UI (and MI) situation
I have very recently had a what I think is a slightly different situation to any I have had before. Match Points, Game All
............ S 76
............ H KT75
............ D AKQ
............ C KQT4
S AK83 ................S QT542
H A .......................H J6
D J963 ..................D T754
C A863 ..................C J9
............. S J9
............. H Q98432
............. D 82
............. C 752
W .... N .... E .... S
..........................No
1D .. 1NT . No.. 2H(A)
No .. 2S .. No .. 3H
No .. No .. No
3H made exactly. West wanted a ruling. If he had known that the 2H bid showed hearts, he thinks his side would have introduced spades. I think that's a bit difficult for West, so I focused on the UI
North South are an experienced partnership of ordinary club players but with a very complex bidding system, and yet in this situation, North believed that Stayman and Transfers applied and South thought there was no partnership agreement. The NS System Card is silent on whether Stayman and RST applies over a 1NT overcall although it is stated as general over 1NT.
South tried 2H anyway and this was alerted, the alert being UI to South, of course. South then didn't alert North's conversion to 2S, and he bid 3H. South's lack of alert of 2S gave North the UI that South may well have just hearts. I would have expected North to take this sequence as forcing (with five spades and four hearts and about 10 HCP) and raise to 4H, so I could adjust to 4H-1 quite happily.
But what about the 3H bid by South?
I polled players by giving the South hand and the auction as far as East's second pass, and told them that the 2H was natural and that there had been no alerts. All nine replies said they would pass. One stated "North probably has an off-centre 1N overcall, e.g. S QTxxx H A D AQJx C KJx. As South I would wish that partner had passed 2H because that rates to be a better contract than 2S. It's too late to do anything about that."
I now wonder if when polling, I should have given the information that we have no agreement whether our 2H shows hearts or spades, while still saying that our 2H was not alerted.
But it seems to me that a player can't decide to determine whether his partner has interpreted his call one way or the other by how he responds to our call if there are possible hands with which partner would make the same call on either interpretation.
Compare that with a 1NT (No) 4NT sequence with no agreement. If the opener passes or bids 6NT, then opener has taken the 4NT as quantitative and if the opener bids 5 of a suit, opener has taken it as Blackwood (or decided to give a Blackwood response with a maximum).
But here there are possible hands that North could have when responding 2S to either a transfer 2H or a natural 2H.
Is my approach reasonable. If so, I would adjust to 2S-3. If not, I would look at the MI again or adjust to 4H-1.
Opinions very welcome! Thanks. :)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Comments
Personally I don't think there is a logical alternative to bidding 3 hearts - no matter how you look at it South's 6-2 heart fit is going to produce more tricks than any spade fit (assume 5-2 as being the best) as otherwise the South hand is useless. However your polling says otherwise so we must assume that passing is a LA - but see below. The question is: do you trust your partner? Playing North for an off-center 1NT bid might not be a LA for the class of players concerned.
If there is no agreement then I believe the pollees should be told that is the situation and we get into the "We don't know what we are doing, the bid could be natural or show spades" territory - this is also what West should be told after the 2H bid when you poll to find out if EW can find their spade fit.
And what does the 2 Spade response mean? Notionally South knows that North is completing a transfer - which is UI: could it be a super-accept i.e. 4-card support, a maximum hand and a working doubleton in spades? That in fact is what North has! A very complex bidding system might very well include 'breaking' and 'bouncing' in other situations. (Although in this case South should be alerting with the explanation)
Another poll on whether North should raise 3 Hearts to 4 Hearts - personally I think he should BUT does North have any UI? North thinks that 2H is a transfer so surely he should not be surprised if South doesn't alert his bid (unless they (or at least North) play super-accepts or something like that where the 2 Spade response denies 4 spades and/ or a maximum hand.). Of course there could be other UI e.g. south grimacing or throwing down the 3H card forcibly - this is not mentioned.
If you decide passing 2S is a LA then of course you cannot adjust to 4H-1 since you can't get there legally.
You should also give some weight to 4HX-1 if you get there: West has four top tricks including the Ace of trumps.
