[peachy]

MFA, on Jan 11 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

Under these conditions:

Quote

EW are top experts in an occasional partnership. They have not discussed this situation.

... I would say no. Nobody would actually pass 2♦ here without discussion.
(Assume screens so we don't know about partner's alerting or not. That's the proper reference for evaluating the LAs.)

Screens do not add anything of value to the presented case.
There is no forgetting or misunderstanding, there is no passing of UI with the 2D bid, or with alert or missing alert. Both players are of sound mind, clear head, of expert level, of ethical frame of mind, and they both know what their system is. Their system on the 2D bid is "not discussed" or "no agreement".

[jvage]

blackshoe, on Jan 11 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law.  

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

I'll take that as a "yes".

IMO, such an approach may be okay at high levels, but not in a club game (unless the club consists entirely of experts).

As a member of the Norwegian Laws Committee I feel the need to point out that Sven could sometimes benefit from writing "I" instead of "we". I will not speak for all Norwegian TD's, or even the Laws Committee, but on several of the points being discussed here opinions will differ in Norway, as among the contributors to this thread. We follow WBF/EBL practice where "convention disruption" is not an accepted principle.

For what it's worth, personally I agree with the majority regarding the problem in the original post. I don't know anyone who would pass a transfer with Sven's example hand (Axx, xx, AKQTx, Axx, a better example may have been a hand with less toptricks for hearts). As the case is presented a correct explanation of 2♦ was "no agreement", I don't think I would adjust based on MI either (wheter or not to alert undiscussed calls that may or may not (possibly with very different probabilities) have an alertable meaning is a discussion for another thread).

Generally you try to avoid undiscussed calls, here East was in a position where if he wanted to play in hearts he had to risk either 2♦ (may be taken as natural) or 2♥ (may be taken as transfer to spades). I have actually been in a similar position. I normally play "transfers off", but was playing a session with a partner who I knew belonged to the minority who play "transfers on" after 1NTX. I even knew he knew I knew, and he also knew I preferred the opposite treatment! But we had not discussed which principle to use (there were some "interesting" responses to questions and a bad contract was soon reached)

John

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 01:56 AM, said:

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

It takes more than a self-serving statement to convince me that they have no agreement when a player has used an artificial call in an auction. What is the point of using an artificial call unless you expect partner to understand it?

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

[StevenG]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

They have an agreement, but no agreement about what that agreement is?

Weird.

[pran]

jvage, on Jan 12 2010, 10:27 AM, said:

I don't know anyone who would pass a transfer with Sven's example hand (Axx, xx, AKQT, Axx, a better example may have been a hand with less toptricks for hearts).

In the original thread on BLML Harald Skjæran commented that for instance holding AKQTx in Diamonds and just two small hearts he might very well pass the transfer after 1NT - Double - 2♦ - pass.

This was the post that actually removed my doubt about denying an escape to 2♥ after RHO made this possible with a double. The hand actually held by the transfer bidder was: xxx-Txxxx-Jxx-Tx

As it was (Drøbak 2009-12-27 board 57) the non-offenders made a clean top after reaching 4♠ making +1 so I could rule "no damage" (they would also have made a clean top in 2♦ undoubled).

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 11 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

In practice, East might then have claimed that he was confident that they agreed on transfers, or at least sufficiently confident that he decided to stick to his story and therefore take pass as meaning long diamonds.

Even though I think it would very bad to pass 2♦ if understood as a transfer, I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

But an ethical East, who had made the 2♦ bid hoping that it would be taken as a transfer but with little confidence that it would, will take 2♦ back to 2♥, because that is what he would have done if he did not know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, which is what he must base his action on.

[hotShot]

Most of the posters of this forum play a lot online. They are familiar with the situation that they have only few (if they made any at all) agreements with their pickup partner.

Playing offline, especially at in an established long term partnership this will be completely different.

[Jeroen71]

helene_t, on Jan 12 2010, 12:15 PM, said:

..., I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

Unfortunately, this is very common in The Netherlands at the moment after the latest change in our regulations

[iviehoff]

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 11 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

Sure she's smiling, because it is a very good point, and demonstrates the potential absurdity of Sven (pran)'s position.

