[AlexJonson]

I mentioned the Ghestem thread in this thread, because Karlson referred to it as an inconsistency on my part. Perhaps we could have one thread at a time. You had your go on the Ghestem thread. I know the internet encourages abandonment of conversation for abuse, but perhaps you could contain youself and your shouting emphases.

[bluejak]

Feel free not to mix threads. But when you do, please do not blame others for doing so. I did not bring up the Ghestem thread here: I replied to your post which did.

[karlson]

Lol, it was my fault bluejak! Don't shoot Alex for mixing threads too.

[campboy]

I don't see why you are blaming bluejak. If you make a point in a post -- whether it is directly relevant to the thread or not -- then others have the chance to respond to that point. If you make the same point in two different threads then you might expect the same response in two different threads.

[peachy]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 11:34, said:

---

OK, here it is.
3♥was alerted as 'Verdi' a transfer preëmpt. The TD was called when it surfaced that West held hearts in stead of spades. After the play West damned himself by stating that he had deliberately bid 4♥ to wake partner up (and succesfully at that ). Sadly a lot of information is missing, like:

• Why did East pass 4 ♥?
  
• What would the meaning have been of a 3♠ call over a natural 3♥ , or a correct Verdi 3♦?
  
• What options other than 4 ♥ did West have over 3♠?

West misbid, the explanation was correct according to the conventions card, but as this was not a regular partnership in Holland the TD may rule misinformation.

So, what would you probably have done with this?

The facts in your subsequent post are quite different than in the OP.

[AndreSteff]

peachy, on 2011-January-17, 12:55, said:

The facts in your subsequent post are quite different than in the OP.

Please elaborate!

[peachy]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-17, 13:53, said:

Please elaborate!

Originally, nothing about alerts or agreements, just 5-card majors and common sense. Later, you added what the actual agreements were and the facts about alerts. It changes the picture significantly and likely changes how respondents answer the OP poll where no such details were provided.

[AndreSteff]

peachy, on 2011-January-17, 14:37, said:

Originally, nothing about alerts or agreements, just 5-card majors and common sense. Later, you added what the actual agreements were and the facts about alerts. It changes the picture significantly and likely changes how respondents answer the OP poll where no such details were provided.

I spent a good 15 minutes writing an explanation for you, but on posting it dissolved into Cyberspace
Perhaps other contributors can provide you some links on why the case was presented as I did.

[campboy]

peachy, on 2011-January-17, 14:37, said:

Originally, nothing about alerts or agreements, just 5-card majors and common sense. Later, you added what the actual agreements were and the facts about alerts. It changes the picture significantly and likely changes how respondents answer the OP poll where no such details were provided.

That's the point. We need to know what West might have done without any help from the alerts (since it is illegal to use that help). And it would be pretty pointless to say "you agreed to play transfer pre-empts but have forgotten this" since we are not capable of forgetting things to order.

[nige1]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-16, 11:34, said:

OK, here it is.
3♥was alerted as 'Verdi' a transfer preëmpt. The TD was called when it surfaced that West held hearts in stead of spades. After the play West damned himself by stating that he had deliberately bid 4♥ to wake partner up (and succesfully at that ). Sadly a lot of information is missing, like:

• Why did East pass 4 ♥?
• What would the meaning have been of a 3♠ call over a natural 3♥ , or a correct Verdi 3♦?
• What options other than 4 ♥ did West have over 3♠?

West misbid, the explanation was correct according to the conventions card, but as this was not a regular partnership in Holland the TD may rule misinformation.
So, what would you probably have done with this?

---

IMO...

• If this auction is undiscussed, you would expect 3♠ to be a rescue.
• Hence, when partner bids 3♠ over 3♥X: _P = 10, 4♠ = 6, 4♣ = 5, 4♦ = 4, 4♥ = 3.
• You should pass although 4♠ and other bids are logical alternatives.
• After the alert and explanation, the legal actions include Pass, 4♠, and Hara Kiri.
• The unathourised information suggested 4♥ over less succesful logical alternatives, such as 4♠. The director must guess what might happen without the use of UI. Perhaps, 4♠X - 6 or 7.
• The director should consider a PP for West.
• The NS auction is surreal but not illegal.

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-January-17, 20:38, said:

If this auction is undiscussed, you would expect 3♠ to be a rescue.

I consider this a surprising view. You have shown a suit which would be expected to be playable opposite shortness, and the next hand has made a takeout double. With a strange partner I would expect raises to be competitive, and any other action except pass to be constructive or better.

It would be different if double was penalties. Now I check the OP does not say whether double was penalties. If it was then my poll results are wrong as well.

nige1, on 2011-January-17, 20:38, said:

The NS auction is surreal but not illegal.

Why not? Is not 4♥ a choice amongst LAs suggested by the UI [alert of 3♥] over LAs? Surely it is, so it is illegal.

[FrancesHinden]

It's funny how many people are confident about the meaning (and the forcing or non-forcing nature) of 3H (x) 3S
I'd been playing with one regular partner for nearly 15 years before we ever discussed this, and discovered we had different opinions about what was 'normal' or 'standard' and hence what our agreement was. It's still not in our 40+ pages of agreements on competitive auctions although it's made into the (more than 1 page!) list of things to add.

[Obviously the auction had come up before, but either fourth hand bid or opener had a clear action anyway]