[pescetom]

I do trust this https://bridgewinner...in-this-ruling/
was not one of out directors in action

[jillybean]

Not me, I would still be trying to make sense of it.

This ruling is yet another example of a pair using UI to their advantage. An ethical South would have continued to bid as if 4S was a cue.
It doesn’t pay to be fully ethical, most of the time, Directors will protect you from the laws.

[mycroft]

Like many, I'd like to see the poll. Wouldn't mind seeing South's hand either, for the "is passing 4♠ a LA?".

I do notice that the OP doesn't claim there was a poll. That doesn't mean there wasn't one, self-serving memory being what it is. But if all the explanations of why "pass of 4♠ is not Logical" and why "there's either no UI passed by the fast 5♥ or 'this is a slam cue' doesn't make sense" came from the directors' minds, while I wouldn't be in "have you asked anyone who can play?" territory (IME, that's reserved for when the directors tell "me" that another call *is* logical, and not suggested by the UI), I might ask if they had polled any players and what did they think 5♥ meant, having not seen 52 cards and the result?

I do like North's "Alert and query" - if it could be hearts, or good spades (or even diamonds) depending on the meaning of East's call (in his view), that's what the procedure says to do, if South didn't ask(*).

If South did ask, then "Spades" is correct (to North's memory of the agreement):

Quote

Calls that require Announcements must be immediately announced, even if the call would otherwise not be Alerted or if the Alert would be delayed.

To the "correct" agreement, it would be "Hearts", even if it is a Cuebid (or perhaps, despite the fact that it is a Cuebid), for the same reason.

Having said that, situations like North's belief are ones where I think it is imperative to ask as South, so that this situation does not come up. Because North now knows that South either knows (good, but frustrating if I don't), is assuming (bad), or doesn't care what 2NT means - and not asking might wake North up. (Having said that, South being sure that he is in the last category means that there is no need to ask - and actually a downside of asking. So I see his side too(**)).

I'm going to take the "instant call" with the "was told by West what he remembers seeing" (or, "was West") big piece of "self-serving testimony" salt; but I bet it was fast. This is a classic case of "unauthorized panic", and UP is always fast. That's why I want to see the poll. But if there was a poll, and "everyone" said "oh partner must have forgotten and thought he was transferring", then fine.

I see someone say "I'm bidding 6♠ if told 3♦ showed spades and 5♥ was a control". Well, of course, that's obvious. That's not the poll, and I'd massively object if it was. North passed because "it's obvious we're off the rails", and there's UI saying "no, partner, I have hearts"; I want to hear if my poll people tell me "it's obvious he's got hearts and thought 3♦ was a transfer" or whether they tell me "that has to be a cuebid for slam." If you tell the pollees what 5♥ is, you're begging the question and it's an invalid poll. Note: once you decide that treating it as a cuebid is a LA, then if you're trying to figure out the adjusted score, then it's fine to say "5♥ shows a control, no minor control" to see how many bid 6. But not before.

(*) Ran into one on Tuesday: I was playing Precision on the 1♦-(2♦)-3♦ auction. Because *I knew* (and was almost certainly the only one at the table who did) that 2♦ not Alerted could have any meaning, when asked about 3♦ I had to say that it depended on the meaning of 2♦. Of course, knowing that partner didn't ask, I could assume that what she *had* was an unusual vs unusual competitive raise, but if 2♦ was Natural...
(**) I find this very interesting. After our weak NT, over double and 2♣, we play the same system no matter the meaning of those calls (runout and systems on, respectively). But because the decision to pass could depend on the meaning of their call (I might be more interested in a "willing to play" pass depending on what Alerted meaning of double(**a) they're playing (setting up for their pull, or believing it's the best chance for a good score; I might be interested in finding out which of the many hands 2♣ is and lebensohling around that instead of "systems on") I tend to ask. I do know that quite frequently the opponents are of different minds about their weak NT defence - so sometimes asking is a bad idea. Oh well.
(**a) More often than not, when I ask about the Alerted double, I get "penalty" or "equal or better" or something like that. Which, of course, is a "do NOT Alert" meaning. I guess I should be like the Precision people, call the Director, and be up in arms about UI passing or misinforming me or something?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2024-September-01, 09:18, said:

An ethical South would have continued to bid as if 4S was a cue.