You make a transfer call, and your partner does not complete the transfer. Behind screens, you can peacefully decide whether partner forgot, or has a good reason for not completing the transfer. Without screens, you hear an alert, and know it is the latter. By Sven's test, you are now stuffed. According to the Sven test, you have been told by the alert that partner got it right, and deliberately broke the transfer. Since it is possible he forgot, you must assume he forgot. This is the logical corollary of what Sven says.

[iviehoff]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

iviehoff, on Jan 11 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

If you are going to beg acceptance of a principle not written in the laws, then I suggest you need to cite an authority, such as WBF minutes or local regulation.

What exactly do you mean "is enforced rather strictly in Norway"?

First: We are... etc

Thank you for reiterating the reasoning behind your position, but it actually didn't answer my questions. Jvage kindly suggests I interpret "we" as "I". So I take it that a Norwegian TD is in practice free to apply the plausible alternative interpretation, as jvage says he might, because there isn't actually any authority, even in Norway, that says yours is the only correct interpretation.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Jan 12 2010, 10:15 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 11 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

In practice, East might then have claimed that he was confident that they agreed on transfers, or at least sufficiently confident that he decided to stick to his story and therefore take pass as meaning long diamonds.

Even though I think it would very bad to pass 2♦ if understood as a transfer, I have yet to meet a director who assumes a pair doesn't have an agreement when they say they do.

But an ethical East, who had made the 2♦ bid hoping that it would be taken as a transfer but with little confidence that it would, will take 2♦ back to 2♥, because that is what he would have done if he did not know whether 2♦ was alerted or not, which is what he must base his action on.

I don't think our ethical stances are different, it is just that we are adopting different approaches.

In my way, if I make a bid such as 2♦, I am going to work on the assumption that partner knows it is a transfer whether he alerts or not. This means that I will pass the double of 2♦.

If I understand your way correctly, you assume that partner may not understand the bid and you will bid hearts whether he alerts 2♦ or not.

Unless you are playing with screens, the problem with not having a defined approach is well illustrated in this thread. The UI that may arise can make your life difficult.

Paul

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Jan 12 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

If I understand your way correctly, you assume that partner may not understand the bid and you will bid hearts whether he alerts 2♦ or not.

Unless you are playing with screens, the problem with not having a defined approach is well illustrated in this thread. The UI that may arise can make your life difficult.

In this case yes. That is because:
- It was stated in the OP that I do not know whether p takes 2♦ as a transfer or not. I bid 2♦ rather than 2♥ not because I think p is more likely to take 2♦ as showing hearts, but because I can correct 2♦X to 2♥. I can't correct 2♠X to 2♥.
- The idea of partner's passing 2♦ meaning anything other than that he thought that 2♦ was natural is completely absurd to me. Even if I was 100% sure that we agreed to play transfers, I would take his pass as evidence that he forgot about transfers.

Yes, lack of agreements sometimes makes life difficult. The UI problem ought not to be a problem as long as I am confident that partner is aware that we don't have an agreement. But yes, if partner thinks we have an agreement I would hate to know (through UI) what he thinks that agreement is.

In this particular case I don't think it's a problem. Whatever UI I receive I have no logical alternative to correcting 2♦X to 2♥ (if I have more hearts than diamonds) and to passing 2♦X (if I have at least as many diamonds as hearts). And I expect the TD (and opps) to agree with that.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 01:56 AM, said:

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Exactly: you seem to be saying you will presume they will have an agreement even when there is evidence to the contrary because that will benefit the opponents.

That is not what the Law says, nor, so it seems, Norwegian regulations.

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

It takes more than a self-serving statement to convince me that they have no agreement when a player has used an artificial call in an auction. What is the point of using an artificial call unless you expect partner to understand it?

You have been given an example, which you clearly are ignoring: what do you expect a player to do after 1NT (dbl) knowing he has no agreement? Refuse to call because he knows he will be ruled against?

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 10:36 AM, said:

That the two players have different opinions on what the agreement actually is does not establish a "no agreement" situation.

We are not talking about this: we are talking about an undiscussed situation.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents?  If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 05:10 PM, said:

Exactly: you seem to be saying you will presume they will have an agreement even when there is evidence to the contrary because that will benefit the opponents.

Just one question:

What evidence is there of "no agreement" or "Undiscussed" (rather than "forgotten agreement" and misexplanation)?

