[arepo24]

I hope I get this right. It is a bit complicated so please forgive me if I inadvertently make an error.
The op to my left opens 1NT and my partner bids 2H. The op to my right responds 2S (indicating transfers to minors are on over interference by partnership agreement).
I am sitting with 7 clubs A/K/Q/J/9/etc. and am shocked to realize that she is bidding a minor transfer to clubs meaning she likely has 5-6 clubs in her hand, so of course I pass. The op to my left rightfully responds in transfer to 3 clubs. (Actually it was discovered later that my right hand Op had Diamonds and wanted to transfer to Diamonds after her partner's club response.) My P passes and my right hand Op bids 3NT instead of correcting to Diamonds.
I was astounded to see her dummy only had 3 small clubs. I told her I thought that was unacceptable and if it were not a friendly game that a Director could be called. She disagreed saying that she could change her mind if she wanted to because she decided her hand was worth more than the Diamond bid.
I told her that her original bid kept me from possibly bidding my club bid because she had indicated by her transfer to a minor that she had the other 5 or 6 clubs when in fact she only had 3.
I felt it was an unfair bridge bid.
Was I wrong?

[paulg]

There are a number of points to address here.

If you have seven clubs and the no trump opening bid has at least two, then it would be a surprise if RHO holds a long club suit.

It sounds as if you did not fully understand RHO's explanation of their 2♠ bid, which I presume was a transfer to either minor (as in SAYC). I'm not going to assign blame for this misunderstanding except to say that they should make it clear and you need to ask if you think it is unclear

Of course it is perfectly acceptable for a player to change their mind during the auction as long as they have provided full disclosure of the meaning of their bids. It is rarely a good idea, since their partner may infer a different holding, but a lot of what we do at the bridge table is not a good idea otherwise we'd be better at the game.

It sounds like the opponents were not deliberately trying to mislead you even if they helped to do so. But I think you were a little naive in expecting clubs on your right.

[mycroft]

Misbids are legal. There's no penalty for them.
Deliberately misbidding is legal (but has a bunch of issues with "implicit agreements"). There's no penalty for them (same caveat).
Misinforming the opponents as to your agreements is an infraction and is open to rectification.

So, specifically:

• If the agreement was "systems on", and she forgot, that happens. Usually it costs them. Note: a double of 3NT normally calls for dummy's suit led. If you have that agreement, it would have cost them this time too.
  
• If the agreement was "systems on", and she decided to bid it to discourage the club lead, that happens. If it happens frequently (in this case, more than "once in partner's memory", likely), that tendency needs to be disclosed.
  
• If the agreement was "natural", and you were misinformed, there's an issue. I'm not likely going to protect you, though (your partner is another story). Same if the agreement is "clubs, or diamonds if partner corrects."
  
• From your description, it's actually "systems on", partner remembered, but didn't remember what the "diamond bid" was. That's a problem, too, but as far as you bidding clubs is concerned, see item 1.

No matter what it was, *you know* there's a problem (your partner doesn't). 6 and 7 and 2 is 15. Now you have to figure out what to do. First, I guess, find out if 2♠ is "clubs", or "clubs, or diamonds if she corrects". Too many people say "transfer" with the latter agreement, and that's really bad. If it could be either minor, then you have to guess. If it's a misbid/psychic, you have to do your best. What's partner going to think 3♣ is if you bid it anyway?

There is another issue, depending on who told you that 2♠ showed clubs.

If this was RL with 1NT opener Alerting/explaining the 2♠ call, then responder has UI that she messed up/partner misunderstood. She can't use that to bid, and has to continue as if she showed Diamonds and partner bid 3♣. If that's a "great hand for diamonds", and she has ♦AQJxxxx or something, then 3NT is automatic, and the TD should take 3♦ away if responder bid it and 3NT went down. If it means "I have no clue what this means", or "we actually play this as pass or correct" or "we have no superaccepts", or "my clubs are better than your diamonds", or ... then the LAs are different. Obviously, if the TD determines that 3NT was "partner misunderstood me, if I bid 3♦ we're going to get into even more trouble, at least 3NT will shut him up and it might make", then that will be dealt with - by the TD.

If this was online with self-Alerting, then you'd know it was "diamonds" in responder's mind at least, and your 3♣ would have come out!

So:

• You were entitled to their agreements, and you got them.
  
• You were not entitled to the information that the 2♠ bidder forgot or misbid.
  
• If there was UI, when opener wakes her up to the misbid, she has to bid according to what she thought was going on without the wakeup. If she did not do that, the TD can and should so rule, which likely will involve an adjusted score.
  
• Friendly games stay friendly when phrases like "unfair" or "unacceptable" or "could be called" are not used, and "Director, please" is used instead. I have issues with some so-called "friendly" clubs for exactly this reason - they get upset when we call the TD, but have no issues with passing "social justice" at the table or elsewhere. I am not saying you did that with that intent, but it is done frequently with *exactly* that intent, and you don't want to be one of those players.
  
• Many people believe that "the opponents did something wrong, we're entitled to a good score". That is not correct (although mistakes are punished more often than not).
  
• Double of 3NT as "lead dummy's suit, please", if you don't have another meaning for it besides "I think this is going down" (which is a bad meaning, see "Why You Lose At Bridge" for a full explanation (and a lot of useful "how to deal with partners" and "how to think bridge" information as well)), is at least worth investigating. It comes up once a year, but it's worth it when it does.

[arepo24]

Thank for your above answers.
I appreciate the time you took to explain some things to me.