In terms of West's claims of MI affecting the EW bidding – I play an artificial double in this situation (assuming 2H is natural) which shows 15+, 3+ spades, and 3+ clubs, and I'm pretty likely to have used it. That would likely lead to a 2S call by E, and possible reraise to 3S by W (although possibly not). So there are definitely EW partnerships that would have gotten further into the auction. (In theory, a poll / examination of the EW methods might be needed to determine what would have happened from the EW side of things.)
As for S passing 2S, it can be difficult to work out what's logical for the partnership because different partnerships play it differently. For example, it would be hard for me to directly answer this sort of poll, because my main partnership does play (1D), 1N, 2H as a transfer. Thinking about an analogous sequence which could happen in the systems I play, e.g. 1N, (2D natural), 2H natural, 2S, I would interpret the 2S as an attempt to play (despite the signoff attempt in hearts), and might well pass it because 2S on a 5-2 fit could be better than 3H on a 6-2 fit. I'd at least be considering a pass, even if I corrected.
The Laws are clear that if passing is a logical alternative to bidding 3H over 2S, and 3H is demonstrably suggested over 2S, then South can't make the 3H bid. I think there's enough evidence that it is in fact a logical alternative, even though it's unclear what bid would actually have been made without UI at the table – the flawed poll makes the situation not entirely clear, but I think many of the pollees would still consider passing 2S, and some would make the pass.
However, complicating things further, I can see an argument that the alert suggests not bidding 3H rather than bidding 3H. After 1NT, 2H natural NF, 2S, it's fairly clear that 3H is a signoff attempt. Meanwhile, after 1NT, 2H=S, 2S, many (most?) pairs play 3H as forcing with both majors. As such, after 2H interpreted as natural, bidding 3H is "safe" in that the bidding will stop there – but after 2H interpreted as a transfer, 3H risks partner giving preference to spades, bidding 3S or even 4S. On this layout, N has hearts rather than spades, so 3H worked out. But just imagine if N had spades instead, something which isn't ruled out by the bidding and might even be quite likely from S's point of view. Say the bidding on those hands went (1D), 1NT, 2H (intended as natural, alerted as spades), 2S, pass. We might be saying "the pass of 2S is unlawful, because it helped the bidding to stop low when the partnership was destined to get too high in 3S or 4S; S took advantage of the UI to stop lower than the partnership otherwise would, despite being doomed to be in a bad spade contract".
The basic issue here is that once N/S have had the misunderstanding, a hypothetical unethical S who was trying to take advantage of the UI would discover that their best action depends on N's hand! If N has hearts, 3H is the most successful call, maybe stopping in a making 3H, maybe stopping in 4H-1 which is still an improvement. But if N has spades, pass is the most successful call, because it stops in 2S rather than 3S or 4S. This then creates a problem for ethical players in S's position: they need to work out what call would be suggested to an unethical player because they are bound by the Laws to make the opposite decision. But there isn't enough evidence available to S to work that out.
In conclusion, I suspect that there actually isn't a call for S that's demonstrably suggested by the alert – the alert suggests something about how N has interpreted the call, but doesn't give much information about whether 3H or Pass would be likely to be more successful. As such, I'd be inclined to consider the 3H call to be legal, due to lack of a demonstrable suggestion, and project an auction leading to 4H-1 by N (possibly with E/W showing spades along the way, but getting outcompeted).
In the description of the events, there is a note that the 1H bid was alerted, but was this questioned and explained?
If it was, then S knows exactly how N is taking the 2H bid. However, if it was not alerted, then how is N taking the bid?
I have been known to Alert due to having no partnership agreement in a particular situation, with an explanation of possible interpretations based on past experience. With my regular partnerships we have agreed that systems are on in this situation. However, with 1 of my partnerships I have an agreement where the 1NT is in the pass-out seat, but not with one of my other partners:
1D - Pass - Pass - 1NT
Pass - 2H
With my partner with an agreement, I would not alert the 2H bid as this is a natural take-out bid.
However, with my partner without an agreement I would alert the 2H bid. If asked I would explain that we have no agreement in this situation, however, after 1NT open or a direct 1NT overcall, the 2H bid would be a transfer, but in this situation it could be natural.
