[Hanoi5]

The bidding goes:

East West
1 ♥ 3NT*
4 ♥ 4NT!
Pass

East opens a heart and West shows a 13-15 balanced hand with 3-card support, although N/S didn't ask until after the bidding was over. East alerts and bids 4 ♥ which shows no slam interest. West slammed the 4NT bidding card on the table and East hesitated for around 30 seconds before passing.

West didn't have heart support, she just wanted to play 3NT. N/S called the Director who ruled (after consulting) that there wouldn't be any penalty. West was orally reprimanded by everyone (including the director).

What should the ruling have been?
Didn't East have UI from the alert, even though it wasn't explained?
Should East be allowed to pass?
Does it change any of the above answers the fact that the tournament was a Cavendish-scored tourney? What if East is a teacher (pro) and West a pupil?

[jdonn]

Hanoi5, on Sep 20 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

The bidding goes:

East West
1 ♥ 3NT*
4 ♥ 4NT!
Pass

East opens a heart and West shows a 13-15 balanced hand with 3-card support, although N/S didn't ask until after the bidding was over. East alerts and bids 4 ♥ which shows no slam interest. West slammed the 4NT bidding card on the table and East hesitated for around 30 seconds before passing.

West didn't have heart support, she just wanted to play 3NT. N/S called the Director who ruled (after consulting) that there wouldn't be any penalty. West was orally reprimanded by everyone (including the director).

What should the ruling have been?

4♥ by west, making (I forget the exact wording in the rules) the fewest possible tricks for EW that doesn't involve either side making unreasonable or unrealistic plays. Any benefit of the doubt in determining the result in the 4♥ contract should be resolved in favor of the non-offending side.

Quote

Didn't East have UI from the alert, even though it wasn't explained?

Absolutely, 100%.

Quote

Should East be allowed to pass?

Well firstly it can't get to that point because West can't be allowed to bid 4NT (this is obviously based on UI from the alert.) This is completely clear, and if anything West should be reprimanded even more than East.

But hypothetically, lets say 4NT were for some reason allowed. In that case East certainly can't take advantage of the other UI from West slamming down the bid. Since 4NT is impossible both as 'to play' and as Blackwood, juding East's logical alternatives would be tricky, but suffice to say that if
- the UI from slamming down the bid suggested passing
- not passing is judged to be a logical alternative to passing
then East would not be allowed to pass.

Quote

Does it change any of the above answers the fact that the tournament was a Cavendish-scored tourney? What if East is a teacher (pro) and West a pupil?

Cavendish - doesn't matter.
Teacher/Pupil - doesn't matter as far as appying the ruling of what bids are allowed and what the contract should be. The only way it matters is how you deal with a player who takes advantage of UI. It seems like a beginner who doesn't know better should be dealt with a bit more gently and just try to help them to understand the ethical and legal issues. A more experienced player who should know better has to be dealt with more harshly, perhaps with a procedural penalty (I realize these are essentially never used at bridge clubs.)

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Sep 20 2007, 06:53 PM, said:

Quote

Should East be allowed to pass?

Well firstly it can't get to that point because West can't be allowed to bid 4NT (this is obviously based on UI from the alert.) This is completely clear, and if anything West should be reprimanded even more than East.

But hypothetically, lets say 4NT were for some reason allowed. In that case East certainly can't take advantage of the other UI from West slamming down the bid. Since 4NT is impossible both as 'to play' and as Blackwood, juding East's logical alternatives would be tricky, but suffice to say that if
- the UI from slamming down the bid suggested passing
- not passing is judged to be a logical alternative to passing
then East would not be allowed to pass.

I don't think I agree. Maybe I'll agree tomorrow.

I think just because the opponents had UI doesn't mean that I have to call the director. I believe I can simply accept the bid and keep going.

In this case, we have two independent UI events. I think it's perfectly allowable for the opponents to call on the second UI and not the first...in other words, allow the 4NT, but don't allow the pass after it. At which point, it goes into your 'hypothetical' situation, which I agree with.

I would adjust to 5 hearts, down whatever, since that's the most likely place to end up if 4NT is thought to be Blackwood. If opener had two with the queen and they were playing RKC, I'd put it at 6NT.

[blackshoe]

It's not a question of allowing 4NT, or allowing the subsequent pass. Not by the TD, and certainly not by the players. The auction will be what it will be. If 4NT gets passed out, the hand will be played in 4NT. The question then becomes whether illegal use of UI resulted in damage to the NOS. If so, there will be a score adjustment. If the use of UI was blatant, there might be a PP. As I said just now in answering this same message over on IBLF, I would issue East a PP for blatant violation of Law 73, and I would adjust the score if the opponents were damaged by the 4NT bid. As for East's pass, I don't see a problem with that.

To what would I adjust? I don't know. What were the hands?