[jfnrl]

Consider the following auction :

(1C) 1NT (X) 2D
(pass) pass (X) 2H

2D (non-alerted) was a H-transfer, understood as natural by the partner.
Under FFB jurisdiction, there is misinformation by the 1NT bidder (as he didn't alert the transfer) and use of UI by the 2H bidder (as he used the default of alert to known that partner understood 2D as natural).
It is not my opinion but it is my jurisdiction.

What do you think about that case (if FFB is not your jurisdiction) ?

[barmar]

I'd like to see the heart bidder's hand. If he has 0-1 diamonds, leaving the double in doesn't seem like an LA.

[blackshoe]

In North America, 2♦ should be announced "Transfer". The failure to do so constitutes MI. In addition, the unexpected lack of announcement, like an unexpected lack of alert, conveys UI to the 2♦ bidder. So the legal situation is effectively the same here as in France. I'm curious why and in what way the OP disagrees with this.

[weejonnie]

Pretty standard isn't it.

The 1NT partner has announced a heart suit and the 1NT bidder has stated that he wishes to play in Diamonds (perhaps he has bid an off-centre 1NT over-call with 6 diamonds and 1 heart).
As I understand it, in EBU land this is called 'unauthorised panic'

‘Unauthorised panic’

It is noted that players who make an artificial bid which partner misunderstands and describes differently have a habit of immediately bidding their longest suit at the lowest level. This is illegal, and clever arguments as to why it was the ‘obvious call anyway’ should be treated with scepticism.

Similarly, when a player overcalls with a natural 2NT which partner describes as artificial, and partner then bids 3 or 3 which is presumably systemically Stayman or a transfer there is an unfortunate and illegal instinct always to rebid 3NT. Arguments as to why this is the ‘obvious call’ should be discounted.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2014-September-04, 11:48, said:

The 1NT partner has announced a heart suit and the 1NT bidder has stated that he wishes to play in Diamonds (perhaps he has bid an off-centre 1NT over-call with 6 diamonds and 1 heart).

Isn't there any exception when the bidding strongly suggests that partner doesn't have that hand? While the 1NT overcall could be made with 1 heart and a good 6-card diamond suit, it's very unusual. And when the opponents double 2♦ for penalty, it becomes even less likely.

I know we're supposed to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI, but are we supposed to join Cirque du Soleil?

I think the double gives responder leeway to bid 2♥ without being accused of unauthorized panic.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-September-04, 14:10, said:

Isn't there any exception when the bidding strongly suggests that partner doesn't have that hand? While the 1NT overcall could be made with 1 heart and a good 6-card diamond suit, it's very unusual. And when the opponents double 2♦ for penalty, it becomes even less likely.

I know we're supposed to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of UI, but are we supposed to join Cirque du Soleil?

I think the double gives responder leeway to bid 2♥ without being accused of unauthorized panic.

Matter of LAs, isn't it ? if there's no LA to 2♥, fine, but otherwise he's still constrained by the UI.

[jeffford76]

It is important to also look at the misinformation aspect. The hand that doubled back in might have passed it out knowing that 2♦ showed hearts assuming of course a missed alert, not a misbid.

[Zelandakh]

Surely we need to find out what their agreement actually was before jumping on the MI bandwagon? If you are in the situation of not having an agreement then your thought process might well run along the lines of "well 2red should be natural but partner will probably take it as a transfer, so maybe it is safer to make the transfer and I can correct if it comes back doubled." If this is the case then there is no MI. Whether there is misuse of UI depends on Responder's hand, since "I was always going to do it" won't stand up in court.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-05, 06:47, said:

"I was always going to do it" won't stand up in court.

How will the court view "I was planning to take a chance if it might only cost 50/trick, but not if I'm going for a number"?

Didn't we all learn a long time ago that when the opponents land in a stupid contract because of a misunderstanding, you don't double them, because it gives them a chance to recover?

I wonder if the 2♥ bid actually damaged the opponents. Isn't there a decent chance that the double will suggest to the 1NT bidder that he misunderstood his partner's previous bid, and he'll pull it himself? Then again, in an auction like this, the opponents might be planning on doubling you in any contract.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2014-September-05, 09:16, said:

How will the court view "I was planning to take a chance if it might only cost 50/trick, but not if I'm going for a number"?

Didn't we all learn a long time ago that when the opponents land in a stupid contract because of a misunderstanding, you don't double them, because it gives them a chance to recover?

I wonder if the 2♥ bid actually damaged the opponents. Isn't there a decent chance that the double will suggest to the 1NT bidder that he misunderstood his partner's previous bid, and he'll pull it himself? Then again, in an auction like this, the opponents might be planning on doubling you in any contract.

And of course the 1NT bidder had better not have a hand that should give preference back to Diamonds. (Absent the UI)

[jfnrl]

As the auction ended in 4S made, the NOS was happy.
The question was asked by the OS on the FFB's forum and the higher authority gave his advice (cf. OP).

I have no further information (no board). I suppose that the 1NT overcall is balanced, 2 stoppers in opening suit and 16-18 HCP (french standard). I suppose that the players are not experts (no screen).

In France, there is only the announcement "alerte" : no "could be short", no "transfer". The french regulation says that the calls to be alerted are that defined by Law 40. I suppose that this means unusual agreement (explicit or implicit). The french approach is very philosophical (no alert chart, no alert procedure…)

I can now give my opinion and answer the blackshoe's question.
The auction is very rare. I suppose that partners have no explicit nor implicit agreement. The situation is similar to :
1NT (X) ?
If the double is for penalty. But this situation is rare this a 1NT 15-17H (double has a conventional most of the times).
For the 2D bidder, it was bidding common sense that it was a H-transfer and for the 1NT overcaller, it was bidding common sense that 2D was natural.
So, there is no agreement, and no use to alert, in my point of view.

Thank you for your opinions.