[VixTD]

Last night at the club a number of recent graduates from the beginners' class attended the main duplicate. A slower pace was set, a movement of fewer boards chosen, and partnerships arranged. Two beginners ended up playing with more experienced players. There was little time to discuss systems, and indeed this EW only managed "Benjamin Acol, weak NT, Stayman and transfers over 1 and 2NT".

---

1NT was announced as 12-14.
2♦ was announced as "hearts"
All doubles were for penalties.

North and East were the two experienced players playing with beginners South and West. At the end of the auction East explained that they had no agreement to play transfers over a double.

Lead: ♣J. Result: 2♠X(E)+2, NS -1070

North said at the end of the hand that in a serious competition he would be able to call the director and get redress because he had been misinformed (but wouldn't in a friendly game). East was not so sure he was entitled to any redress. North said he wouldn't have doubled 2♦ had it been passed round to him. East countered that West had simply made a mistake in assuming they were playing transfers and so that bid was not an infraction and could not be taken away from her. North then said that West should have corrected 2♠ to 3♥ if she thought 2♦ was a transfer.

Transfers should be alerted rather than announced after a double, but it's not just beginners who don't know that.

What (if any) redress do you think NS were due had they called the TD?

[StevenG]

Is North trying to stop the beginners from coming back?

[blackshoe]

Why are these two experienced players arguing about what a ruling might be? If North wants a ruling, he can call the TD. If he doesn't want a ruling he should keep quiet and move on to the next board. East should not engage. Just move on.

Seems to me it may be East who made the mistake. If I were a novice, and my partner suggested "transfers over 1 and 2 NT" and nothing about contested auctions, I would assume they were on if possible, especially if the class teacher had suggested "systems on over double and 2♣," which is quite common here. So before I made a ruling, I would ask West why he thought 2♦ was a transfer, and also why he passed 2♠.

[Vampyr]

Why are the beginners playing transfers anyway?

[Trinidad]

None.

As East says, West's 2♥ was a mistake, not an infraction.

The only infraction on the board was the MI that 2♦ was a transfer. East did not use the UI from this explanation, but NS were misinformed. So North doubled 2♠, thinking that East had shown the majors. I don't see why North wouldn't double 2♠ if he had known that East held the pointed suits. The question whether East holds a heart or diamond side suit is not really relevant for North's decision to double. In neither case does North have his last double.

The play could not have gone differently, since at that point NS were already informed correctly that East held spades + diamonds.

So, I don't see any reason to adjust.

Rik

[helene_t]

Beginners are taught system off in competition.

The lesson for west is that when they have no agreement he should say so rather than saying what he. guesses a bid to mean.

But N knew that they had no agreement and besides he wasn't damaged.

Result stands and a pp to north since we need to teach players to put up or shut up.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-14, 08:46, said:

Why are the beginners playing transfers anyway?

Because that's what they are taught?

[barmar]

West has no UI, so he can bid what he likes -- there's no reason he has to correct 2♠ to 3♥.

[RMB1]

I am sure East would know what was going on when West bids 2♥ without the announcement, he has UI but I don't think passing 2♥X is a logical alternative.

West probably had some idea what was going on when he passed 2♠, and prehaps should have "corrected" the announcement, but has not UI so can pass.

I am sure North knew what was going on, and was not really misinformed, and was going to keep whatever he managed to score at the table.

[weejonnie]

RMB1, on 2014-November-14, 10:12, said:

I am sure East would know what was going on when West bids 2♥ without the announcement, he has UI but I don't think passing 2♥X is a logical alternative.

West probably had some idea what was going on when he passed 2♠, and prehaps should have "corrected" the announcement, but has not UI so can pass.

I am sure North knew what was going on, and was not really misinformed, and was going to keep whatever he managed to score at the table.

Yes East does know what is going on, however the only reason why he knows that West doesn't actually want to play in hearts is the announcement. And he is not allowed to know that.

