[Trinidad]

A club evening. Scoring is Cross-IMPs

The auction:

---

1♣ is alerted but not asked (the 2+ meaning is clear to the opponents, it's the only alertable meaning of 1♣ at the club other than 1 pair that plays strong club)
1♥ is alerted but not asked (again, Transfer Walsh is common at our club)
1♠ is alerted but not asked
NS are familiar with Transfer Walsh. About 35-40% of the field plays it.

Before the play, West asks North what the double means. North says: "The other two suits". West understands this as hearts and diamonds. South has, however, spades and diamonds and West goes down in a contract he could (would) have made if he had known that South had the spades.

West is surprised about the layout and asks South whether the explanation was correct. South replies: "Yes, I showed the other suits and I had the other suits." It becomes clear that North knew all along that South had spades and diamonds.

North claims that the error was with West for assuming that "the other two suits" meant "the red suits". West shouldn't assume. He can ask a follow up question. The TD has explained NS that you can hardly ask from West that he asks a follow up question if he thinks that he has understood the explanation and that -in the context of a transfer- the logical meaning of "the other two suits" is "hearts and diamonds".

The TD rules that "the other two suits" is misinformation. West was entitled to understand it as the red suits. He rules 2♠ made and additionally gives a 2 IMP penalty to NS for the MI. (This was the third MI case against NS this evening and NS have been lectured before on their "methods for disclosure".)

NS appeal. What do you decide?

Rik

[aguahombre]

"NS are familiar with Transfer Walsh." That, plus their record of disclosure issues, and the fact that T-Walsh is common in the OP's locale = good ruling to my way of thinking.

Is this actually a hypothetical spin-off of another thread? My question is because I wonder if they play it for the red suits if they do ask about the alert.

This isn't the thread to debate what double vs. 1S should optimally be used for, but I am itching for that one

[paulg]

As written the only time I'd spend on this is wondering whether I am allowed to double, triple or multiply the penalty by ten.

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-06, 10:06, said:

Is this actually a hypothetical spin-off of another thread?

No, this happened for real at my bridge club. I have the appeal's form at home. I got it last Thursday. Obviously, the other thread inspired me to post this, but this is for real. (As odd as it may sound.)

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-06, 10:06, said:

My question is because I wonder if they play it for the red suits if they do ask about the alert.

I have a suspicion, but no proof. And since I don't play Transfer Walsh myself, it is not so easy to gather the evidence.

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-06, 10:06, said:

This isn't the thread to debate what double vs. 1S should optimally be used for, but I am itching for that one

Keep itching, I fully agree with you (does that work as a little scratching? ), but that is neither here nor there.

Rik

[campboy]

Keep the money.

[blackshoe]

Appeal without merit.

[FrancesHinden]

It's the explaining side's job to explain their methods. I agree that 'the other two suits' means the red suits.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-November-06, 09:45, said:

The TD rules that "the other two suits" is misinformation. West was entitled to understand it as the red suits. He rules 2♠ made and additionally gives a 2 IMP penalty to NS for the MI. (This was the third MI case against NS this evening and NS have been lectured before on their "methods for disclosure".)

In the UK I believe the standard PP is 3 IMPs. If this was the third MI case against NS, then this 2 IMP penalty seems too lenient. What is the standard PP in Holland, where I presume this was?

I would certainly increase the PP at the AC if I were on it, as well as retaining the deposit.

[jallerton]

Quote

West is surprised about the layout and asks South whether the explanation was correct. South replies: "Yes, I showed the other suits and I had the other suits." It becomes clear that North knew all along that South had spades and diamonds.

North claims that the error was with West for assuming that "the other two suits" meant "the red suits". West shouldn't assume. He can ask a follow up question. The TD has explained NS that you can hardly ask from West that he asks a follow up question if he thinks that he has understood the explanation and that -in the context of a transfer- the logical meaning of "the other two suits" is "hearts and diamonds".

The TD rules that "the other two suits" is misinformation. West was entitled to understand it as the red suits. He rules 2♠ made and additionally gives a 2 IMP penalty to NS for the MI. (This was the third MI case against NS this evening and NS have been lectured before on their "methods for disclosure".)

NS appeal. What do you decide?

Rik

Are N/S appealing against the adjustment, the penalty or both? What is their stated basis of appeal?

Whilst it is true that the explanation is inadequate, it's not clear that it should be interpreted the way West did. On this auction, two suits have been "bid": clubs and hearts, so there is some sense in which "the other two suits" are diamonds and spades. If two suits had been shown, then "the other two suits" could easily be referring to the two unshown suits. However, in this case, there is only one "shown" suit as far as I can see: Responder has shown 4+ spades whilst Opener has not shown any suit. Of course Opener may have long clubs for his 1♣ opening, but there again he may not.

Consider this similar situation. North/South play a variant of Precison Club. North opens 1♦, 0+ diamonds in their system. East overcalls 2NT, described by West as "the lowest two unbid suits". As South, do you: (i) assume East has ♣+♥; (ii) assume East has ♣+♦ ; or (iii) ask West which two suits he actually means?

[bluejak]

 campboy, on 2011-November-06, 12:04, said:

Keep the money.

Me2.

 aguahombre, on 2011-November-06, 10:06, said:

This isn't the thread to debate what double vs. 1S should optimally be used for, but I am itching for that one

It has been on RGB in the last few weeks.

 jallerton, on 2011-November-07, 17:22, said:

Consider this similar situation. North/South play a variant of Precison Club. North opens 1♦, 0+ diamonds in their system. East overcalls 2NT, described by West as "the lowest two unbid suits". As South, do you: (i) assume East has ♣+♥; (ii) assume East has ♣+♦ ; or (iii) ask West which two suits he actually means?

