[mjj29]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

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?

regardless he hasn't "admitted" that he pulled to 2♥ because 2♦ was not alerted, which is what you said and I quoted.

[campboy]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

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.

I have consistently said that if the pair have an agreement that transfers are on after a double then it is quite a different matter, and I would adjust. There have been similar cases to that on the old forums, and I said so then as well. But the rest of us are talking about Nigel's hypothetical case from the first post.

[helene_t]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

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?

Yes, the question is whether his decision was influenced by the missing alert. Most of us argue that it wasn't.

If his decision was influenced by the missing alert, of course he is in violation.

[nige1]

I think the rules are a mess but, on the whole, I agree with Sven and Co. I might go further. Without an explicit agreement, a top-expert 1N opener (eg David Burn) would be aware that his partner's 2♦ could be a 3-way shot:

• If opener recognises 2♦ as a transfer, he will bid 2♥, well and good.
  
• If opener passes, then 2♦ undoubled may be a cheap escape.
  
• Finally, if opponents double, then the 2♦ bidder can correct to 2♥.

The possible cunning nature of the 2♦ bid may come as a surprise to less sophisticated opponents. Hence, IMO, it is an alertable implicit (meta?-)agreement.

The failure to alert could damage opponents. Change the original example so that 2♥ goes one down but 2♦ still goes four down, to underline this point.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 14 2010, 02:38 PM, said:

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?

No. It is not helpful. We were given a specific situation, and changing it is not helpful at all to the discussion. There is no limit to the number of threads anyone starts, within reason, and if you want to discuss the case as it originally was and not as altered by the OP, please start a new thread, not confuse this one.

[peachy]

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"?)

This statement does not reflect the facts (see OP). Their understanding/agreement was clear and it was the same understanding/agreement for both players so there was no misunderstanding. They both knew it was undiscussed/no agreement.

[nige1]

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"?)

peachy, on Jan 14 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

This statement does not reflect the facts (see OP).  Their understanding/agreement was clear and it was the same understanding/agreement for both players so there was no misunderstanding.  They both knew it was undiscussed/no agreement.

undiscussed = no agreement? Suppose, here, for example, partnership experience means that 2♦ is ambiguous: natural or a transfer or even a 3-way bet, say; but neither forcing Stayman nor a weak 44 nor ...)

[blackshoe]

Since relevant partnership experience was not mentioned in the OP, it is not part of the problem here. Let's stick to the facts presented in the OP, and if anyone wants to discuss a different situation, he can start a new thread.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jan 14 2010, 09:05 PM, said:

Since relevant partnership experience was not mentioned in the OP, it is not part of the problem here. Let's stick to the facts presented in the OP, and if anyone wants to discuss a different situation, he can start a new thread.

Both you and Bluejak refers to OP. It never occurred to me that the small simplifications made by Nigel were significant so I went back to OP on this thread and found:

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. West (the 1N opener) thinks the bidding should revert to natural (Enhancements are mine)

This to me makes it perfectly clear that the partnership indeed has an agreement of transfers after an 1NT opening bid. What they haven't discussed was whether an intervening double should turn this system off or leave it on.

I fail to see how I shall have tried to change the facts or confuse this thread?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jan 14 2010, 03:05 PM, said:

Since relevant partnership experience was not mentioned in the OP, it is not part of the problem here. Let's stick to the facts presented in the OP, and if anyone wants to discuss a different situation, he can start a new thread.

Blackshoe surprises me again. I would have thought that a director might well judge that an occasional partnership of top-experts might have negative inferences about situations where they have no explicit agreement.

I'm no telepath, but after a few sessions of play with a new partner, I flatter myself that I can interpret most of our undiscussed sequences better than opponents. Hence, I often alert, if I think a call may have an unexpected meaning. If asked, I say "undiscussed but I'll speculate if you like". If opponents ask me to go on, then I usually guess right. Does Blackshoe believe that I'm breaking the law?

[bluejak]

In other words, they have no agreement in the current situation, despite you suggesting otherwise. Also the regulations are EBU as stated by the OP.

[mycroft]

Going back a long way, no matter what the situation is in most cases, I tend to be one of the hard-liners, and I would allow the switch. EVEN IF partner has two hearts and 5 good diamonds, even without the A, my hand will play 1, maybe 2 tricks better in hearts than in diamonds, and even if I just get to hand once, that should be worth at least half another trick. If partner has three hearts and 5 good diamonds, even better!

The chance of partner being right opposite xxx xxxxx xxx xx - the chance that his hand will play more than that one-and-a-half to two tricks better in diamonds than hearts - is almost nil. With the yarborough posed by the OP, if this auction happened, my partner happily announced my 2D bid as a transfer, passed it, and I got a chance to make another call because of a double, I'm still bidding 2H.

In other words, while the discussion is interesting and potentially relevant, whether the UI makes 2H more attractive (which, of course, it does), and whether transfers on without a double mean anything as to whether transfers are on in a doubled auction (which I have to play here and don't think is wrong opposite strong NTs, but when I get a chance to bid weak NT, it *certainly* doesn't), in this case doesn't matter (to me at least). The reason I was taught to transfer with these hands is that 2H will usually play better than one trick better than 1NT because declarer isn't handlocked playing in hearts - the same argument applies (only more so, it doesn't have to be even "one trick better") when "better than 2D" is concerned; with this hand I can't count Dxxx as an entry, but I have reasonable hope that it will be enough to bring partner's suit in.

Give me the HK, or DQT, or some other reasonable hope that partner can get to board, and we are at my border.

[blackshoe]

Nigel: No, Blackshoe is trying to keep the thread on topic. I do think "I"ll speculate if you like" isn't best — rather what you should do in that situation is provide whatever partnership experience you feel is relevant, and let the opponents do their own speculating.

Sven: you got off, or so it seems to me, on a tangent based on your original problem in Norway, and Norwegian regulations and practices. All I'm saying is let's stick to the information provided in the original post in this thread in trying to decide what ruling should be made in Nigel's hypothetical case.

[bluejak]

Interesting. With my partners I play 1NT p 2♦ {dbl} p as showing five diamonds and two hearts. Now, if I had this hand, I would pass 2♦ doubled because I know it is a 5-3 fit, while hearts might lose a lot of trump tricks opposite Qx. I am not worried about being locked in hand necessarily since a club ruff is quite likely.

I do not play Exit Transfers with anyone, but if I did and they were a partner I had worked system out with, no doubt I would play 1NT {dbl} 2♦ {dbl} p the same and would pass.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 15 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Interesting. With my partners I play 1NT p 2♦ {dbl} p as showing five diamonds and two hearts. Now, if I had this hand, I would pass 2♦ doubled because I know it is a 5-3 fit, while hearts might lose a lot of trump tricks opposite Qx. I am not worried about being locked in hand necessarily since a club ruff is quite likely.

I do not play Exit Transfers with anyone, but if I did and they were a partner I had worked system out with, no doubt I would play 1NT {dbl} 2♦ {dbl} p the same and would pass.

Well, about changing the conditions in the thread:

The auction in OP was:

1NT - {dbl} - 2♦ - Pass
Pass - {dbl}

So the 1NT opener had no doouble allowing him to "pass" the auction back to the transfer bidder.

[bluejak]

My comments on one auction do not apply to a different auction.