[bali 2]

South opens 3♥ , which is transfer for Spades, not alerted by North who bids 4 ♥( forgot the agreement )
Now South bids 4♠,which ends the auction, and West calls the TD.
What should be the ruling 1) without screens
2) with screens ( 3 ♥alerted by S and not by N )

Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

[gordontd]

May we see the North & South hands?

[bali 2]

---

[hotShot]

1) Without screens South has the UI from the missing alert that partner probably forgot the agreement, so South is not allowed to correct to 4♠.

2) With screens South does not have the UI from the missing alert. 4♥ should have a systemic meaning here, that could be short or long suit trial bid, Cue-Bid, ....
If South has a plausible systemic meaning for 4♥, we need to know it.
Form the OP my impression is that 4♥ was not alerted by South. So we need to know how alerting at the 4 level is regulated in your jurisdiction.

[MFA]

1) Correction back to 4♥, since pass is a logical alternative to 4♠ and south has UI.
2) Result stands, no UI.

We need also to see if the opponents were damaged (might have wanted to bid something with correct alerting). It doesn't seem so, though.

[mjj29]

bali 2, on Apr 19 2010, 03:43 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ x ♥ AJx ♦ AKxx ♣ KQxxx ♠ KQJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ xx

I think people are forgetting something. Firstly, with screens south has no UI so can do anything he likes, although there may be some MI considerations on the other side of the screen (unlikely).

Without screens, yes, south has UI, but that UI does not force him to pass unless 4H systemically shows a long suit. If it's some kind of slam try in spades, then 4S is the only LA - south has a very unsuitable hand for slam and is a minimum for his opening. Certainly pass is never an LA if 4H is systemically artificial.

I also play a system where 3H is a transfer opening to spades. We've not discussed that precise sequence (I am doing so now), but I would expect it to be a slam try in spades and not an alternative strain.

[MFA]

mjj29, on Apr 19 2010, 11:55 AM, said:

Without screens, yes, south has UI, but that UI does not force him to pass unless 4H systemically shows a long suit. If it's some kind of slam try in spades, then 4S is the only LA - south has a very unsuitable hand for slam and is a minimum for his opening. Certainly pass is never an LA if 4H is systemically artificial.

I have never heard about 4♥ not being natural after partner's 3♠ preempt. So that seems very unlikely, but sure, if they happen to have agreements like that, south can't pass 4♥.

[Codo]

If they had the agreement that 4 ♥ is artifical, the OP had said so.
So w/O screens, 4 ♥
with screens: 4 ♠

[bluejak]

hotShot, on Apr 19 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

1) Without screens South has the UI from the missing alert that partner probably forgot the agreement, so South is not allowed to correct to 4♠.

This is why Gordon asked for the hands: the above is not a general requirement. If pass of 4♥ is not an LA, then we do not rule it back to 4♥.

If you mean we rule it back given the specific hand, then ok. But remember the "If it hesitates, shoot it" syndrome. Only recently my partner thought for an age and passed, I bid, LHO glared at me for a long time, finally realised I was not going to say anything, and said "You can't bid" to which I replied "Just have".

[campboy]

I don't see why the meaning of 3♥ (spades) pass 4♥ should be any different to 3♠ (natural) pass 4♥, which surely everyone and his dog plays as natural (firstly, 4♥ might be the best game; secondly, why would you want to make a slam try opposite a pre-empt if you don't have a minor suit control to cue-bid?). Of course if this pair have some evidence that it isn't natural for them then I take that into account, but otherwise pass is obviously an LA on the hand given and bidding is suggested by the UI (unless there are screens of course).

[ggwhiz]

With that South hand, usually providing zero entries, I'm not convinced that pass of 4 hearts is a logical alternative, even or especially opposite a spade void.

I bow to reasonable argument but I would never pass given that one poster that plays this method had no agreement on the meaning of 4 hearts.

[bali 2]

Are the laws so complex that one obtains as many opinions as directors asked ...?

Why can we not be able to have a total agreement on the technical rulings ?

Don't you think that it may irritate players who cannot have the same rulings in front of the same cases...?

Best ragards
Al. Ohana

[pran]

With screens South has no UI and obviously can bid whatever he wants.