The self serving statements of the two players in a pair, one of which used an artificial call with the apparent belief that they indeed had an agreement?

[campboy]

I cannot see how the section of law you quote is relevant. There is no question of "presuming mistaken call". For 2♦ to be a mistaken call they would have to have an agreement that it is natural (or some other meaning inconsistent with East's hand), and no-one is suggesting that is the case.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 13 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

What evidence is there of "no agreement" or "Undiscussed" (rather than "forgotten agreement" and misexplanation)?

I am answering your general statement which is that when a pair claim to have no agreement you seem to think it right to automatically disbelieve them, giving as a justification that this benefits the opponents. Whether it is relevant to this hand is a different matter, but you brought the approach up and I think it both awful and illegal.

[pran]

campboy, on Jan 13 2010, 12:56 AM, said:

I cannot see how the section of law you quote is relevant. There is no question of "presuming mistaken call". For 2♦ to be a mistaken call they would have to have an agreement that it is natural (or some other meaning inconsistent with East's hand), and no-one is suggesting that is the case.

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.

Ignoring alternative 3 as irrelevant for this discussion we are left with the choice between misbid and misinformation. To me this makes the law I quoted fully relevant.

My understanding of that law clearly places the responsibility for damage on the side that causes such damage by abusing an artificial call without sufficient partnership understanding.

And BTW. When I write "we" rather than "I" in some cases it reflects the fact that I refer to instructions, guidelines and routines I (we) have been told at Director training courses and in publications ever since I attended my first course in 1980.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Jan 13 2010, 12:49 AM, said:

In this particular case I don't think it's a problem. Whatever UI I receive I have no logical alternative to correcting 2♦X to 2♥ (if I have more hearts than diamonds) and to passing 2♦X (if I have at least as many diamonds as hearts). And I expect the TD (and opps) to agree with that.

This is the majority view, which I do not share.

YOu give any pair the chance of a risk free two way shoot to escape from 1 NT doubled. Responder bids one suit and if this is doubled he bids the next one. This may be a valid agreement with proper disclosure but not without.

Yes, normally (95%?) the pairs who bid 2 ♦ are no cheats but simply forgot to make sufficent agreements (which happens even in expereinced partnerships).

And if North bids 2 Heart on own risk (behind screens) this is fine gambling. But with the UI- no way for me.

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.

[helene_t]

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

YOu give any pair the chance of a risk free two way shoot to escape from 1 NT doubled. Responder bids one suit and if this is doubled he bids the next one. This may be a valid agreement with proper disclosure but not without.

But it is properly disclosed in this case.

2♦ is not alerted. This can mean either that it's natural or that it's undiscussed. If opps ask, they will hear that it's undiscussed. It follows that West is likely to pass 2♦, and that East will correct to 2♥ if it gets doubled and he happens to have hearts. If this is the agreement it must be disclosed as well, but more likely the agreement (well, lack of agreement) is just "undiscussed".

This is far from risk-free. They may play a silly 2♦ contract when they can make 2♥ (or 4♥ or maybe even 6♥ if the double was a joke, but OK East would try to avoid transferring with strong hands if he realizes that West may take it as natural. Then again, what can you do. 3♥ may be taken as preemptive and 4♥ as texas).

Look, it is not that I am arguing that failure to make agreements is great fun and that I consider it a system gain when our lack of agreements leads to a good result. In fact, this problem is the reason why I prefer not to play transfers with a random p, and if he insists on transfers, one of the first things to discuss is if they apply here (and in response to 1NT overcalls).

But it does happen. This one came up in a team match in the Amsterdam league:
1♠-(1NT)-pass-(2♦)
pass-(2♥)-a.p.

My p didn't double 2♦ for the lead because on an unalerted (hence natural) 2♦ call, dbl is t/o of diamonds. 2♦ was not alerted because it was undiscussed but overcaller happened to guess right. My failure to lead a diamond properly cost the contract. Arguably the 2♦ bid should have been alerted in this case, but assuming that undiscussed bids which may be natural are not alertable, there was nothing we could do about it.

Some opps announce at the beginning of the round that they are not a regular partnership. Then we know that we should ask what such a 2♦ bid means. Problem is that we have no agreement about what a double of an undiscussed 2♦ bid means, but probably if opps announce that they are not a regular partnership we should rush to make such agreements

[mjj29]

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.