[bd71]

---

Matchpoints. NAP-B district championship.

At his 2nd turn, West asks about 2N. North says N/S haven't played together much and he's not sure they have an agreement. He offers to speculate, but E/W decline.

After the auction and prior to leading, East asks about 2N again and points out to South that he should be correcting his partner at this stage if he thinks they have an agreement. He states "it's all on the card." N/S convention card, in the section for "Notrump Overcalls" shows 15-18 range and "systems on". N/S are playing Jacoby transfers. Of course, the CC doesn't have a place to mark whether this applies to a NT overcall in this particular auction.

E/W call director, claiming that if South believes his 2N call is a natural strong NT, 3♦ should have been announced as a transfer and South should have bid 3♥. Suggestion is that South took advantage of UI from his partner's uncertain response to the 2N query.

Director says play on. Table result is N/S -100. Director then rules that N/S should be playing in 3♥ down 3 for -300.

N/S appeal claiming they in fact had no agreement for this auction and South shouldn't be forced to bid 3♥. Appeal is never heard because in the end it didn't affect the overall results of the pairs contest.

How should be the result of the appeal?

[aguahombre]

Why would the TD or the opponents get to decide that 3D is a transfer even if N/S agree upon 2NT as natural?

When a player bids a natural NT in the sandwich position, there aren't enough points in the deck to have a need for anything but natural suit bids.

Whether we like the agreement for 2NT to be natural here is not germain. North gave what informations he could in an undiscussed situation; North didn't take advantage of any UI, nor did South, IMO.

[ArtK78]

Before any claim can be made that South should bid 3♥, the TD should ascertain whether this pair plays transfers over strong NT overcalls in general. A good way to figure this out would be to find out if the sequence (2♠) - 2NT - (P) - 3♦ is played as a transfer by this partnership.

This treatment is not universal.

If the TD determines that 3♦ on the sequence that I set forth above would be a transfer, then South must bid 3♥ on the auction in the OP.

[chrism]

I am slightly handicapped here by my mobile Chrome client refusing to display the auction and hand diagram. However from the verbal description I would expect an appeal committee to throw the book at North/South.

"It's all on the card" is a wholly unacceptable response, that deserves at least a stern warning about full disclosure and proper procedure answering questions. A PP should certainly be considered as an educational tool.

If South believed when he bid 2NT that there was an agreement that it was strong and natural, of course he is obliged to disclose that prior to the opening lead. If he believes that there is no agreement but hopes his partner will understand that meaning, he needs to state that there is no agreement if asked. However, he is not allowed to become aware of his partner's different understanding as a result of his partner's explanation, our lack thereof. So assuming that transfers would normally apply in analogous auctions (by no means an obvious assumption, as noted above), he needs to alert (not announce, announcements apply only in specific contexts) and bid as though the pair is on the same "natural and strong" wavelength. This would be a flagrant use of UI that deserves a further stern warning and probably an educational PP unless the pair is *very* inexperienced.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2013-October-26, 21:27, said:

Before any claim can be made that South should bid 3♥, the TD should ascertain whether this pair plays transfers over strong NT overcalls in general. A good way to figure this out would be to find out if the sequence (2♠) - 2NT - (P) - 3♦ is played as a transfer by this partnership.

This treatment is not universal.

If the TD determines that 3♦ on the sequence that I set forth above would be a transfer, then South must bid 3♥ on the auction in the OP.

Of course it would be a joke for anyone to play 3C Stayman or 3D xfer on this auction. This situation is not on the card, so N/S and the rest of the World would, via common sense, shun giving up the ability to play at the 3-level in clubs or diamonds for the dubious pleasure of transfering to hearts.

[johnu]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-26, 21:22, said:

When a player bids a natural NT in the sandwich position, there aren't enough points in the deck to have a need for anything but natural suit bids.

Whether we like the agreement for 2NT to be natural here is not germain. North gave what informations he could in an undiscussed situation; North didn't take advantage of any UI, nor did South, IMO.

It seems odd to me that South would think 2NT is natural in this auction. I think that average club players would have the minors, and some expert players would have hearts and a minor.

