[pigpenz]

double shows major and minor

---

had this one come up in club game yesterday, there was no alert on 2♦ call, after hand asked
East how they interpted the 2♦call and their answer was "just a bid".

if TD is called what would the normal ruling be?

[RMB1]

East appears to think the agreement about 2♦ is no partnership understanding. He does not appear to have UI. East has decided from 2♦/3♥ that partner has 5 ♥s, this is appears to be based on the general knowledge that some people play system on over 1NT-X, and he does not appear to have a (concealed) partnership understanding about 2♦. No infraction: result stands.

West might think the agreement is "system on" and so he might have UI from partner's failure to alert/announce and from the (lack of) explanation of 2♦. There may be logical alternatives to 3♥ but it is unlikely that Pass is a logical alternatives. If West has used UI then it might be right to adjust to 3NT (or who knows) but without the other hands it is impossible to rule.

If East/West had an agreement about 2♦ then North/South may have been misinformed and might have continued bidding with the correct explanation. In which case an adjustment for misinformation may be in order, but without their hands it is impossible to know.

[blackshoe]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-21, 10:57, said:

their answer was "just a bid".

if TD is called what would the normal ruling be?

No idea without investigation.

As a player, if someone told me his partner's 2♦ was "just a bid", I'd say "I'm sorry, I don't know what that means".

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-21, 11:44, said:

As a player, if someone told me his partner's 2♦ was "just a bid", I'd say "I'm sorry, I don't know what that means".

I fear that would get the response "I'm sorry, I don't know what that bid means".

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so. My point, of course, is that "just a bid" is not an adequate explanation, whatever the actual situation vis-à-vis agreements is. And if the player continues with "I don't know what that bid means," he's still missing the point.

[pigpenz]

so the ruling will be dependent upon the result?
I always thought regardless of the other hands there had to be a logical alternative
that a good player would make, say assuming 3♥ could be a cue bid for ♦'s
in most cases I thought 4♦ would still be a logical call for East.

[RMB1]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-21, 16:48, said:

I always thought regardless of the other hands there had to be a logical alternative ...

Before we need to look at logical alternatives for East, we have to establish that East had unauthorised information.

[barmar]

Would it be appropriate to ask a leading question rather than "I don't know what that means"? E.g. "Do you mean it's natural?"

[blackshoe]

IMO it is never appropriate to ask a leading question.

[Mbodell]

pigpenz, on 2012-July-21, 16:48, said:

so the ruling will be dependent upon the result?
I always thought regardless of the other hands there had to be a logical alternative
that a good player would make, say assuming 3♥ could be a cue bid for ♦'s
in most cases I thought 4♦ would still be a logical call for East.

You've got it the wrong way round. It is the 2♦ bidder who has UI (his partner didn't alert/announce the transfer). The 1nt bidder has no UI (absent other evidence, some people feel that partners give of body language tells and always end up ok in situations like this). So the E hand doesn't matter, given the facts you've described. All that matters are:

1. What are their agreements? If N/S got MI, and they would have acted with the correct information then there may be an adjustment.
2. What is the E hand and did it bid appropriate given the UI? We'd have to see to know, but maybe/maybe not. One call to think about for E is 4♥ which may or may not be read properly by W (since 3♦ might suggest a super accept of some sort to E).

[TimG]

IMO...East's "just a bid" means "no partnership agreement" or "I don't know if there is a partnership agreement" which are basically the same as far as what actions east is permitted to take. If he's not sure whether it is natural or a transfer, for instance, he should be allowed to make a call that caters to the two possibilities. All the while, he should disclose to the opponents that he is not aware of any special partnership understandings. (This assumes that there is no UI for west as a result of the failure to alert or surprised look on his face if the explanation was given during the auction.) To me, it is general bridge knowledge that 2♦ could be a transfer.

West is the player that likely has UI from the failure to alert. West must take special care to assume his partner alerted (and explained properly if asked) and knows what the, perhaps assumed, partnership agreement is. In this case, they must assume that 3♦ shows whatever it shows after a transfer to hearts (presumably some super accept) and bid accordingly.

Anyway, assuming no reaction from west that gave UI to east prior to his 3♦ call, I think the normal ruling would be result stands.

[iviehoff]

EW appear to be playing the well-known convention popular (only) among weak players, "It's a transfer if when you don't spot it I immediately bid the next higher suit myself". Often played by the same people who also play the even more popular version "It's not a transfer if I immediately return to the originally bid suit". E says he doesn't know what they are playing, but he has no difficulty in recognising it when his partner takes the next step. So I it was likely E knows perfectly well what they are playing, even if they never explicitly discussed it, and has provided misinformation. Of course, the misinformation may well be harmless in this case.

In some jurisdictions, and depending upon the level of play and the exact sequence to get there, this is often not a permitted convention, and thus there can be an artificial adjustment for playing a non-permitted convention. This can sometimes be another route to remind such players that for such a sequence and explanation to have occurred entirely without irregularity is on the whole improbable.

In the EBU, we also have a standard penalty for a fielded misbid. This can be another route to giving the players a reminder.

[TimG]

Are you saying that "I don't know what we play" is never a legitimate answer?