With my own agreements, certainly: I would be curious to know more about theirs.

 jillybean, on 2024-September-01, 09:18, said:

It doesn’t pay to be fully ethical, most of the time, Directors will protect you from the laws.

I agree more with the second part than the first, although recognising the problems.
As for the first, does it "pay" to seek and maybe obtain a better score than the one that you, your partner and your opponents know you deserve?

[Cascade]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-01, 10:53, said:

I do notice that the OP doesn't claim there was a poll.

"The director polled the hand and concluded that"

[mycroft]

Cascade: I swear I read it twice. Having said that, none of the polled information was presented in the decision (as presented by the OP). I wonder how much the OP remembers the actual ruling, how much is paraphrase (losing critical information), and how much is "self-serving memory".

I'm not slagging the OP over the "self-serving memory". Well, much. It happens, it happens to all of us, I've done it myself. The number of times I have heard stories about my own rulings (sometimes they don't know who gave the ruling :-) where the only thing that matched what actually happened was the actual adjusted score.

Jilly: But what 15-17 NT hand has, over a passable heart transfer, a slam try? That isn't, say, 3♠? To me, the two choices are:

• Partner meant to open 2♣ then 2NT, but opened 1NT instead; or
  
• Partner forgot and thought we were playing UvU.

Which one do you choose?

[jillybean]

I see what you are saying, 4S is an impossible auction, unless partner has misorted/miscounted his hand or opened 1nt on such distribution that after opponents 2nt - minors and partner shows spades inv +, North now reevaluates this as a slam try.

The UI available to South removed any doubt, it is clear that North has misunderstood the auction. This calls for a fast 5H bid, if I think for any time partner is more likely to interpret 5H as a cue. As you say, Unauthorized Panic.
Without the UI, South would have paused, and likely for an extended time before making a bid. North may not have woken up to the misunderstanding , continued cueing or bid 6S and we wouldn't have a forum post.

Should South be given a Procedural Penalty for this?

[pescetom]

4S is an impossibile auction, but that doesn't exclude Pass now being an LA: it's certainly what I would call in the circumstances, eccentric though it may be.

[mycroft]

Okay, that's the third possibility, I did forget about that one:

"Partner just found out their clubs are also spades."

You are absolutely right, that's an issue. Another reason I'd love to see South's hand.

Still, 100 to 1 that partner forgot. Is "twice in my life, both by the opponents" something "logical" given that there is UI?

But, most assume that the "nobody's passing with a stiff spade" brigade is "right" (or at least that's what the poll tells us, we hope). I find the more interesting part is the pass of 5♥, assuming there was "help".

I also find it interesting, given my personal "idiosyncrasy" about jump bids, that if East had just taken their 10 seconds to pass 4♠, there might not have been as much "help" - and several posters over there have pointed that out. Maybe there's hope.

[pescetom]

Yes, it's the difficulty of objectively affirming there was an insta-bid that worries me in such circumstances, unless the accused side actually concedes it happened (fat chance, although they tend not to deny, either). And the preceding Stop card bid does not help at all, although it doesn't rule out a tempo violation either. I would like at least to have video recording, if I really can't have electronic bidding and screens.

Although from that point of view this is not the hardest decision to trust the claim there was UI. It's almost impossible there wasn't, given the circumstances. Heck,even if the agreement had really been UoU and they both had spades, a 5H control bid denying two suits and showing just the King in the third would "normally" be accompanied by wallops of UI for many pairs.

[jillybean]

We need to see the other hand.