[PeterAlan]

What call(s) should East (a) consider (b) make in the following scenario:

---

NB (amplifying diagram's notes)

(1) W's 1NT: 12-14
(2) N's X = single-suited hand; asks partner to bid 2♣ for Pass / Correct
(3) E's 2♦: both alerted by W and announced (without any N/S question) as "exit" transfer to ♥
(4) W's 2♥: transfer completion.

E/W are not a regular partnership, but W's explanation is what they had on their card. Please don't concern yourself with the technicalities of W's breach of Alert / Announce regulations (which of course had the effect of making E's misbid absolutely clear).

[campboy]

FWIW if this happened to me (without UI, say with screens) I would pass, expecting partner to have five hearts. If it came back round to me doubled I would probably run to 3♣.

[billw55]

In a weak NT setting, it feels like 2♥ does not exist if 2♦ is a natural signoff. This might reveal the situation even without the UI. Perhaps a good 5 card heart suit with ♦xx is almost plausible.

I guess east might now consider 3♣, 3♦, and pass, but I don't think it's going to end well for them in any case.

[RMB1]

It is so common for there to be a mis-understanding on these sequences that I do not think the explanation tells East anything that the 2♥ bid does not. I would bid here on the assumption that partner thinks 2♦ is a transfer to ♥.

But I don't know what to bid. I suspect ♥ is North's suit, so I don't want to Pass and go off in 100s. 3♦ is likely to work: partner will probably recognise the mis-understanding. It is a shame the opponents have not started to double, then it would be clear that I was trying to scramble to my suit(s).

[blackshoe]

Without the UI, I consider pass, 3♣, and 3♦. Bidding does not appeal; I probably choose to pass, thinking partner has opened 1NT with a decent 5 card heart suit. If he "never" does that, well, I don't know what to think, except that now pass is probably not an LA. Either way, the UI suggests I get the hell out of hearts, so bidding is suggested over passing. So I pass. As the saying goes "sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue".

[ggwhiz]

I would pass at the speed of light expecting that opposite a heart suit (which is what I'm entitled to expect) any bid now will get hammered. I'll run if they double this and should probably do it with 2nt consistent with my natural diamond bid and showing a side order of clubs.

[gnasher]

Without a misunderstanding, I think partner's 2♥ shows diamond support and some heart feature, just like breaking a transfer. However, I agree with Robin that it's far more likely to be a misunderstanding than anything else,

[trevahound]

I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I've already shown a 5 card diamond suit, and this is a pretty poor suit. Pass and 3♣ are what I suspect the LAs are, with 3♣ being "more likely to be successful".

[StevenG]

Is pass a LA if partner never opens 1NT on a 5-card major?

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2013-October-31, 08:40, said:

Without a misunderstanding, I think partner's 2♥ shows diamond support and some heart feature, just like breaking a transfer. However, I agree with Robin that it's far more likely to be a misunderstanding than anything else,

I agree too, to the extent that I don't think I've ever seen anyone make one of these support-showing bids after a weak takeout, even though it's always presented as the obvious meaning of the bid, whenever consulting about a ruling.

[jeffford76]

trevahound, on 2013-October-31, 10:12, said:

I don't see 3♦ as a LA. I've already shown a 5 card diamond suit, and this is a pretty poor suit. Pass and 3♣ are what I suspect the LAs are, with 3♣ being "more likely to be successful".

It's more likely to be successful if you give partner a meaningful glare first. But won't partner take you for hearts and clubs if you bid it in tempo?

[RMB1]

trevahound, on 2013-October-31, 10:12, said:

I don't see 3♦ as a LA.

I think it is what some would bid, and some would "seriously consider" glaring at partner when they bid.

[barmar]

Does it really matter all that much? Aren't you screwed no matter what you do? Passing 2♥ is probably the only way to stay out of game. But if you pass you'll be in at best a 4-1 fit. Maybe the only difference is that if you pass now you won't be doubled, or the opponents may rescue you.

[mr1303]

If my partner isn't a cheat, then if I bid 3C/D now I'll end up in game.

So I pass. If 2H gets doubled, then I might bid 3C

[wank]

mr1303, on 2013-October-31, 14:30, said:

If my partner isn't a cheat, then if I bid 3C/D now I'll end up in game.

eh?

[mycroft]

Well, if I "bid" hearts and then show another suit, it is (commonly around here) gameforcing two-suiter. So if I bid 3m, I'll be in some game (why did I run? maybe I don't have a business XX? maybe I'm 6-6 and 1NT could go down but 4♥ or 5♦ is cold?)

[wank]

mycroft, on 2013-October-31, 18:50, said:

Well, if I "bid" hearts and then show another suit, it is (commonly around here) gameforcing two-suiter. So if I bid 3m, I'll be in some game (why did I run? maybe I don't have a business XX? maybe I'm 6-6 and 1NT could go down but 4♥ or 5♦ is cold?)

that's lovely, but west doesn't have any UI

[lamford]

We make the bid that we would make if partner had not alerted, and, when he was asked, stated, "natural, non-forcing". 2H should therefore be a four-card diamond raise with heart concentration, fit non-jump style, helping us judge whether to compete over 3M, and the hands therefore fit badly. It seems that 3D is the only LA. Law 75 corrects the error in 16b in that East does not select LAs using the partnership methods, but using the methods he perceived at the time.

Your manner may now convey UI to partner based on my experience of this type of problem at club level.

[gnasher]

wank, on 2013-October-31, 21:11, said:

that's lovely, but west doesn't have any UI

He will have when East alerts 2♥ and explains it as showing a diamond fit.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2013-November-01, 02:30, said:

He will have when East alerts 2♥ and explains it as showing a diamond fit.

Which he doesn't do if he realises W was right when he explained the transfer.