[schulken]

ACBL. Club game. Matchpoints.

I had the opportunity to rule on this sequence about three weeks ago. Since I hadn't given it much thought since, I unfortunately don't have the hand record available. I don't think it really matters as the holdings weren't remarkable. In fact, were it not for the persistence of one of the players on the NOS to prove me wrong, I would have already forgotten about it.

In third seat, N opened 2♣ and S responded 2♦ waiting. EW are silent. N rebids 2 NT and S rebids 3♦. N, an A player, did not announce a transfer and bid 4♦. S, a B player, then bid 4♥, prompting EW to summon me. I asked that the auction be completed - it was passed out - an instructed NS to play the contract at 4♥. I advised EW to call me back if they believed they had been damaged. I was called back to the table when the contract made 5. I took this under advisement and instructed them to score the hand at the table result.

Mr. Persistence (some might call him Mr. Pugnacious) insisted that S couldn't bid again. He now tells me that he has discussed this with two tournament-level directors and they agree with him. So now I'm thinking about it again.

At the time, I considered that S knew or should have known that N had forgotten that 3♦ was a transfer, which was in fact the case. Since N did not announce a transfer, that would be a reasonable conclusion for S to reach. However, since N is a more accomplished player, S likely considered that 4♦ was some kind of cue bid or a super acceptance. In a game forcing auction sequence, in my opinion, pass was not an option. Having said all he had to say about his hand with his 3♦ bid, he bid 4♥. I also consulted with four other A level players present at the game. Each stated that 4♥ was an appropriate bid for S and was not suggested by the UI.

For what it's worth, the other eight times the hand was played, NS was in 3 NT making 5 on seven occasions and making four on the other. Nearly a bottom board for the offending side.

Have I missed something? This seems to me to be one of those situations where many people believe that pass is always a logical alternative. Since the rules are about restoring equity and not punishing offenders, playing at 4♥ seems to restore equity, Awarding an adjusted score of 4♦ seems punitive to me.

[wank]

only beginners would think south has to pass 4d here. north's bid can't possibly be to play after rebidding 2NT.

in all likelihood south should indeed take it as some sort of superaccept. depending how good his hand is, he may or not be allowed to bid 4H.

it might be appropriate to force him to make a counter-cuebid or even 4NT if his hand is good opposite a superaccept. you would then have to judge where the bidding might end up and award an adjusted score - something like 7 hearts -2 for example as north would also blissfully continue on the assumption south had diamonds making it hard for them to stop in a vaguely sensible spot.

it's not about restoring equity in any normal sense of the word. you can consider it to be restoring equity to the point where south bid 4h (the call affected by the UI). at this point 'equity' could very well be 100% for EW as NS might have no legal way out of their pickle.

[blackshoe]

If the OS got a near bottom, then EW were not damaged.

"South can't bid 4♥" exposes a misunderstanding of the rules. South has UI. He is constrained not to choose from among logical alternative calls one which demonstrably could have been suggested by the UI. What does the UI say? It says that North doesn't realize that 3♦ was a transfer, and hence doesn't realize that South has hearts. OTOH, systemically 4♦ is forcing to at least game. This would make passing 4♦ not a LA, and if there's no other LA, then South can bid 4♥. Also, if EW were not damaged by an infraction, they are not entitled to a score adjustment. You might explain to south his obligations when in receipt of UI, or read to him Law 73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." Note: for purposes of this law (and others "alert" should be read as "alert or announcement".

[chrism]

I agree.
If the agreement is indeed transfer, South has to bid as if North had announced "transfer" and then called 4♦. Can anyone possibly bid a NF 4♦ over the 3♦ transfer? I would explore their super-acceptances over 1NT-2♦ for analogies; typical might be 4-card support with a small doubleton in diamonds, but there numerous other possibilities, none of which is "sign-off with long diamonds" - a minimum 2♣ with 6 diamonds would quite likely have bid 3♦ the previous round.

So I might force South to bid more than 4♥, but never to pass 4♦.

If the actual agreement is not transfer (or does not exist) we have a slightly different position; South has now been woken up to his misbid by the absence of an expected announcement. Still, he has to persist in his transfer interpretation, and bid (at least) 4♥ over the super-acceptance, and we are back in pretty much the same situation.