What you have said in your post is essentially "general bridge knowledge includes uncertainty about whether 2♦ is natural or a transfer". We can figure that out, the opponents can figure that out, everyone can figure that out...except apparently those that are at the wheel who ought to be penalized?

You are not alone in thinking that any "convention disruption" ought to be penalized, but I do think you're in a small minority.

[StevenG]

iviehoff, on 2012-July-23, 06:26, said:

EW appear to be playing the well-known convention popular (only) among weak players, "It's a transfer if when you don't spot it I immediately bid the next higher suit myself". Often played by the same people who also play the even more popular version "It's not a transfer if I immediately return to the originally bid suit". E says he doesn't know what they are playing, but he has no difficulty in recognising it when his partner takes the next step.

As you say, it is extremely popular among weak players. Does that then not make these sequences GBK rather than CPUs?

[RMB1]

TimG, on 2012-July-23, 08:44, said:

You are not alone in thinking that any "convention disruption" ought to be penalized, but I do think you're in a small minority.

I think what the OP wanted was a ruling "EW guessed right in defending an unfamiliar convention and that should not be allowed, EW should score at most AVE- (and if their table result was already worse than AVE- they should be told not to guess right in the future)."

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-July-21, 21:52, said:

IMO it is never appropriate to ask a leading question.

But if you just keep saying "Please clarify", and they don't understand what's missing from their explanation, we'll never get anywhere. Is "Is it natural?" or "How many diamonds is he showing?" really so bad?

TimG, on 2012-July-22, 10:11, said:

IMO...East's "just a bid" means "no partnership agreement" or "I don't know if there is a partnership agreement" which are basically the same as far as what actions east is permitted to take.

Why couldn't it mean "It's just a natural bid"?

[Cyberyeti]

"Just a bid" to me says "it's what it means without an alert ... did I alert it ?"

The question marks are:

What should W bid over the "transfer break" 3♦, if he has a non minimum, then something other than 3♥, but anything other than 4♦ will wake E up that partner definitely doesn't have a WTO in ♦. What he should bid over say 1N-X-2♦-P-3♦-P-4♣ say is less clear.

The dangerous holding is something with honours in only hearts and diamonds where 4♦ is the right bid in which case 4/5♦ are quite likely contracts and even if 5♦ makes, it's likely to score less well than 4♥, say Kxxxx in both suits.

Then what should E bid over 3♥, partner has not alerted 3♦ as showing hearts, which you have to do over here, not sure about the OP's jurisdiction so no UI there. It looks like E has a free hand over 3♥.

[pigpenz]

I was just curious at to how the TD would go about it.
the actual results on the hand was 4♥-2 -200.
No damage was done to NS.

Would a TD also a apply a procedural penalty against EW?
Yes, W does have UI, his partner didn't alert the 2♦ call.
would a procedural penalty only be levied depending on the level of the EW pair?

Back in the 80's Bobby Wolff had several articles about what he was pushing called "ACTIVE ETHICS".
usually in some cases to situations like this.....partner opens 2♦(weak two) but his partner
responds to Flannery with a major suit call, partner now rebids 3♦.....ok get the drift.
where is the line drawn as to when you can catch...or does it all go back to committee someone always has UI in
these cases.

so TD is called hand is played out then TD or committee has to sort out what is done?

[mycroft]

The problem with the "well-known convention" is that it relies on things other than the calls; it relies on the announcements or explanations or other UI. Sometimes, there's UI both ways; I remember two players who were well-known for playing forget transfers, and it was *very clear* when 3♦ after 1NT-2♦; 2♥ was "partner I have *diamonds*, don't correct" and when it meant "I'm continuing on" (not that that ever happened). But the first UI was the "transfer" announcement. Unfortunately, at that club, keeping the players was more important than stopping this kind of behaviour.

In this case, however, the OP gives no inference that the intended-as-transferer gave any UI either after 2♦ was "misexplained" or when bidding 3♥; so East is allowed to guess right (in this case, we can allow GBK - it is, really). However, West does have UI, and 3♥ may be disallowed - we'd need to see the hand.

Having said all of that, in some jurisdictions (including the ACBL - don't know where pigpenz is), 2♦ = "hearts, or diamonds if I rebid them" is a *legal* agreement after 1NT; provided it is Alerted and explained that way. Similarly, 2♦ = "diamonds or hearts" is also legal; but it has to be explained. Obviously, if a pair is playing this, they have to be careful about UI, but it's *legal*. I intended to add it to my "insane, but GCC-legal" system, but I never did.

[TimG]

TimG, on 2012-July-22, 10:11, said:

IMO...East's "just a bid" means "no partnership agreement" or "I don't know if there is a partnership agreement" which are basically the same as far as what actions east is permitted to take.

barmar, on 2012-July-23, 10:28, said:

Why couldn't it mean "It's just a natural bid"?

"Natural" is an agreement. It might be useful to have a partnership agreement that in the absence of specific agreements, all calls are natural. But, that doesn't seem to be the case here (and is not what I would assume at the table). "Just a bid" says to me that there is no specific agreement or default agreement. "Just a bid" says "I'm going to use general bridge knowledge to try to figure out what is going on".