Kungsgeten, on 2016-November-25, 07:27, said:
West has UI due to the alert and explanation of 4H. Still if you bid 4H as a terminating bid, and a weak NT opener removes is to 4S, what can opener have?
Now when you have UI you can not, among options, choose one suggested by the UI. The UI suggests that the winning bid is to bid 5H. Does west have any options here though? 4S can not be natural (unless partner has psyched?), and 4S as a super-accept of hearts seems a bit strange too since responder could have bid something else with a slam try. I can not see any opening hand that would bid anything else other than pass, and there's no other possible strain, so I'd accept the 5H bid. You could ask other players of the same calibre what they would bid in the same situation, but most would probably interpret 4S as if partner erred, and bid 5H.
East does not have any UI, so he may bid whatever he wants -- passing 5H is okay. However if West reacted in a bad way when 4H was explained (sighs, comments, becoming irritated), then East have UI. Let's say they play voidwood/exclusion for instance, now this particular sequence may not have been discussed in the partnership, but it isn't too much of a stretch to interpret a transfer to the four level, followed by a new suit at the five level, as an exclusion bid. In this case the final contract will likely be 6H, 6S or 6NT.
I totally agree that you know a wheel has come off, but you also know (from the alert) that partner will interpret a 5-level bid as a slam-try in spades. The question therefore is whether pass is an LA. If partner has KJxxx xx KQx KQx, you will make 4S but not 5H. If you were behind screens, which is the usual test, you might think as follows:
"The pillock. He has clearly taken 4H to be a transfer. Now if we bid 5H he may well think it is a slam-try in spades, possibly without a minor-suit control, and that won't work. Pass is a reasonable shot, as it may make even opposite as little as
♠KJxx
♥xx
♦Kxx
♣AQxx or the like, while 5H will need quite a lot, even if he passes it, which he won't." The only way to establish what is an LA is to poll peers of West advising them that you are playing with screens and ask them what they would bid now. I bet that the requisite number would pass. And I think all of us are happy that 5H is demonstrably suggested. The other thing about 5H is that it is the bid most likely to jog partner's memory. Is that permitted?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
Help
NS complained at the end of the hand that the auction was not entirely kosher and gave these details. 4H was alerted and explained as a transfer to spades. The actual agreement was that 4H was natural and terminal and the CC was clear on this. 4C and 4D were shown on the card as transfers to ♥ and ♠ respectively (either terminal or s-try). North, who gave these details - I was not present, confirmed that there was nothing in the body language or tempo of EW which indicated that a wheel had come off. The TD ruled that the result stood as did two eminent L&E members who were polled for an opinion."
From East's view-point, ostensibly, West showed a ♠ one-suiter and then made a peculiar slam-try in ♥. East seems to have judged it more likely that West had a ♥ one-suiter but had forgotten the system. We're assured that West gave no unauthorised information (body language/ BIT) to East to suggest that a wheel had come off, so, IMO, the director's "result stands" ruling is correct.ir
IMO such incidents also present a disclosure problem. East guessed West's real intentions because, for their partnership, if a wheel had come off, then it was likely that 4♥ was intended as natural. (For example, the default,for a different partnership, might be a transfer to ♣). This inference might be ;less obvious to opponents.