[weejonnie]

Assuming that when South rebids 4♥ then North should call the director and explain that he has failed to alert 3♦ as a transfer. As far as I can see North has no UI - his knowledge of the fact that 3♦ was a transfer comes from the bids that South has made.

Of course the TD should check convention cards to make sure that this is indeed NS agreement.

South has AI (North has a strong balanced hand) that is strongly indicative that 4♦ is not a strong natural suit. However 4♦ must be a forward move and if South has any logical alternative bid to signing off (which is demonstrably suggested by the UI) then he is required to make it.

[blackshoe]

If North realizes what's going on when South bids 4♥, then sure, he must (not should) call the director. He might not realize it, in which case he's going to think that 4♥ is some kind of slam try in diamonds (control bid, kickback, or long suit slam try are three possibilities I can think of) and bid on.

[aguahombre]

weejonnie, on 2014-August-02, 15:38, said:

Assuming that when South rebids 4♥ then North should call the director and explain that he has failed to alert 3♦ as a transfer. As far as I can see North has no UI - his knowledge of the fact that 3♦ was a transfer comes from the bids that South has made.

Of course the TD should check convention cards to make sure that this is indeed NS agreement.

South has AI (North has a strong balanced hand) that is strongly indicative that 4♦ is not a strong natural suit. However 4♦ must be a forward move and if South has any logical alternative bid to signing off (which is demonstrably suggested by the UI) then he is required to make it.

Although I agree that Passing 4D is not a logical alternative, I disagree about Opener not having possibly a flawed 2NT rebid (3-1-6-3 22 count, for instance). Many players use 2C and then 3m only with a VERY long minor and lots of real tricks. Therefore, depending on South's hand in the OP case, a black suit cue (for diamonds) or a 5D "raise" could well be a L.A. not suggested by the UI.
4H on a five-bagger would be a call suggested by the UI, IMO.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-02, 14:00, said:

If the OS got a near bottom, then EW were not damaged.

If the OS would have gotten a cold bottom, then they were, although not as much as if the infraction had led to a good board for the OS.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2014-August-02, 15:38, said:

Of course the TD should check convention cards to make sure that this is indeed NS agreement.

There's no place on the typical ACBL CC for continuations after 2♣-2♦-2NT. Everyone just "knows" that the agreements over an opening 2NT also apply here. So the only thing to look for would be hand-written notes saying that this is not the case for this partnership.

North is supposedly an A player, it seems unlikely that he doesn't know this. But maybe he assumed his less experienced partner didn't. Although I'd consider that quite an insult to a B player. The only players I would suspect don't know this are total beginners.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-August-02, 20:59, said:

If the OS would have gotten a cold bottom, then they were, although not as much as if the infraction had led to a good board for the OS.

Yes, I was thinking that a near bottom was a worse score than would have happened absent the UI.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-August-02, 21:22, said:

There's no place on the typical ACBL CC for continuations after 2♣-2♦-2NT. Everyone just "knows" that the agreements over an opening 2NT also apply here.

There's a place. Nobody uses it. I agree about "just knows" - although the system card regulations don't recognize that.

[weejonnie]

It all comes down to whether NS have an agreement as to what North's bid means in this situation. If they have an agreement then fine. If they do not then South has to assume that North's bid shows diamonds since the failure to alert suggests that he hasn't.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2014-August-03, 03:03, said:

It all comes down to whether NS have an agreement as to what North's bid means in this situation. If they have an agreement then fine. If they do not then South has to assume that North's bid shows diamonds since the failure to alert suggests that he hasn't.

The failure to alert suggests that North has diamond support (3+), not a real diamond suit of his own, since he's just raising South's 3♦ bid. But if South bids on this assumption, it would be taking advantage of the UI. South is supposed to assume that North is on the same page as he is, and can't use the UI to realize that they have different understandings.

[trevahound]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-02, 21:59, said:

There's a place. Nobody uses it. I agree about "just knows" - although the system card regulations don't recognize that.

Please, where is that place?

[blackshoe]

To the right of the lines and checkboxes pertaining to 2♣ is an empty space with the heading "Describe". It's bordered on the right by a vertical line, which is followed by another white space with the heading "Responses/Rebids". Not a lot of room, I'll grant, but it's there.

Frankly, there is so little room to describe system on the ACBL system card that it should be SOP to write something short, with a number in brackets referring to a separate list of expansions of understandings. This could go on the back of the card, if the "private score" wasn't in the way.