As far as not playing systems on after a NT overcall when you think you don't have enough for game, that would seem to be an agreement that would have to be agreed on by an experienced partnership, which this one is clearly not. In any case, do you think N-S might have a game if opener has a shapely 10 or 11 count, and responder has some support and a 4 or 5 count. Of course if North a source of playing tricks, you might have game on less than 25 or 26 HCP. I can't see a reason to not play systems on.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-26, 21:40, said:

Of course it would be a joke for anyone to play 3C Stayman or 3D xfer on this auction. This situation is not on the card, so N/S and the rest of the World would, via common sense, shun giving up the ability to play at the 3-level in clubs or diamonds for the dubious pleasure of transfering to hearts.

Simply check the CC. If it says "systems on" after NT overcalls (I thought there was a box for that on the ACBL CC) then that applies to (South's initial idea of) this auction too.

And no, it's not a joke at all. I have played this 2NT as natural (against opponents who opened 1M on 8-14 and played non constructive pseudo-mandatory raises) and, of course, we played system on (the 2NT system obviously).

The basic idea is that your NT overcall system is not fully optimal after opponents have shown one suit. Regarding that, each pair makes a choice which reflects their system philosophy:
- They either play systems on, taking the drawbacks, but with the advantage that the whole system with follow-ups is well defined (even if some parts don't make sense).
- Or they play systems off with the advantage that they can play in clubs, but the drawback that they don't have much of a follow-up system to fall back on (or need to master a separate one).

Of course, any pair has the freedom to make specific agreements in what particular situations they would play system on or off, but then they would know that and mark it on their CC ("one level only", "not after balancing 1NT", whatever). As this pair didn't even know whether the 2NT overcall was natural or conventional, we can assume they didn't have such a specific agreement and we return to the default: look for the "SYS on" checkbox.

Rik

[aguahombre]

All this is moot. There is nothing to adjust. South thinks his 2NT call is natural; North isn't sure, and tells the opponents such; North makes a natural takeout to play; South doesn't alert 3D because he doesn't think that are using transfers to accomodate one suit when there are three suits to play in; South is right.

If South had pulled 3D to 3NT, thinking North's professed confusion suggested they might be in a 3-3 Diamond fit (2NT showing minors?), or alerted a transfer agreement they obviously don't have and then bid 3H, then South would have been usuing UI.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-26, 21:22, said:

Why would the TD or the opponents get to decide that 3D is a transfer even if N/S agree upon 2NT as natural?

Because South said was natural by pointing at the convention card where it shows 15-18 range and "systems on".

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-27, 04:33, said:

All this is moot. There is nothing to adjust. South thinks his 2NT call is natural; North isn't sure, and tells the opponents such; North makes a natural takeout to play; South doesn't alert 3D because he doesn't think that are using transfers to accomodate one suit when there are three suits to play in; South is right.

If South had pulled 3D to 3NT, thinking North's professed confusion suggested they might be in a 3-3 Diamond fit (2NT showing minors?), or alerted a transfer agreement they obviously don't have and then bid 3H, then South would have been usuing UI.

What makes you think they don't have a transfer agreement? If the box for "Systems on" on their CC is ticked, they have a transfer agreement. If it isn't ticked, they have an agreement to play natural.

Look at the CC. It says:

bd71, on 2013-October-26, 20:49, said:

N/S convention card, in the section for "Notrump Overcalls" shows 15-18 range and "systems on". N/S are playing Jacoby transfers.

That settles it. The box is ticked, South used UI, you adjust to a heart contract and give a PP.

(You should -obviously- still check whether they also use Jacoby transfers after a 2NT opening, but I assume that they do.)

Rik

[blackshoe]

bd71, on 2013-October-26, 20:49, said:

Appeal is never heard because in the end it didn't affect the overall results of the pairs contest.

How, exactly, did this come about?

[ggwhiz]

I've been playing systems on ONLY after a 1nt overcall and not if doubled forever and can't see a convenient way to note this on the convention card and am annoyed that the box title is notrump overcalls instead of 1nt overcalls which I have assumed for years.

In light of that ambiguity and a lack of a firm partnership I don't think N/S are guilty of anything more than landing on their feet and E/W would have cried foul no matter how they did it.

The notion that E/W who knew full well that N/S are on shaky systemic ground and can choose to defend 3♦ and keep their result or call the police if they don't like it doesn't work for me.