The point being is that the alert does not, in and of itself, tell S that N thinks that the 2H bid is a transfer. That is 1 possibility, but also it may be alerted as no agreement but with potentially conventional meaning?
Is that right, to alert where there is no agreement but potentially conventional based on other agreements? Or alerting because it might be conventional but you have forgotten the system?
Thanks, John, ais and Martin. Some good points raised and I also have a little more evidence, particularly that West might be more likely than I had previously thought to intervene with an explanation "No agreement but would be either natural or a transfer showing spades".
As it happened, EW did not ask about the alert of 2H. West probably assumed that the 2H was a transfer and couldn't see any point in asking. However, if North and South were both of the view that there was no agreement, then North would have been correct to alert on the basis that the 2H "might not be natural". Had West actually asked, he would have been told as he would have suspected that 2H was a transfer showing spades. But he didn't actually ask so he didn't actually get any mis-information. So I am back to UI.
I still have the fall-back position of adjusting on the basis that North has the UI that South didn't alert the 2S bid that North would have considered a completion of transfer. If the 2S bid had been alerted, then surely North would have raised 3H to 4H. I agree with John that West might well find a double of this so I would have to weigh 4H-1 and 4HX-1.
That's irrelevant if I adjust on the earlier UI. But ...
ais has raised the very good question of whether the UI actually suggests that South bids 3H, because if 3H is forcing, as it must be in this sequence, then NS might easily, indeed very likely, end up in a 4S contract, or certainly a 3S contract, and that would be worse than quietly leaving 2S. So I am persuaded by the argument that 3H is not suggested and certainly not "demonstrably suggested".
It's looking like I will adjust on the basis of the UI that North had when not raising 3H to 4H, though first I shall have to ask him why he didn't raise, but I may need a very good reason!!
Opinions still welcome! :))
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
2H would be alerted if North was going to explain "no agreement, could be natural or a transfer to spades".
Another thought occurs - the sequence 1NT - P - 2H (announced as transfer to Spades) - P; 2S is not announced/alerted.
However, in 1D - 1NT - P - 2H (should be alerted as transfer) - P; then P - 2S - I was not actually aware that this should be alerted, so the lack of alert would not be expected and I would not miss the alert and would be surprised if it were alerted. (I now know, so will alert these bids in future :) ).
If the alert of 2H is queried and explained as a transfer to Spades, then should the 2S still be alerted, even though there has been a verbal explanation at the table that the 2H was a transfer to S?
With the assumption of no agreement, I have a policy of making a solid decision and lot leave partner guessing. So, for me, with the correct explanation and alerting of "no partnership agreement", I would not be bidding 2H and 3H to show a game forcing hand with 5-4 or better in S & H. I would be forcing to game with:
W .... N .... E .... S
..........................No
1D .. 1NT . No.. 2H(A)
No .. 2S .. No .. 3D
The 3D would be game forcing with 5 Spades and asking for further information (which might include 3S support or a 4-card H suit, or to bid 3NT with neither).
With 5-4 I would be asking Stayman then after a 2D reply, bid the 5 card suit at the 3-level.
So not bidding as above would rule out game forcing situations, at least for partners I had played a bit with but not discussed this scenario. Generally speaking, bidding in a competitive auction is non-forcing unless there is a specific agreement, as there is always the option to cue bid to show values.
So, in that case, passing 3H would be logical and bidding 4H would not be a logical alternative.
I think that for most players, however, the second H bid would show 5-4 and forcing, so 4H-1 and 4HX-1 both look reasonable to me.
Thanks, Martin.
The argument against 2H followed by 3H not being forcing is that surely with five spades and four hearts and no game ambitions, surely you would bid 2C, Stayman, and pass 2S or 2H or convert 2D to 2S?
You asked: "If the alert of 2H is queried and explained as a transfer to Spades, then should the 2S still be alerted, even though there has been a verbal explanation at the table that the 2H was a transfer to S?"
Yes. South gets the information that North thinks that 2H shows spades. South had thought there was no partnership agreement. There are now two routes.