[Zelandakh]

There are as Paul mentions a number of points to be addressed. The first is to BBF itself - queries such as this are best posted in the Simple Rulings forum, which you can find towards the bottom of the forum list. One of the points you will find if you visit the Rules forums is that they specifically request that you post the jurisdiction of the game. This is because regulations vary regionally and this can have a major impact on the correct ruling. One example of that can be found in your post. In the ACBL, "transfer" has a defined meaning, which is that it shows a specific suit. Thus the common announcement of 1NT - 2♠ as "transfer" when it is actually either minor is technically misinformation (MI), albeit something that pretty much everyone seems to accept and understand. In other languages or jurisdictions, "transfer" as a term might be undefined or have a wider definition.

In this case we do not know any of the circumstances other than that it is a "friendly game". Was it online, behind screens or at a normal face to face table? Was the alert description provided by the Opener or the Responder? Open to table or private? What precisely was said or typed in? And what was the actual agreement?

It is essentially impossible to give a proper ruling without knowing more here. What we can do however is to give some general guidelines. Basically, a player can bid whatever they like at their turn even if their hand does not look anything like the systemic meaning. So even if 2♠ specifically showed clubs, it would be legal for Responder to bid 2♠ followed by 3NT with, for example, a 3370 hand that wanted to play 3NT while inhibiting a club lead. This king of call is often referred to as a psyche. Now psyches are quite a difficult area for lawmakers and there are certain restrictions on their usage. In particular the partner of the player making the psyche should not have more reason to expect it than the opps. So in the case above, once Opener has seen this 2♠ psyche a time or two, they should alter the description of the agreement to include the psyche hand even when that has not been explicitly agreed. This is known as an implicit partnership understanding and not revealing it as a concealed partnership agreement.

Now to the second round. As I mentioned before, at each turn each player can bid whatever they like even if it does not match their hand or their original intention. However, the information that can be used to make such a decision is controlled and if you receive some information that you are not entitled to (called UI) it can restrict your options. Generally speaking, information coming from your partner is not allowed to be used whilst that coming from opponents is allowed. So in my preferred 1NT response structure, the sequence 1NT - 2♠; 3♣ - 3♦ shows a very good hand with 4 hearts and longer clubs. Now if I agreed to play this with a partner who forgets and describes it as weak with one minor, I might be tempted to continue 3NT instead of 3♦ to try and avoid a disaster; but doing so would not be allowed as I would be using UI and here a TD would certainly rule against me.

In your case we would have to look at the information Responder had access to in making the 3NT call. We already dealt with the case of Responder bidding 2♠ to show clubs so let us assume that that is not the case. There are several further possibilities, inter alia:-

1. Responder might have realised that their hand was worth game after having bid 2♠ to show diamonds and that 3♦ therefore made no sense
2. The pair might have the agreement that 2♠ followed by 3NT is either a choice of game between 3NT and 5♦ or is a mild slam try in diamonds.
3. Responder might have bid 2♠ as a range ask
4. Responder might have bid 3NT to avoid a misunderstanding after Opener gave the explanation that 2♠ specifically showed clubs.
5. Responder might have worked out the club position based on LHO's questions and bid 3NT on a hunch.
6. Responder might have bid 3NT because LHO's questions made it obvious to everyone at the table that they had clubs and trusted that RHO would be ethical and not lead them.

In #1, the original 2♠ call was a misbid but is being corrected without UI so that is no problem.
In #2, Responder bid precisely according to the system, though the opps should be made aware of the agreement and there is therefore misinformation (MI).
In #3 Responder does have UI but as 3♣ in that method shows a maximum, there is basically no logical alternative to 3NT. Indeed, in this case bailing out in 3♦ based on the UI might well be the unethical call.
#4 is more or less the same situation as in my previous example. In this case Responder has UI and has used it illegally so a TD ruling would be appropriate.
In #5, Responder is using allowed information so no problem in their choosing 3NT. However, they are using it at their own risk so if it does not work out they would only have recourse if the questions were deliberately designed to deceive.
And #6 is also allowed. As mentioned above, in this case there is every chance that your side would be ruled against if the opening lead in 3NT was a club, since it is your partner that has the UI rather than Responder.

Finally, you might have been damaged by MI. To judge this we would need to know what explanation was provided and what the actual agreement was. If you were told that 2♠ shows clubs and it turns out that it was either minor, or that it was either one minor or a NT invite, then you would have a good case that the MI discouraged you from bidding your clubs. If the lack of a 3♣ overcall in turn actually damaged you in some way then the TD would likely adjust the score in your favour. It is important to note though that MI alone does not make for a favourable ruling - if your opponents would come in 3NT anyway and make the same number of tricks then the TD would rule no damage and not adjust.

Anyway, I hope I have covered enough of the cases to help you and, if not, you can post the details more clearly and we can go through it. I will also just note in passing that the procedure for UI is a little more complicated than I have given in this post but I do not want to get into the nuts and bolts of that as it is a massive subject in its own right that even experienced players struggle with sometimes. If you want that clarified in detail then feel free to ask about how it works, either here or in a separate thread.

[Huibertus]

Things like this happen at bridge, and the implications as to what is allowed or not have been explained.

In a matchpoint game when this happens (and you know it did, looking at your hand), you can expect 0%. So you might want to risk a double, informing partner he should lead something special. If partner is void in clubs your 0% will remain 0%. If he does have a club and leads it, you can expect to have your score improved to 100%. Or opps might work out they made a mistake and run to 4♦ for an average score... This only has to work a small percentage of the times for it to pay off in the long run.

[Vampyr]

If you are using 2NT or 2♠ or any other bid as a weak takeout to one as yet unspecified minor, explaining it as a transfer is bound to mislead because it is not.