As a player, (iii). But as a TD I rule in the opponents' favour that they were misinformed if they assume (i) and they were wrong.

(ii) is interesting: in England players will generally assume (i) not (ii). There just seems a large body of opinion that treats 1♦ as natural even though they know it is not. Still, if a pair assumed (ii) whcih is perfectly logical I expect I rule in their favour as well.

Whatever else I do I certainly tell the 2NT pair how to describe it in future.

Interestingly, there is a related problem: perhaps it means ♣ and a red suit: ie a lot of pairs will not have sorted the problem out!

[Trinidad]

 jallerton, on 2011-November-07, 17:22, said:

Are N/S appealing against the adjustment, the penalty or both? What is their stated basis of appeal?

Whilst it is true that the explanation is inadequate, it's not clear that it should be interpreted the way West did. On this auction, two suits have been "bid": clubs and hearts, so there is some sense in which "the other two suits" are diamonds and spades. If two suits had been shown, then "the other two suits" could easily be referring to the two unshown suits. However, in this case, there is only one "shown" suit as far as I can see: Responder has shown 4+ spades whilst Opener has not shown any suit. Of course Opener may have long clubs for his 1♣ opening, but there again he may not.

Consider this similar situation. North/South play a variant of Precison Club. North opens 1♦, 0+ diamonds in their system. East overcalls 2NT, described by West as "the lowest two unbid suits". As South, do you: (i) assume East has ♣+♥; (ii) assume East has ♣+♦ ; or (iii) ask West which two suits he actually means?

Maybe a better description of the 1♣ opening would be:
- 3+ clubs
- exactly 4=4=3=2, not 15-17 or 20-21

I know that 1♣ doesn't show a suit in the legal sense. But I don't know anyone at the club where this took place that plays different after 1♣-Pass-1♥, depending on whether 1♣ "guaranteed 3" or whether it "could be 4=4=3=2". Bridgetechnically they are awfully similar and it doesn't seem to make much sense to put in the effort for a different defense with the aim of finding that "important club fit".

Rik

[bluejak]

No, it doesn't. But it is a vast over-simplification to suggest that is the only reason for a different defence.

My regular partner and I have worked out complicated and fairly artificial defences to short minors and responses thereto. The purpose is to take advantage of artificial methods, not just to find a fit in the minor opened.

Over 1♣ P 1♥ showing spades, we play:

If 1♣ may be short:

Double shows hearts
1♠ for takeout
1NT is a weak takeout, showing 4+ ♥ and one or both minors, 5/4+ or 4441
2♣/♦/♥ natural
2♠ is Michaels, showing an opening bid with 5 ♥ and a 5-card minor
2NT is a weak hand with 5/5+ in the minors
3♣/♦/♥ weak
3♠ asks for a stopper in ♠ for 3NT

If 1♣ shows 3+:

Double shows hearts
1♠ for takeout of clubs and spades, typically 12+, 4/4+
1NT is a weak takeout, showing 5/4 in ♥ and ♦
2♣/♦/♥ natural
2♠ shows 4 ♥ and 6+ ♦
2NT is a weak hand with 5/5+ ♥ and ♦
3♣/♦/♥ weak
3♠ is not agreed

Now, the difference is not really because of the minor differences you say nor is it solely to find a club fit: it is because there are two defences as far as we are concerned.

Suppose you play the 1♣ as 0+ ♣, then we play the above short club defence: if you play the 1♣ as 5+ ♣ then we play the above 3+ ♣ defence.

[mycroft]

I, too, would love to know if ask-and-double shows the reds. I bet it doesn't, explicitly; but I bet if South had the reds, that's what he'd do. Unfortunately, short of waiting two weeks before I ask, there's no way to get that information.

If N-S *play* T-Walsh, then I have no sympathy for them whatever. If they don't, then they're allowed to be surprised by the auction, even if they get it once a week.

I would expect anyone at my club (where there is basically no T-Walsh) to explain it that way, and probably to mean it as the pointeds! (of course, see my first paragraph - I bet that's what would happen here, too).

If N-S have been warned about disclosure before, then I'd start with 3 IMPs penalty, and explain that while I have sympathy for them on this auction, the answer was clearly insufficient, and because you're already known for poor disclosure, you're going to have to be especially careful from now on, or the penalties are just going to get higher. Frankly, after being warned once, the second warning would have come with a quarter-board, so this one would be bigger.

(Note: my policy toward these warnings has been described as "way too lenient" on BBOF. But I'm happy to give people a first-time warning because 90% of the time, the problem then goes away. This is clearly not one of those times, so my reaction very much is "Oh, so following the Laws or TD instructions isn't 'important' enough to you. I guess we'll just have to take away your chance of winning this event - maybe that's 'important' enough.")

I would suggest to West that this is an auction where it is very reasonable for the opponents to be confused, and that it is incumbent on Experts to Ask, not Assume (to use the ACBL phraseology) in these situations. That allows me to get the point across without insult (because I'm treating West as an Expert, whether or not he is!) If he's one of those people who thinks that it's okay to "not ask when I'm pretty sure I've been told wrong so I can take advantage of their confusion, but call the TD after if I was actually told wrong and they weren't confused", then, well, maybe we'll have that discussion now.) Having said that, I'm fine with ruling MI on this hand - especially given that N-S are "known" for MI through inadequate disclosure.

Edit to Trinidad: Most of the people here that play T-Walsh, 1♣ is "clubs or balanced" - it's either 3+ or some 4432 (possibly 3=3=5=2, I don't know). Being able to do the transfers after 1♣ is an incentive to open 1♣ more often (being protected from defences like David's might just be another incentive - which may not apply to the OP).