So we have to know: What is the systemic meaning of 4♥ as response to a 3♥ transfer opening bid? Is pass a LA for South when playing with screens or without screens if the 3♥ opening bid was duly alerted?

If the answer to this question is NO, pass is no LA, then I cannot see how pass becomes a LA when playing without screens. And if pass is no LA for South then I cannot see any reason why South is prevented from pulling to 4♠ even with the UI that North has forgotten the system?

The existence of logical alternatives is not dependent on the existence of any UI, but the permissible choice among existing logical alternatives indeed is.

[jdonn]

I can't think of a 3♠ opening bid (or equivalent) where passing a 4♥ natural response is not an LA. Even if 7-0 in the majors.

[campboy]

bali 2, on Apr 19 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

Are the laws so complex that one obtains as many opinions as directors asked ...?

Why can we not be able to have a total agreement on the technical rulings ?

I don't understand why this post has been made in this thread (though there are plenty of other threads around which would justify it ).

The majority of posters seem to agree on the three points below (indeed, I can see only one post which disputes any of them). The discussion seems to be about the likely meaning of 4♥; of course if any of us were called to the table we would be able to find out what agreements NS had and so we would all (but one) rule the same way.

A. If screens were in use there is no UI so no adjustment.
B. If screens were not in use and 4♥ is systemically natural then pass is an LA on South's hand; adjust to 4♥ making however many tricks
C. If 4♥ is systemically not natural then pass is not an LA so no adjustment.

[bluejak]

bali 2, on Apr 19 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

Are the laws so complex that one obtains as many opinions as directors asked ...?

Why can we not be able to have a total agreement on the technical rulings ?

Don't you think that it may irritate players who cannot have the same rulings in front of the same cases...?

There is complete agreement on the technical ruling. The discussion is about what the facts are [the meaning of 4♥] and the judgement as to whether a pass of 4♥ is an LA.

[dburn]

MFA, on Apr 19 2010, 04:33 AM, said:

1) Correction back to 4♥, since pass is a logical alternative to 4♠ and south has UI.
2) Result stands, no UI.

I don't know how much bridge you people have played with screens, but I have played a fair amount, and I will tell you this: if I had been on the same side of the screen as South, I would know when the tray came back whether North was making a slam try in spades or whether he was just "raising" an opening bid of 3♥ to four.

After all, four hearts is a pretty strange slam try to be making after a 3♠ opening. If (as I would not) I organised my methods along those lines, I imagine I would play it as asking for trump quality, in which case I would accept with the actual South hand, not reject.

But that is by the way - if I had the actual South hand and I knew that 4♥ was natural, then I could not imagine doing other than passing it. To me, it seems very much as though South did in fact have some UI from the speed at which the tray came back - it is naive to suppose that the mere presence of screens prevents all possible transmission of UI. Did South alert 4♥ to West, by the way?

[MFA]

dburn, on Apr 21 2010, 03:11 AM, said:

MFA, on Apr 19 2010, 04:33 AM, said:

1) Correction back to 4♥, since pass is a logical alternative to 4♠ and south has UI.
2) Result stands, no UI.

I don't know how much bridge you people have played with screens, but I have played a fair amount, and I will tell you this: if I had been on the same side of the screen as South, I would know when the tray came back whether North was making a slam try in spades or whether he was just "raising" an opening bid of 3♥ to four.

After all, four hearts is a pretty strange slam try to be making after a 3♠ opening. If (as I would not) I organised my methods along those lines, I imagine I would play it as asking for trump quality, in which case I would accept with the actual South hand, not reject.

But that is by the way - if I had the actual South hand and I knew that 4♥ was natural, then I could not imagine doing other than passing it. To me, it seems very much as though South did in fact have some UI from the speed at which the tray came back - it is naive to suppose that the mere presence of screens prevents all possible transmission of UI. Did South alert 4♥ to West, by the way?

I'm not sure why we are spending so much time on discussing scenarios where 4♥ is an artificial slam try, because it is not. Nobody plays it as artificial and we have no evidence at all that the pair in question does.

Just because there is little meat on this case (either), we don't have to invent some ourselves to keep us busy .