Unauthorised information
Hello ,
if possible please kindly comment on how the bidding should go on as to the following bidding.
N : Dealer
W N E S
2nt ( 20-21 bal) pas 3H ( transfer in their system card )
P 3nt all pas.
! N-S play transfer ( also transfer -break other than any bid of a suit that is transferred ) but N doesnt't alert.
Case 1 ) N-S makes 3NT +1 but ( better than in the other room -4sp= ) N holds 3cSp
Case 2 ) S thinks that his partner has no idea about the 5cSp that he has ( since N didn't alert ) S , not to use the UI
, bids 4sp and N passes. it is made , 4sp= ( in the other room they play 3nt and goes 1 off - they don't play 3nt as a transfer break )
N holds only two small sps ( but ruffing helps)
In the cases above there are two different progresses. But in both cases there is no alert and not alerting helps NS get a better score than that is in the other room.
As a TD what should be our ruling ? Do you think that an adjusted score and a procedural penalty should be involved.
Looking forward to receiving your comments.
Regards.
Sscaaddin Ozdeniz
Comments
I think we would need to see South's hand and a poll would be needed... holding this hand (whatever that may be), partner opens 2NT (20-21 bal), you bid 3H as a transfer to S (correctly announced, not alerted), partner calls 3NT. Your agreement is whatever their actual agreement is (or if no agreement, this is also okay). What calls do you consider etc...
As for a procedural penalty, I think that this would depend on a multitude of factors - the players experience, the level of play involved etc. If this were a beginner I would not even contemplate issuing even a warning, but rather a reminder about alerting/announcing correctly. For a more experienced player I would issue a warning/reminder, particularly if this were a relaxed club session (we want them back next week).
Sscaaddin, firstly, please could you tell me which regulations are in force in your scenarios? Just curious. You say that the 3H was not alerted, so that suggests you are using alerting regulations of the WBF or some other Regulating Authority.
Assuming that 3H should have been alerted, South has the UI that North may have forgotten transfers. There is no problem with North bidding 3NT as he has no UI.
If 3H had been alerted, what would 3NT have meant? We need to know. I have mostly come across 3NT being to say that the opener opened 2NT with a singleton spade. I have no agreements with any of my partners what a 3NT break of transfer would mean, so "No agreement" is not unlikely.
Now we have the question of what the UI suggests. Does partner's non-alert followed by 3NT suggest that we pass or does it suggest that we bid 4S?
I think that this is what you are getting at with your two scenarios. The important thing is that you can't have the UI suggesting passing over 4S, and at the same time have the UI suggesting bidding 4S over passing. It has to be one or the other, or quite possibly, neither.
So first we need to know what, if anything 3NT would have meant had 3H been alerted, and then we need to decide what the UI suggests. From there, we may or may not need to poll for logical alternatives, but we are not at that stage yet. :))
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Hello ,
Thank you very much for your interests.
As to your questions, A can clarify that in both cases WBF alerting procedures apply. N-S , as I indicated before, play 3H as transfer to spades and 3nt is a transfer break meaning 4/5cSp. (according to their CC , to be alerted ) I know some players play 3nt as natural with only 2cSp though I prefer playing 5cH-2cSp. İn my scenario let's assume that 3nt means either of these two possibilities ( I don't know if there are some other choices). That is to say N seems to have only 2csp (since 3H not alerted by N, most probably forgetting the system they are playing).
I hope my clarification helps.
Regards
Secaaddin Ozdeniz
Thanks, Secaaddin.
So, let's look at when 3NT shows spade support, and then at when 3NT shows spade shortage. Incidentally, I like your idea of 3NT showing two spades and five hearts!
As South, we simply have to assume that partner forgot to alert (announce in EBU-land) our 3H bid. Let's also assume that South wants to play in game but has no slam interest. As South, we also have to alert the 3NT as we have a partnership agreement about the 3NT that opponents might not expect. (That applies whether WBF or EBU.)
If 3NT shows (by agreement) spade support, then we would expect South to bid 4S and not pass. The lack of the alert suggests that South might be better to pass. If South bids 4S, we will not adjust, whatever happens. If South does pass and gets a good score and EW want a ruling, then we know without polling that 4S is a logical alternative, and we look at adjusting to 4S (or anything higher if 4S could be seen by North as a slam try*).
If 3NT shows (by agreement) shortage in spades, then we would expect South (with five spades) to pass. The lack of alert suggests that South might be better to bid 4S. If South passes, we will not adjust, whatever happens. If South does bid 4S and gets a good score and EW want a ruling, then we know without polling that passing is a logical alternative, and we look at adjusting to 3NT passed out.
We could make things more complicated by making the South hand a bit stronger so that South might be interested in a slam if North can break the transfer to 3NT to show spade support and 21 HCP. We might now expect South to bid something other than 4S in search of a possible slam. Now the lack of the alert of 3H might suggest to South to not look for a slam but settle for game. Now we would need to poll players to determine logical alternatives.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thank you very much indeed. It is all clear now. It's been a great help.
Regards
Secaaddin Ozdeniz.
Thank you very much for your comment.
Regards
Secaaddin Ozdeniz