[Trinidad]

ggwhiz, on 2013-October-27, 11:19, said:

I've been playing systems on ONLY after a 1nt overcall and not if doubled forever and can't see a convenient way to note this on the convention card.

How about "1NT only"?

I don't know how you play after 1NT-(X) and after (1x)-1NT-(X), but:
- why would you play different?
- it hardly matters ifit is different because -AFAIK- the ACBL CC doesn't mention anything about what you do after 1NT-X.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-27, 11:43, said:

How about "1NT only"?

I don't know how you play after 1NT-(X) and after (1x)-1NT-(X), but:
- why would you play different?
- it hardly matters ifit is different because -AFAIK- the ACBL CC doesn't mention anything about what you do after 1NT-X.

Rik

He probably plays it differently because he can. The Double adds our ability to get out at the two-level in a long minor or with two long majors and a weak hand via redouble.

[nigel_k]

If I played this as natural I would definitely use transfers and I don't think you need any specific agreement for just this situation. If they play transfers after a 2NT opening and after a 1NT overcall then South needs to disregard the UI and bid as if they are playing them here.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2013-October-27, 12:08, said:

He probably plays it differently because he can. The Double adds our ability to get out at the two-level in a long minor or with two long majors and a weak hand via redouble.

I wasn't 100% clear. Sorry about that. I did NOT mean "Why would he play different with and without the double?".

I meant:
"Why would he play:
(1x)-1NT-(Pass)-?? the same as 1NT-(Pass)-?? (systems on) and
(1x)-1NT-(Dbl)-?? different from 1NT-(Dbl)-?? (systems off)?"

Of course, he is allowed to do that, but I don't understand why he would want to (which, of course, has nothing to do with bridge laws, but I am curious about the technical or tactical reasons for his choice).

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-27, 11:43, said:

How about "1NT only"?

I don't know how you play after 1NT-(X) and after (1x)-1NT-(X), but:
- why would you play different?
- it hardly matters ifit is different because -AFAIK- the ACBL CC doesn't mention anything about what you do after 1NT-X.

In the 1NT Opening section, there's a field labeled "Systems on over", where you list which overcalls you still play systems on over. Most players have Double and 2♣ in there.

[bd71]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-27, 06:49, said:

How, exactly, did this come about?

Not sure what you mean. There was only one director on site and no preparations for appeals committees or anything like that (this was a standalone 12-table B class event, NOT something that was part or a larger sectional or regional).

My understanding was that adjudicating the appeal would have required calling multiple other people to serve as the committee (I didn't ask who), and they on-site director said he'd only organize that if it mattered. Since both pairs involved ended up the two-session event right around 50%, there was no impact on the overall standings and the appeal was never heard.

[bd71]

ggwhiz, on 2013-October-27, 11:19, said:

The notion that E/W who knew full well that N/S are on shaky systemic ground and can choose to defend 3♦ and keep their result or call the police if they don't like it doesn't work for me.

I don't think it's fair to accuse E/W of playing games with two ways to win. (I was East, for what it's worth.) We called the director after the auction, so we had no idea how 3♦ would play out before raising our concerns.

[blackshoe]

bd71, on 2013-October-27, 22:43, said:

Not sure what you mean. There was only one director on site and no preparations for appeals committees or anything like that (this was a standalone 12-table B class event, NOT something that was part or a larger sectional or regional).

My understanding was that adjudicating the appeal would have required calling multiple other people to serve as the committee (I didn't ask who), and they on-site director said he'd only organize that if it mattered. Since both pairs involved ended up the two-session event right around 50%, there was no impact on the overall standings and the appeal was never heard.

The on-site director does not have the authority to decline to organize an appeal. An appeal is against a presumably flawed ruling, and its purpose is to arrive at a correct ruling - it has nothing to do with whether the outcome of the appeal affects who places in the event, or where the contestants involved end up in the final standings.

It is the responsibility of the TO to arrange for appeals (Law 80B2{k}). If the TO fails to do so, the duty falls on the TD (Law 81B1). If there are no procedures established for a committee, then the Director shall hear all appeals (Law 93A), but all contestants have the right to appeal (Law 92A), and the TD cannot infringe that right (Law 81B2).