[Phil]

Club game but good field:

---

2♦ was not alerted. Upon inquiry, NS said they have no agreement about 2♦.

The defense was unfortunate. Spade lead won by the Ace and a spade returned. Not expecting her partner to partner to have 5 spades, West played a 3rd spade which allowed declarer to shed his club loser.

Anything rotten here? Would you adjust the table result?

[Vampyr]

Why did South bid 2♦? Was he psyching to try to get doubled in 2♥?

[Phil]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-03, 17:15, said:

Why did South bid 2♦? Was he psyching to try to get doubled in 2♥?

I asked him that question. He said in an email that if he were doubled, he would not run due to partner's failure to alert. Ethical? Probably. Sensible? I don't think so.

[dwar0123]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-03, 17:15, said:

Why did South bid 2♦? Was he psyching to try to get doubled in 2♥?

Some people play nt systems on in this situation. It appears he wanted to pull the penalty double and transfer his partner into hearts.

If this had been their agreement, no reason north couldn't have alerted it as such and still ignore the transfer, so seems likely there was no discussion. As south shouldn't pull a penalty double with any values, north may still have a logical reason to pass this, perhaps thinking south is a bust 3343 hand?

[bluejak]

I would certainly ask both North and South separately to explain the reason for their calls. Until I hear the answers I cannot give an opinion.

[Phil]

North says "I don't care what 2♦ is, I have six of them. So I pass".

I think I was clear about what South said.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2012-October-03, 19:22, said:

I think I was clear about what South said.

Yes, but can South have been positive there was no agreement, since he thought they were playing transfers?

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2012-October-03, 17:30, said:

I asked him that question. He said in an email that if he were doubled, he would not run due to partner's failure to alert. Ethical? Probably. Sensible? I don't think so.

Phil, on 2012-October-03, 19:22, said:

North says "I don't care what 2♦ is, I have six of them. So I pass".

I think I was clear about what South said.

You were perfectly clear, see above, but since he did not answer the question I would ask him again.

I am not asking him whether he would run if doubled: I am asking him "Why did you bid 2♦?".

[Phil]

Here's his quote (from an email and it doesn't contradict what he said):

"We never talked about the followup of 1N defense, so I think it's my own misbidding, in which case, they don't (aren')entitle(d to) any information. It just happened that my partner got (a) 6-card diamond suit".

Maybe not the most direct response but you can draw your own conclusions.

[CSGibson]

If they haven't discussed it, then nothing is required/obliged to be disclosed. It appears that South was hoping that his general bridge knowledge was the same as N's general bridge knowledge. Plus, no matter what it is, why isn't east competing to 2♠, either directly or in the passout seat? I think that is a failure to play bridge by east, so no adjustment regardless.

On the other hand, I might give N-S a warning about knowing the follow-ups to their conventional agreements, and/or advise E-W to file a recorder form.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-October-03, 17:01, said:

Anything rotten here?

Only East's bidding.

It seems clear that NS didn't have an agreement about 2♦. In the absence of an agreement it's normal to play 2♦ as natural. North's non-alert of 2♦ is, therefore, correct, so there is no misinformation.

[gnasher]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-04, 00:27, said:

On the other hand, I might give N-S a warning about knowing the follow-ups to their conventional agreements

Which rule have they broken?

[bluejak]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-04, 00:27, said:

On the other hand, I might give N-S a warning about knowing the follow-ups to their conventional agreements, and/or advise E-W to file a recorder form.

Why? Everyone gets system wrong. There are always bits of system you do not know. Especially players who are either not very scientific or who have not been playing together for a long time there are lots of things they do not know. With my current partner we have discussed more things than i think I have ever discussed with any other partner in my whole career and things still turn up.

It would be very harsh, unfriendly, and deleterious to the development of bridge generally if a written record was made every time a pair did not know their system, and/or a warning given.

Furthermore, I am always unhappy at the approach of many people when their opponents have a system mix-up [I nearly wrote another word of six letters]. In the 30% of occasions they gain, they chortle over it and think how they "deserved" their good board. In the 60% of occasions where it does not affect the result, they think "Lucky ******" in a fairly unfriendly way. And in the 10% of occasions they lose, they yell for the TD and demand an adjustment.

