unalerted transfer ...

Hi all

 

 

West      North      East      South

                            1NT        Pass

 2D           X          Pass                        I am called to the table at this point by North.

 

North tells me that 2D wasn't alerted as a transfer.    North had enquired, was told 2D was "natural, no sorry, transfer".

North doubled, East passed and I arrived at the table.   I establish that East-West are playing transfers.   North now tells me that the Double is lead directional (just given UI to partner), and that West can't bid again.    Hmmph.   "Yes he can.   Please continue the auction."

 

West      North      East      South

                            1NT        Pass

 2D           X          Pass      Pass

 2H           Pass     Pass      3D    All Pass   -2

 

North-South now feel damaged.        

 

Your thoughts thanks.

 

 

Started by GILES HANCOCK on 06 May 2018 at 03:37AM

Post a Comment

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.

Latest Posts on this Thread

  1. NICK WHITTEN10 May 2018 at 09:24AM

    Hi Giles

    I'm not a National  director but here is my view anyway

    I would let the result stand as NS DID receive the correct information soon enough to avoid any damage

    If North hadn't asked (or was wrongly informed) there could be potential damage from NS taking an inferior option OR West making improper use of the unauthorised information that partner had forgotten the transfer.

    And I would tell North (politely, but emphatically) he must shut up!!

  2. Dougal WATSON15 Jul 2018 at 11:22AM

    What a great real-world conundrum. Junior / Novice player session?

    As I see it both sides have offended:

    •           East by failing to promptly alert the 2D bid [Law 21B1A];
    •           East by initially mis-explaining the 2D bid (albeit only for an instant before correcting the explanation) [Law 20F1];
    •           East by not calling the Director upon initially mis-explaining the 2D bid [Law 20F4a]; and
    •           North by telling their partner that the double was lead directing [Law 16B1].

    There are other irregularities that may, or may not, constitute offences:

    • East’s pass after the double, despite explaining the 2D as being a transfer. What was their agreement re doubled transfers? Had North also told East, before the Director arrived, that they must pass?
    • West’s 2H after their transfer was not closed. What was their agreement re doubled transfers? Was this just a ‘rescue’ attempt given their partner apparently messing things up?
    • South’s 3D bid, after having passed twice already, given North’s unauthorised information that their double was lead directing.

    I agree that NS have been damaged, but do not see that damage as being the result of EW’s offences. It seems to me that NS’s damage was mainly at their own hands. I do not see EW’s infractions as resulting in an advantage to them [Law 16B3]. I do see NS’s infraction as possibly resulting in their own damage [Law 16B1a].

    EW did misinform their opponents, by not alerting the 2D. This was corrected, upon enquiry (albeit haltingly), and subsequent bids were made based on the correct information. North transmitted unauthorised information to their partner by explaining their double as being lead-directing. South, twice passed, then bid the suit that North had ‘directed’. The 3D bid was at best neutral or at worst influenced by unauthorised information.

    So, in the absence of further information, I would:

    1. Not penalise EW in respect of their failed alert and initial mis-explanation. Instead I would counsel them on their alerting obligations, caution greater care in the future, and suggest they call the Director as soon as possible when something starts going wrong.
    2. Conclude that South’s 3D may have been the result of North’s providing unauthorised information, and leave that -2 result to stand. If that bid was not the result of unauthorised information then it stands. If it was the result of unauthorised information then EW may have a case to seek further redress … but given a messy part-score hand it’s not highly likely they’d do better than 2-light, unless their 2H makes and vulnerability is favourable to them. I would counsel North concerning such explanations within earshot of their partner and also, likely, suggest that North not provide law advice to other players at the table.
  3. STANLEY ABRAHAMS16 Jul 2018 at 08:39PM

    Surely we should see what South bid 3D on, before we make a final ruling. 

  4. GILES HANCOCK17 Jul 2018 at 01:02AM

    South held :

    Spade-small QJ52

    Heart-small 632

    Diamond-small QJ

    Club-small AJ72

     

     

  5. GILES HANCOCK17 Jul 2018 at 01:17AM

    N/S are NZ Open players, Provincial Master and Life Master.

    E/W are both NZ Intermediate.   West had a doubleton heart.   Yes, I should've established what East's Pass meant in this sequence after the double.

     

    E/W were vulnerable, N/S not-vuln.     E/W can make 9 tricks in hearts, eight more likely.

     

  6. STANLEY ABRAHAMS17 Jul 2018 at 01:01PM

    Hi Giles, I assume that your latest post stating West had a doubleton Heart was incorrect, and that you meant East.

    What possible redress did these rather acrimonious NS players want? South bid 3D, a bid that is very dubious indeed.???. They lost 100 when the opponents should have scored 110 or 140. And all that had happened initially, was that East forgot to alert, (happens all the time, everyone assumes a transfer, and a quick question soon clarifies), and it was all clarified before North bid.

    Yes adjust the score back to EW 140  !!!

    Regards Stanley

  7. GILES HANCOCK17 Jul 2018 at 04:56PM

    Yes, correct, East has the doubleton heart, sorry.   I had rotated, and then gone back to the original hand record :(

     

You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Our Sponsors
  • Tauranga City Council
  • TECT.jpg