However on the hand, with two long suits and a partner who definitely does not want to play in one of them (but who has shown a balanced hand) I feel that the AI would permit a 2 Spade rebid. Partner must have some spades. (Not that a beginner would necessarily work this out of course!)

I do not think that West has to bid 3 Hearts. The fact that opponents have doubled 2 Hearts for penalties is authorised information, and so is the fact that East has run from that contract. Also, of course,, 3 Hearts is a level higher so EW would have to score two more tricks in hearts to gain.

[VixTD]

A lot of the debate between East and North was carried out after the game when the beginners had all gone home, and in any case it was all conducted in a friendly manner, so it certainly wasn't going to put anyone off. I don't know why you're so intolerant of a bit of grumbling from the likes of North, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. He has been misinformed, after all, and he's got a poor score, even if he hasn't been damaged.

I think it's normal to teach beginners transfer responses to 1NT and 2NT early, and I assumed it was still de rigueur to drop them when the opponents double. All the fancy "exit transfers", "Halmic", "wriggles" and lord knows what else that most club players insist on playing are better left out, in my opinion.

I was East, and I didn't know whether my partner had been taught anything at all about what to do when 1NT is doubled, so the announcement did not come as a surprise. East [sorry, North] was adamant as he left the club that he was due an adjustment, but I'm pleased to see that you also disagree.

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2014-November-14, 12:44, said:

East was adamant as he left the club that he was due an adjustment, but I'm pleased to see that you also disagree.

Did North (I assume you mean North) also say why he was due an adjustment?

If North can give a convincing reason why he would double 2♠ when he thinks East has the majors, but take some other action when he thinks East has the pointed suits, he will get an adjustment. I cannot find such a reason, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. If North shows it to me, it would be a lot easier.

Rik

[nige1]

IMO, It is commendable that the game seems to have been conducted in a friendly manner. Nevertheless,

Both sides should be penalized for failing to call the director, after attention was drawn to an alleged infraction.

This is especially important in a game for beginners because they need to learn the fundamental rules of the game and they should be taught to comply with those rules. They also need to realise that a director-call can be a positive learning experience -- certainly not an accusation of cheating or worse -- and the earlier they find that out, the better. North would have asked the director to waive redress (if any), which would also be likely to create a favourable impression on beginners.

When I teach beginners, I try to explain the rules of Bridge (as far as I'm able to understand them). Even that cannot prepare them for the shock of an open club-duplicate, especially the widespread legal incomprehension, controversy, and acrimony. An influx of rule-compliant beginners can, however, be a civilising influence

[mycroft]

2♥ got doubled *for penalty*. 2♠ wasn't doubled yet, why would I pull? 2♠X, well, we know about the 4-0 heart break, so they're going to get ruffs, but will it be any better than losing control of the heart suit? 2 tricks better? Also, after 2♥ gets doubled, and 2♠ gets doubled, and west pulls to 3♥ and *that* gets doubled, East is pulling to 3♠, Shirley? Okay, I'll rule for N/S. 3♠x+1, -930 N/S.

"North would never have doubled 2♦ if it came around to him". Sure, but then again, it never will come around to him. Even so, I call BS on that one unless they can show me something that says that the double doesn't force through 2♦ (I'd be very surprised to find out that experienced EBU pair don't have an agreement about how far the double sets a force). North wouldn't have doubled 2♦ *if he knew that it was a transfer and that west passed afterward", sure - and maybe he wouldn't have doubled 2♥ had he known that West thought it was a transfer and East didn't; but neither of those knowledge sets is he entitled to. He's entitled to "we play transfers" (at the table) or "we don't play transfers" (TD ruling).

Going back to a strain that two people, *including partner*, think is a bad idea, seems like the definition of illogic. Now, if North *hadn't* doubled 2♥, then now despite the penalty double, East has both majors and strong enough to be happy in 3♥, yeah, and I would have an issue with pass. But surely West is allowed to listen to her more experienced opponent *before* he goes off on "I could get that rolled back, but I don't want to, I just want to explain why you shouldn't do that [in a way that will go way over their heads, and have them crying when leaving the table, and of course, never again play in the open game]."