If South now thinks he was wrong, and that they do have an agreement that 2H shows spades, South must alert. South still has UI that he got the agreement wrong.
If South thinks he is still right that there is no agreement, then he should alert 2S and, if asked (which would be unlikely), he should say that there is no agreement in this situation and so the 2S is either natural or intended as a completion of transfer, so might not be natural. In this case North will receive UI, but that is one of those things that can't be avoided. But most likely no one will ask about the alert of 2S.
Potentially quite a tangled web! :))
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thanks for the reply Senior_Kibitzer... I am not sure that I was clear with my question, as I was thinking about in general, rather than in this specific instance... So, when a call is alerted and the ops ask the question as to what the alert was for and they are informed (lets assume correctly) that the 2H bid is a transfer to 2S, should the subsequent 2S call be alerted? If the 2H call is alerted but they ops do not ask, it seems that the later 2S call should be alerted, but should it when the previous 2H call has already been confirmed to be a transfer to S.
No problem, Martin. I thought you were clear, though my answer did apply to this instance, in which case the answer was yes, alert either way. But there may be other situations on this theme where the answer does depend on whether the player (who first discovers that a wheel has fallen off) decides whether his partner is wrong or whether he himself is wrong!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
One problem with the sequence 1N - 2H - 2S - 3H being forcing is that a certain level of player never shows 2-suiters via a transfer and “everyone” at that level knows this sequence is a signoff showing 2H was not meant as a transfer. If this pair was at that level then any UI North has would not affect his pass of 3H: for such a player, there is no logical alternative to pass. In general most pairs who are not certain whether they are playing transfers or not tend to be at this level.
Since I believe that completions of transfers are no longer alertable then the sequence 1N - 2H - 2S will not be alertable whether South thinks 2H is a transfer (completion of transfer) or natural (2H not a transfer).
It is an unfortunate fact that if the opponent are correctly informed that a pair has no agreement, this often puts them in an impossible position. Here West has a double of 2H natural, but not after 2H transfer, so if he was told that they have no agreement about 2H, what can he do?
Indeed and that is why the introduction of announcements in EBU-land solved this issue in the case of an opening 1NT bid. My North - South players were way above that level. South thought that Stayman and Transfers applied if his hand was not a passed hand, but that there was no agreement if, as here, his hand had originally passed.
Wow! I hadn't noticed this! I had been aware that transfer completions are mostly not alertable when the bid that initiates the transfer is announced, but it seems that under BB 4C1a, completion of transfer bids are always considered as natural for the purpose of alerting, even if the player might have as little as a singleton.
This would make the ruling different had it happened in EBU-land. This actually happened in Bridge Club Live but I had not believed that there were any differences with F2F at an EBU club for the purpose of this ruling. In BCL, completions of transfers are specifically alertable.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I thought BCL used EBL alerting? I would not alert a transfer completion in an EBL event, and do not in Scotland which claims to use EBL alerting. Certainly they are not alertable in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, RoI or the ACBL, F2F or online.
I don’t see BB4C1A has anything to do with transfer completion. If 2S was natural then BB4C1A says it is natural therefore not alertable, but if it is a transfer completion then (unless it shows something specific) BB4H2F makes it clear an alert is not required.
If BB4C1A has nothing to do with completions of transfers, then what is the context in which they are mentioned in that paragraph?
I was aware that completions of transfer were not announced or alerted when the transfer bid itself was announced, and then completions of transfers became alertable if they denied a four card holding (BB4H2F). Surely BB4H2F would "make it clear" that an alert for a completion of transfer is not required, only if one applied a negative inference?
BCL uses WBF Alerting Regulations. WBF Alerting Regulations are much shorter and thus more vague than EBU Alerting Regulations. My predecessor, John Probst, and I added a number of interpretations on the site in order to avoid doubt. We make it clear that all transfer bids and completions of transfer are alertable.
In Scotland, the SBU also use WBF Alerting Regulations but they have posted their interpretation that ordinary completions of transfers are not alertable (Their Para 4.2)
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
The last line of Blue Book 4C1(a) does relates to completion of transfer.