Dear Ed & Peter,

Opponent to my right opens 1NT and I pass. Opener's partner bids 2♦ and his partner says "transfer" and bids 2♥ at his turn. The bidding continues until a contract of 3NT is set. Since I have five hearts (♥AJ...), I lead the ♥J. When the dummy hand comes down, there are only 2 hearts! What should be the ruling?

Thanks,
Gerry Bell,

Reply from Ed Hoogenkamp ('South'):

Dear Gerry,

To answer this I need to see the complete bidding and the hands. The Laws say that you are allowed to make mistakes, but you are not allowed to give the wrong explanation of your agreement. This means that if the 1NT-opener has a doubleton hearts, basically nothing happened, if he has three or more, they are in trouble.

I'm not an expert in this field, but I think that if the dummy has bid 2♦ thinking it was natural, he might have said something before the lead was made.

I think in Norway, giving the ríght explanation is punished, let's see what Peter has to say.

Un saludo desde Barcelona

Reply from Peter van der Linden ('North'):

Dear Gerry,

In his own complicated way Ed says some sensible things - some...
Your case is an important example of the small things that can go wrong in every day bridge but have a heavy impact on the play and players. Therefore I will look into the case thoroughly here.
Let's sum it up, supposing you are West:

¹ Explained by South as a Jacoby-transfer
² Possibly South has bid 3NT, this is not clear from your mail

Unless playing with table screens (only used during high level matches) correct procedure is that the partner of the conventional bidder alerts. Only if asked he explains. We will ignore the fact that a 'normal' Jacoby-transfer like this one does not have to be alerted*.

You do not mention whether NS have submitted convention cards. These cards are crucial, since they show whether NS had agreed upon playing Jacoby-transfers or not.

A. Suppose the convention cards showed that NS had agreed upon transfers.
North has made a mistake then end South's explanation was correct. In this case there is no problem according to the Laws.
On this provision though (!): South must have bid in agreement with his explanation, meaning he must have assumed North to have five hearts (South's 2♥ bid is an indication he has made that assumption, but read on). Since South has chosen to play 3NT (either by making that bid or by passing North's 3NT bid) he should have a doubleton heart only. If so, there is no case and the director will not change the outcome of the deal in any way.
If South has three or four hearts, something is fishy: he should have elected to play 4♥ then. The director should make a ruling against NS (exception: if South has three hearts and a 4-3-3-3 hand a choice for 3NT is acceptable on technical grounds).

B. Suppose the convention cards showed that NS did not play transfers. This is a far more serious case: South has given incorrect information. The director will certainly rule against NS.
He will hereby take in account also whether North's further bidding, after South's wrong explanation, is consistent with '2♦ is not a transfer' since that is how North meant that bid. If North has used the information from South's incorrect disclosure ('What's this? Partner South thinks I have made a transfer bid, so I'd better now change my bidding plan accordingly') he is violating the Laws as well.

In both cases I cannot tell you the exact ruling of the director, since:
- I am not a qualified director
- and mostly: there is a lot of information lacking (see PS). For instance: what were the NS hands? What did North's 2♦ bid mean? This kind of information is needed for the director's ruling.
Another point the director will mention: North should have warned you - after the bidding had ended, but before your opening lead - that in his (North's) view, 2♦ was not a transfer. After that you had best immediately called the director (by the way: díd you call him?)

To conclude with, some tips:
1. Always offer convention cards to the opponents. The above will make that abundantly clear.
2. Always call the director after any irregularity, even if you are not sure if anything out of order has happened. Calling the director is in no way an accusation of foul play towards the opponents (as - alas - many wrongly believe): the director knows best about the Laws, so why shouldn't he have a look at what happened?
Even if you are playing against good friends: call the director after any irregularity (and of course you accept his ruling courteously). This way you will remain good friends!
Calling the director is not what causes animosity. It's the trying to rule yourself, the bargaining with the Laws, that causes problems. Suppose a player draws the wrong card from his hand, he intended to play another one but the 'wrong' card is on the table already. Often his opponents will allow him to take it back. Next time they make a slightly more fundamental mistake (e.g. a wrong bid which they want to change) and expect a similar service in return. Where does it end? Do you see what I mean with 'bargaining'? Therefore: follow the Laws, call the director.

PS, for all our visitors: When submitting a problem to Bridgevaria (or any other forum): please give full information about hands, the bidding, convention cards, vulnerability. We find it very hard to answer questions when not having all necessary information.

En hils fra Orkanger

*Reaction from Martin Sinot (15 January 2010)

Hello Ed & Peter,

Regarding the question 'Transfer or not?' I need to make one correction.
Peter states that a normal Jacoby-transfer does not have to be alerted. This was the case in the Netherlands up to the 2008-2009 season, but it is no longer the case. As of September 2009, the rule is that every convention must be alerted, as well as everything of which you suspect that the opponents might not understand it. As far as I know, this is the case in most jurisdictions (don't know about Spain or Norway, though).

Apart from that, as a qualified director, I can say that Peter's story is correct: erring is no infraction, but the alert and explanation given by partner is unauthorized information and may not be used in the remainder of the auction. Wrong information is an infraction, though (and still there is the information problem).
In absence of convention cards, the TD will assume wrong information; in other words: the offenders need to prove that the given information is correct.
Concerning the TD ruling: I suspect that there will be no damage due to misinformation, since the opponent leads from his five-card heart suit, while knowing that a five-card suit will be left of him. No doubt it will also be the lead he chooses if he knows that there are not five hearts left of him. Therefore, the misinformation does not damage him.
There might be damage due to use of unauthorized information, but without knowing the hands there is no way of telling whether that is the case.

Regards,
Martin Sinot