Short answer: yet again, something went wrong, the NOS got a bad score, and that can't be correct. The fact that it's "Fixed...by Palookas!" (TM S.J.Simon) makes it worse. Also, education by opponent is rarely welcome, especially when it's to novices on a "welcome to the open game" night, and *at least* a good talking to is due North.

[Edit: saw Vix's comment that this wasn't at the table but after the game after writing the above, so I'm not quite as adamant. I'm still getting on North's case about not calling the TD, but explaining things afterward. That's not his job, unless he's East's teacher.

Also note that it was a +/- game, not a pair of experienced players playing against a pair of "just out of the lessons" people. That wasn't clear from "Two beginners ended up playing with more experienced players" - although I can see how it reads that way - and I am guessing that a lot of the vitriol (including from me) comes from that misreading.]

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2014-November-14, 10:02, said:

Because that's what they are taught?

Well, that's a pretty bad idea, as this thread demonstrates. A pair should not adopt a convention until the notice a class of hands that their current methods have proved inadequate to deal with.

[StevenG]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-14, 08:46, said:

Why are the beginners playing transfers anyway?

Because they learn them from their friends before they go to classes.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2014-November-14, 12:44, said:

A lot of the debate between East and North was carried out after the game when the beginners had all gone home, and in any case it was all conducted in a friendly manner, so it certainly wasn't going to put anyone off. I don't know why you're so intolerant of a bit of grumbling from the likes of North, so long as it doesn't get out of hand. He has been misinformed, after all, and he's got a poor score, even if he hasn't been damaged.

I think it's normal to teach beginners transfer responses to 1NT and 2NT early, and I assumed it was still de rigueur to drop them when the opponents double. All the fancy "exit transfers", "Halmic", "wriggles" and lord knows what else that most club players insist on playing are better left out, in my opinion.

I was East, and I didn't know whether my partner had been taught anything at all about what to do when 1NT is doubled, so the announcement did not come as a surprise. East was adamant as he left the club that he was due an adjustment, but I'm pleased to see that you also disagree.

The way I read your OP, the debate was carried out at the table and in the presence of the two beginners. If it was carried out after the game and without the beginners, and in a friendly manner, then I withdraw my objection.

Apparently the norm in England wrt transfers is different from the norm here. Not really surprising considering the different NT ranges involved.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-November-14, 13:49, said:

IMO, It is commendable that the game seems to have been conducted in a friendly manner. Nevertheless,

Both sides should be penalized for failing to call the director, after attention was drawn to an alleged infraction.

This is especially important in a game for beginners because they need to learn the fundamental rules of the game and they should be taught to comply with those rules. They also need to realise that a director-call can be a pleasant learning experience -- certainly not an accusation of cheating or worse -- and the earlier they find that out, the better. North would have asked the director to waive redress (if any), which would also be likely to create a favourable impression on beginners.

When I teach beginners, I try to explain the rules of Bridge (as far as I'm able to understand them). Even that cannot prepare them for the shock of an open club-duplicate, especially the widespread legal incomprehension, controversy, and acrimony. An influx of rule-compliant beginners can, however, be a civilising influence

Quote

Law 9B1{a}: The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

Quote

Introduction to the Laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized)…

While I wish, as I've said before, that this law had not been changed in 2007 — in the 1997 laws it said "must" instead of should, and under that law I would agree with a PP to both sides — it is what it is, and a PP, at least in points (MPs or IMPs) is not IMO appropriate here. A warning at most. Perhaps these players weren't fully educated on this area of the laws. Education is more appropriate now than penalties.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-14, 21:15, said:

While I wish, as I've said before, that this law had not been changed in 2007 — in the 1997 laws it said "must" instead of should, and under that law I would agree with a PP to both sides — it is what it is, and a PP, at least in points (MPs or IMPs) is not IMO appropriate here. A warning at most. Perhaps these players weren't fully educated on this area of the laws. Education is more appropriate now than penalties.

OK