I will at some point write a post on ethics and UI, and at some point draft a seminar on alerting. A get the feeling I should make that post sooner rather than later, but before I share my thoughts on how to try and deal with these scenarios... for now here's just an awkward problem for you.
You are playing with a fairly new partner who you're not sure is always up to speed on alerting procedure, or remembering your agreed system.
Sitting East at teams, at game all, you pick up the following hand in fourth seat. The bidding goes: Pass Pass 1D to you
You choose to start with a 1NT overcall. Your system card states the responses to 1NT overcalls are "As for a 1NT opener", over which you play stayman and four transfers.
|
You've probably been predicting the question for a while now. But first a little more context. After 2 North asks you the meaning of the alert and you explain the system (a transfer) as it appears on your system card. You succeed in avoiding looking at anything other than your cards as you wait for the next round of bidding, but you are obliged to note that partner doesn't alert your 2 response.
How do you respond to 3?
I sincerely hope no-one reading this considered 'Pass' for even a moment. You're in a game-forcing auction with partner having shown spades and hearts. I agonized for a while at the table but decided upon bidding 4. I felt my options were 4 and 4 but in the usual uncontested auction Pass - 1NT - 2 - 2 - 3 - ?? the correct bid is surely 4. The problem is that 4 is a genuine option, although clearly an inferior one with your 3=4=3=3 hand. Am I obliged to have bid 4?
I naturally suggested the opponents may with to call the director at the lead, though upon seeing my hand South was (generously?) happy with my action. That the contract drifted one off seems immaterial to my final very important question, "What do you do at the end of the auction if the opponents don't seem unhappy?" (Assume they are of unknown strength and experience, but you suspect them to be a less experienced pair to yourselves)
I'll probably put my answer to this in the comments below later on. But first you'll want to see the full hand:
A question: Would you alert the 2S bid if the only reason you've figured out the system is through the UI that partner has alerted and explained 2H?
ReplyDeleteI think the answer is very much yes. I am pro alerting anything which might have a systemically artificial meaning (as well as a lot more bids where there's any hint of unexpected [to the opponents!] partnership understanding).
DeleteWe'll never know what would have happened if partner hadn't alerted 2H. It's not too difficult a question on this auction since if partner had bid 2S without alerting we would probably have wondered if they'd taken it as a transfer anyway! But there are certainly other cases where you are entirely woken up by the alert... my view is that since partner is meant to be ignoring the alert anyway it never does any harm to over-alert. The issue is that it just gets messier if the opponents start asking you what it means and you'd like to send partner away from the table before you answer :)
Orange book 3D7 says that you should explain/alert based on what you know your system to be, even if you only know this through UI. The completion of a transfer isn't normally alertable, though.
DeleteSuppose you bid 2H knowing the system says that 2H is natural, partner alerts and bids 2S. There is an argument to make that you should alert 2S (even if it's got a natural meaning), in the hope that the opponents don't exploit the situation by asking why you've alerted it (if they do then maybe you try and send partner away?). This plan has the big advantage that it doesn't even give partner UI to cause them trouble.
DeleteBut it has the big disadvantage that you appear to be deliberately misleading the opponents. If this happened when I was directing, I'd assess a DP against you (then phone John after the session to find out whether I should have done).
DeleteNo no, I shan't be lying to the opponents. I would contend I'm doing precisely the opposite since if 2H has been alerted, and then described as a transfer by partner, then the opponents will assume that 2S is the transfer completion whether you alert or not. If they ask me why I've alerted 2S I'll ask partner if they mind stepping away from the table and then tell the oppo what our system actually says.
DeleteYou should always alert/explain according to your actual agreements, even if you know via UI that partner intended something different. WB 20.4 (second example) supports this. What you suggest is the well-known heresy called "de Wael school".
DeleteThis "de Wael school" seems to be different to my action in that is seems to advocate alerting but then lying to the opponents! From the page I just found the argument there is to tell the opponents what partner meant by his bid as though that is our system. I'm suggesting the opposite still.
Delete4H seems to be the only reasonable bid. I think 4S is far inferior (forgetting alerts, of course).
ReplyDeleteAnd my answer to the question: what do you do in the end of the auction is: nothing, unless you are directly asked about the bidding. You definitely do not try to explain: my partner may have forgotten the system, etc. - you just say s/he has 5 spades, 4+ hearts, forcing/invitational (depending on the agreement you have) hand.
ReplyDeleteOops, I meant to ask whether we should take any action after the play of the hand, rather than the auction. Do I just leave it to the opponents to ask partner why they have bid 3H?
DeleteI do not think any voluntary action is appropriate, unless there is a `noticeable' discomfort on the opponents' side - even then I think you can simply ask whether any clarifications are needed.
Delete