[sanst]

---

S bids 2♦, natural according to the agreements, but alerted by N and explained as transfer. Now S ‘corrects’ this to 3♦. Let’s assume that there was no other indication by S that N made a mistake and that the players don’t play this as forcing. I know, it’s a lot to ask, but these aren’t experienced players.
EW call the TD and claim that S should have passed 2♥, which would end in -2, whereas 3♦ is made. The TD decides that S legally knows, because of the 2♥, that N has forgotten their agreement and therefore allows the 3♦. I wouldn’t, but would you?

[pran]

 sanst, on 2020-January-02, 08:25, said:

---

S bids 2♦, natural according to the agreements, but alerted by N and explained as transfer. Now S ‘corrects’ this to 3♦. Let’s assume that there was no other indication by S that N made a mistake and that the players don’t play this as forcing. I know, it’s a lot to ask, but these aren’t experienced players.
EW call the TD and claim that S should have passed 2♥, which would end in -2, whereas 3♦ is made. The TD decides that S legally knows, because of the 2♥, that N has forgotten their agreement and therefore allows the 3♦. I wouldn’t, but would you?

What would South have bid if North had just bid 2♥ with no alert or other indication (from North) that the 2♦ bid was artificial?

He should not adjust the result if he judges that South most likely would have bid 3♦ anyway.

[sanst]

 pran, on 2020-January-02, 09:06, said:

What would South have bid if North had just bid 2♥ with no alert or other indication (from North) that the 2♦ bid was artificial?

He should not adjust the result if he judges that South most likely would have bid 3♦ anyway.

I don’t know the players involved, so I can’t answer the question. But if you ask the players, you can be sure that the answer will be “3♦ of course!”

[blackshoe]

"Natural". Okay. Strength range? Over a natural 2♦, how do they play 2♥?

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2020-January-02, 08:25, said:

The TD decides that S legally knows, because of the 2♥, that N has forgotten their agreement and therefore allows the 3♦. I wouldn’t, but would you?

This argument is frequently trotted out on BW; it seems to me a violation of the spirit of the laws, but at least it offers a solution.

 blackshoe, on 2020-January-02, 10:06, said:

Over a natural 2♦, how do they play 2♥?

I would add, how many hearts and how few diamonds can 1NT contain?

 pran, on 2020-January-02, 09:06, said:

What would South have bid if North had just bid 2♥ with no alert or other indication (from North) that the 2♦ bid was artificial?
He should not adjust the result if he judges that South most likely would have bid 3♦ anyway.

The natural 2♥ bid seems unlikely to me unless North can have 5-card hearts and 2 or less card diamonds, in which case pass looks attractive.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2020-January-02, 10:37, said:

The natural 2♥ bid seems unlikely to me unless North can have 5-card hearts and 2 or less card diamonds, in which case pass looks attractive.

2♥ could also be "I'm maximum, raising to 3 diamonds and I have a heart suit" 5-3 reds

[DozyDom]

 blackshoe, on 2020-January-02, 10:06, said:

"Natural". Okay. Strength range? Over a natural 2♦, how do they play 2♥?

We can see the hand - we know they play 2D as natural with no interest in game. No one I know has discussed this situation specifically, but 2H just looks natural, and from a NT open can't be forcing. There's no way S would rebid 3D here with 3-card support to the K and terrible diamonds. Should be rolled back.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-January-02, 10:47, said:

2♥ could also be "I'm maximum, raising to 3 diamonds and I have a heart suit" 5-3 reds

If a direct 3♦ would have been GF in diamonds then maybe so, I guess (playing 3♣ as transfer to diamonds, a natural 2♦ must be weak and there seems little to gain opposite 1NT max).

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2020-January-02, 10:06, said:

"Natural". Okay. Strength range? Over a natural 2♦, how do they play 2♥?

If the hand they bid with is typical, it looks like it's a shut-up bid that can be quite weak, so I'll bet they'll say that 2♥ is "impossible".

This is a problem that comes up all the time (at least in discussion groups, not sure about real life). Absent the UI (e.g. with screens or online), South is allowed to realize that the impossible bid means there was a misunderstanding. But after hearing the alert, he's forced to bend over backwards and assume the bid was understood, but partner has still chosen to make a non-systemic bid, and now you have to figure out what it could mean in that context.

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2020-January-02, 10:37, said:

I would add, how many hearts and how few diamonds can 1NT contain?

I don’t know the actual agreements of this pair, but nowadays standard in Holland 5 hearts are possible and at least two in any suit. Strength anything from 0 hcp. For those who learned bridge in the last century and haven’t changed to a more modern system a 1NT won’t have a five card major.
For more experienced players, but I don’t think these are, 3♦ would be GF showing 5+♥, 4+♦ and a slam try. At least that’s not unusual over here.

