an agreement in different situation - after a pass of partner's 1NT opening - does not alter the fat that they had no agreement.

Where is the line where you do not any more belive if someone says: We have no agreement?

Some years ago we had a case here where a famous pair claimed to have no agreement about a 3 NT opening. They had no mark about 3 NT at the card, but had played various thousand hands before.
Do you belive them?

[helene_t]

No idea if I would believe this particular pair. I consider that a different issue.

OP states that they have no agreement so I am arguing under the assumption that they have no agreement.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 13 2010, 02:24 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

Please explain how a misunderstanding on whether or not the agreed transfer system was on in this special situation translates into a situation of no agreement?

Opening post said:

They have not discussed this situation.

They had no agreement on this situation. the fact that they had an agreement in different situation - after a pass of partner's 1NT opening - does not alter the fat that they had no agreement.

Now, you can call it a "misunderstanding" if you like, but that is just words: they had no agreement.

They had a general agreement of transfers after 1NT.

One player thought that this agreement did not apply after an intervening double, the other player thought it did.

The player that thought it applied learned from partner's failure to alert that his partner did not think this agreement applied.


I am most intrigued by the principle that when I have a general agreement and a misunderstanding within my partnership we shall always be allowed to get away from a charge of misinformation by stating that "we have not discussed if this agreement should apply when opponents bid/doubled/redoubled/passed" (use whatever alternative fits the situation)

PS: What I wrote, or intended to indicate, in my original post what that they had not specifically discussed the situation for their transfer agreement after an intervening douoble. But there was no doubt about their general agreement.

[bluejak]

Forget the red herrings: did they have an agreement?

They had an agreement in a different situation that many people think similar, and a majority do not. Does that mean they have an agreement in this situation? No.

Quote

Where is the line where you do not any more belive if someone says: We have no agreement?

Some years ago we had a case here where a famous pair claimed to have no agreement about a 3 NT opening. They had no mark about 3 NT at the card, but had played various thousand hands before.
Do you belive them?

Where is the line when a player say "I did not hesitate"? TDs and ACs make judgement decisions, that is part of their job, and whether a pair has an agreement is a judgement decision.

Naturally, I would ask questions, consider, consult and decide, as I do with other judgement rulings.

[mjj29]

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

They had a general agreement of transfers after 1NT.

One player thought that this agreement did not apply after an intervening double, the other player thought it did.

The player that thought it applied learned from partner's failure to alert that his partner did not think this agreement applied.

No, I'm saying that the player who bid 2♦ didn't think it applied, but thought that whether it applied or not 2♦ followed by correcting to 2♥ if it was doubled was the only way to guarantee not playing in a suit he did not have a fit in doubled (after all, if it went 2♥ (alert) - P - 2♠ - X you would certainly be arguing that he had to pass that as well).

[jallerton]

StevenG, on Jan 10 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 10 2010, 04:27 PM, said:

Your logic is flawed!
If opener took the 2♦ bid as transfer, he would not alert it, because it's a guess and not an agreement.

This is wrong within the EBU. The Orange Book says

Quote

5 B 10 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.

so Sven's inerences are, I believe, correct.

I assume that paragraph 5B10 of the Orange Book was written with experienced partnerships in mind, as they often have agreements about related sequences which may be relevant in determining the likely meaning.

This regulation makes little sense in a situation where a partnership has no explicit or implicit agreement about either the sequence in question or any potentially related sequence.

[helene_t]

I think paragraph 5B10 makes sense. It ensures that at least whenever West guesses right the board doesn't become a mess, since his alert (or failure to alert) will be consistent with East's intention.

OTOH it is unfortunate that West conveys information to East about how he is going to act. Say a double can be either t/o (not alertable) or penalty (alertable). Now by alerting I tell p that I have a hand suitable for pulling a penalty double.

Anyway here West was going to act as if 2♦ was not alertable so I suppose it's correct of West not to alert it.

[jallerton]

helene_t, on Jan 13 2010, 09:39 PM, said:

OTOH it is unfortunate that West conveys information to East about how he is going to act. Say a double can be either t/o (not alertable) or penalty (alertable). Now by alerting I tell p that I have a hand suitable for pulling a penalty double.

This is exactly why 5B10 does not make sense.

There is a legal obligation to disclose all agreements to the opponents and whenever West knows anything potentialy useful from partnership experience then he should share that information with North and South.

On the other hand, when there is no relevant partnership experience and West is completely in the dark as to the meaning of East's call, then that is all North and South are entitled to know.

In practice, the one piece of information West might use to guess how East might have intended his call is the contents of West's own hand. That is definitely not information to which North and South are entitled.

Quote

Anyway here West was going to act as if 2♦ was not alertable so I suppose it's correct of West not to alert it.

Here West was going to act as if there were no agreement, so you are correct as long as "no agreement" is considered not alertable.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jan 13 2010, 05:03 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

They had a general agreement of transfers after 1NT.

One player thought that this agreement did not apply after an intervening double, the other player thought it did.

The player that thought it applied learned from partner's failure to alert that his partner did not think this agreement applied.

No, I'm saying that the player who bid 2♦ didn't think it applied, but thought that whether it applied or not 2♦ followed by correcting to 2♥ if it was doubled was the only way to guarantee not playing in a suit he did not have a fit in doubled (after all, if it went 2♥ (alert) - P - 2♠ - X you would certainly be arguing that he had to pass that as well).