Now, I am not saying people should not call the TD: after all, it might be an MI or UI case. But I think people should be more graceful when their opponents get their system wrong. And as others have pointed out, if East acts like a bridge player and bids the obvious 2♠ then there would be no problem.

[MickyB]

I had a similar situation recently [1S-(2S)-2N, which my partner had decided would be Jacoby, rather than bidding 3H UCB like I'd have expected]. We were ruled against for my failure to alert/my partner's failure to correct the lack of alert. I thought the ruling was wrong then and I still do.

[Fluffy]

where did EW claim there was damage for them?, I can´t see any

[CSGibson]

bluejak, on 2012-October-04, 04:30, said:

Why?

The reason why is that an explanation of "we have no agreement, I just misbid" is self-serving. Note, I am not saying that they are lying, or impugning their reputation at all, but if a self-serving explanation is made for a potential MI issue, and there is no way of figuring out whether someone forgot an agreement or misbid based solely on the hand record/convention cards, then I think its appropriate to fill out a recorder form to document the occasion. People do lie to directors, or frame the facts in a way to give them the best chance of a good ruling, and rather than make a judgment on who I think is honest and who may be a lying bastard, I would just document everyone.

On the second issue, the warning, I feel like I may be wrong - its like I dressed up as Bobby Wolff for Halloween, shouting alternately "Trick or Treat" or "Convention Disruption!" at various people, and I don't really want to dress up as Bobby Wolff, I'd much rather dress up as the Incredible Hulk. Convention Smash!

[blackshoe]

Surely the player's statement about his own call is not the only piece of evidence you can collect.

[Vampyr]

CSGibson, on 2012-October-04, 00:27, said:

If they haven't discussed it, then nothing is required/obliged to be disclosed. It appears that South was hoping that his general bridge knowledge was the same as N's general bridge knowledge.

Playing a specific convention is not general bridg knowledge.

I sometimes play with pickup partners, and often by the time people are paired up and seated the boards have already been given out. There is little time, while removing the cards from the boards, to agree more than opening suit lengths and 1NT range; so a lot of assumptions have to be made, based on the bridge culture we both inhabit. Are these agreements? I think that, in a sense, they are. When 1m-1M-1NT is alerted, it is explained as "checkback Stayman" (well, not by name, but by description) Should we say there is no agreement when we both know what it is?

Now, in these pickup partnerships, defense to 1NT is usually agreed after a board in which we or the opponents have opened 1NT. Before that, I would assume that all bids are natural.

This is why I think that there may have been some sort of agreement, however amorphous; perhaps based on the methods of a partner they both have played with. I do not think that players pluck artificial bids out of thin air; they believe that there is some basis for partner to be on the same wavelength.

As for East's bidding, I would not have bid 2♠ the first time around, but would have protected on the way out. Unless there was something else going on? Did North suspect, based on looking at a convention card or by South's manner or by some other clue, that the opponents were having a misunderstanding, and that a transfer bid had been left in? What should he do now -- try for an average board when the misunderstanding could mean that he was booked for a top? I am not sure what the right course in a case like this is.

[RMB1]

Phil, on 2012-October-03, 17:01, said:

Anything rotten here? Would you adjust the table result?

Not much. I would not adjust.

I suspect that both North and South knew that although there was no agreement, 2♦ would either be natural or a transfer. I would like them both to have explained that, although it may be the opponents understood that anyway.

I believe that South would bid 2♦ with that agreement understanding, content to play 2♦ undoubled. Similarly North can pass even if 2♦ might be a transfer (for the reason he gave).

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2012-October-05, 07:14

[mycroft]

Around here, I would expect "everybody plays system on when pulling the double, don't they?"

Unfortunately, these kinds of less-rational treatments take hold among our sort-of-good players, and it gets passed on, and they just assume it's part of the Correct Bidding Lessons. At which point, "everybody" plays it, right?