[FelicityR]

East/West calling the TD and insisting that South pass his partner's 2♥ bid seems ludicrous. South wanted to play in 2♦, is now one level higher, and North finally remembering (or not) that transfers do not apply after an opponent's interference really cannot be seen as UI - surely? We all forget our conventions and agreements from time to time.

The only exception to the above is that the 2♦ bid prevented West from making a bid with a reasonable ♥ suit him/herself. If that were the case, then the TD needs to take the appropriate action against North/South for misinforming the opponents about the description of a bid. Otherwise, I'll let 3♦ stand.

(I think the level of experience of the players shouldn't be a factor in this, but I believe less experienced players are prone to this sort of bidding error, forgetting simple agreements, if there were any agreement in the first place - which probably wasn't the case given the level of the players.)

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2020-January-02, 11:07, said:

For those who learned bridge in the last century and haven’t changed to a more modern system a 1NT won’t have a five card major.

But beginners in recent year will have been taught to open 1NT this way (at least over here) and it sound like these two are beginners.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2020-January-02, 10:57, said:

If a direct 3♦ would have been GF in diamonds then maybe so, I guess (playing 3♣ as transfer to diamonds, a natural 2♦ must be weak and there seems little to gain opposite 1NT max).

No, 2♦ will be weak, 3♦ would be preemptive with real diamonds, 2♥ is "my hand is now worth more than 17" and a mild invite opposite a max 2♦.

[pescetom]

 FelicityR, on 2020-January-02, 12:34, said:

East/West calling the TD and insisting that South pass his partner's 2♥ bid seems ludicrous. South wanted to play in 2♦, is now one level higher, and North finally remembering (or not) that transfers do not apply after an opponent's interference really cannot be seen as UI - surely? We all forget our conventions and agreements from time to time.

The only exception to the above is that the 2♦ bid prevented West from making a bid with a reasonable ♥ suit him/herself. If that were the case, then the TD needs to take the appropriate action against North/South for misinforming the opponents about the description of a bid. Otherwise, I'll let 3♦ stand.

(I think the level of experience of the players shouldn't be a factor in this, but I believe less experienced players are prone to this sort of bidding error, forgetting simple agreements, if there were any agreement in the first place - which probably wasn't the case given the level of the players.)

I agree that silly errors are the norm for inexperienced players and Director should not assume otherwise. Having said that, EW insisting that South should pass (rather than simply complaining that the bid was misexplained, or whatever) sounds a bit odd. I wouldn't be surprised if EW were having a misunderstanding of their own, with West holding hearts and thinking that 2♣ might be for the majors.

[Vampyr]

 pescetom, on 2020-January-02, 12:57, said:

But beginners in recent year will have been taught to open 1NT this way (at least over here) and it sound like these two are beginners.

I doubt that they are explicitly taught that they should not open 1NT with a 5-card major.

What they should be taught is that if you don’t open 1NT, partner will never believe that you have a balanced hand in range.

[ruleof15]

If an established partnership, which I doubt, I would make it down 2 at 3H. An unestablished partnership or club game, I would allow the 3♦ to stand. Why have a weird score to mess up the field? If it was husband and wife, I would take the results of the 3♦. I am not stepping into that fray. Definition: established partnership; a pair who carries papers to verify, “This is what we play.”

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2020-January-02, 14:24, said:

I doubt that they are explicitly taught that they should not open 1NT with a 5-card major.

What they should be taught is that if you don’t open 1NT, partner will never believe that you have a balanced hand in range.

You misunderstood, they are now explicitly taught to always open 1NT with a 5-card major 5332 in range.
FWIW, I think this is what they should be taught.

[pescetom]

 ruleof15, on 2020-January-02, 15:08, said:

If an established partnership, which I doubt, I would make it down 2 at 3H. An unestablished partnership or club game, I would allow the 3♦ to stand. Why have a weird score to mess up the field? If it was husband and wife, I would take the results of the 3♦. I am not stepping into that fray. Definition: established partnership; a pair who carries papers to verify, “This is what we play.”

I'm not sure why you are in such a hurry to penalise a partnership who carries papers to verify their agreements and absolve the less serious who do not. Those who follow the rules and work to disclose their agreements should be privileged, not penalised. I understand better your reluctance to step into the husband wife fray, but as a Director this is your lot and they may well carry papers too.

[sfi]

Does anybody really play 2H here as natural and non-forcing? I would think it vastly more likely to show a good hand with a diamond fit and heart values, and be forcing to 3D. In that context, anything but 3D just looks wrong.

Even with the UI, I still have a 6-card suit and a weak hand. Diamonds has to be a better trump suit.

[steve2005]

How do they show a red 2-suiter?

Without any interference, I had that sequence passed out. Partner had thought I had forgotten transfers after 20 years!
I was not impressed playing in 3D when 4H is cold and 6H isn't the worst slam ever.