The player bidding 2♦ confirmed on a direct question that he believed their transfer system was "on".
If you can convince me that you would (always) pull 2♦X to 2♥ (and not leave this choice to partner after all) in the following situation I just might believe you and accept it:

Pass 1NT - Double - 2♦ (alerted and explained as transfer to Hearts!)
Pass - Pass - Double - ?

However, with xxx-xxxxx-Jxx-xx I have had players telling me "No way shall I show my hearts again with a hand like this, Pass is obvious".

Any player who "admits" that the missing alert of the 2♦ bid makes him pull to 2♥ is in my opinion seriously violating Law 16B1{a}

And just to repeat it: The partnership had an undisputed agreement of using transfers after 1NT opening bids. There was, however, an apparent misunderstanding whether transfers were "on" or "off" after intervening doubles. (I believe a common agreement among partnerships is system "on" after pass and Double, "off" after bids"?)

[campboy]

Read the OP. It clearly says East though transfers might still apply, not that he thought they did still apply.

If you are talking about a different situation then of course the ruling might be different.

(FWIW I think playing "systems on" after a penalty double is ridiculous)

[mjj29]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

The player bidding 2♦ confirmed on a direct question that he believed their transfer system was "on".

OP said:

East, who holds this hand, thinks that after 1N is doubled, transfers may still apply

I read that as "knows it's not been discussed but thinks they might, so doesn't want to risk a direct 2♥", rather than "believes that transfers are on".

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

If you can convince me that you would (always) pull 2♦X to 2♥ (and not leave this choice to partner after all) in the following situation I just might believe you and accept it:

Pass 1NT - Double - 2♦ (alerted and explained as transfer to Hearts!)
Pass - Pass - Double - ?

If I genuinely don't know what the system is and bid 2♦ here in an effort to escape to 2♥X or anything undoubled, then I would consider it a violation of L16/L73 to use the alert+explanation to 'know' that partner has diamonds and pass. This is very different to if I thought transfers were off, or if I thought they were on.

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

Any player who "admits" that the missing alert of the 2♦ bid makes him pull to 2♥ is in my opinion seriously violating Law 16B1{a}

Sure, but I don't think there is a question of that.

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

And just to repeat it: The partnership had an undisputed agreement of using transfers after 1NT opening bids. There was, however, an apparent misunderstanding whether transfers were "on" or "off" after intervening doubles. (I believe a common agreement among partnerships is system "on" after pass and Double, "off" after bids"?)

Actually, I would expect them to be off after double, in order to play in 2♣ when responder holds xx xxx xx xxxxxx (or some more complicated system involving a pass forcing a redouble if it's been discussed).

[jvage]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

There was, however, an apparent misunderstanding whether transfers were "on" or "off" after intervening doubles. (I believe a common agreement among partnerships is system "on" after pass and Double, "off" after bids"?)

It seems Sven is discussing the facts from an actual case, and that this case inspired Nigel to write the original post. The facts described in the opening post seems however slightly different from the real case.

As to how common the different agreements are, my experience from Norway is different from Sven's. I agree almost no-one use "system on" after intervening bids, but I think those who use "system on" after 1NTX are also a small minority (there may be geographical variations, I only know one good player, mentioned in an earlier post, who clearly prefers that treatment).

John

[pran]

campboy, on Jan 14 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Read the OP. It clearly says East though transfers might still apply, not that he thought they did still apply.

If you are talking about a different situation then of course the ruling might be different.

(FWIW I think playing "systems on" after a penalty double is ridiculous)

Thank you - I do (But I have never so far been in that situation)

As the source of the original post (a real case in one of my tournaments) I suppose I deserve the right to have opinions of facts? I noticed that Nigel made some simplifications in his post, but it never occurred to me that these were essential for the basic question of using Law 16B1.

[hotShot]

nige1, on Jan 9 2010, 09:54 PM, said:

EW are top experts in an occasional partnership. They have not discussed this situation. East, who holds this hand, thinks that after 1N is doubled, transfers may still apply.

The case in OP is:
- not a regular partnership
- undiscussed situation
- the player is aware that it is undiscussed

Under these circumstances a player can try to transfer - although unagreed - bidding 2♦ knowing that he will pass partners 2♥ or run to 2♥ himself, if opps double 2♦. Accepting to suffer a possible loss if partner and opps pass that bid. (see Law 40A3 and Law 40C1).

If even one of these circumstances where different, this would be a complete different case.
If East were sure they had agreed to transfer in this situation, he has no reason to run from 2♦X.
It's hard to believe that a regular partnership has never had this case before.

[pran]

mjj29, on Jan 14 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

If I genuinely don't know what the system is and bid 2♦ here in an effort to escape to 2♥X or anything undoubled, then I would consider it a violation of L16/L73 to use the alert+explanation to 'know' that partner has diamonds and pass. This is very different to if I thought transfers were off, or if I thought they were on.

I have a problem understanding how this difference is relevant when it comes to rule if Law 16B1{a} has been violated (see below).

mjj29, on Jan 14 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 05:56 AM, said:

Any player who "admits" that the missing alert of the 2♦ bid makes him pull to 2♥ is in my opinion seriously violating Law 16B1{a}

Sure, but I don't think there is a question of that.

Isn't this precisely the most important question that everything hinges on?

Did the player select a call based on information from the information conveyed by an unexpected alert or a missing expected alert?