[dburn]

blackshoe, on May 25 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

I'm not so sure this is unauthorized panic, or indeed panic at all. What are the LA's to 2♥? Frankly, I don't think there are any. Partner thinks I have spades and hearts. Fair enough. Now he thinks we also have a heart fit. Funny, so do I. I bid 4♥, not expecting a score adjustment. OTOH, I would accept one, given a reasonable effort to explain to me why it was given (and not just "you had UI, you're not allowed a good score").

One may need to determine what 1♣ - 1♦ (hearts) - 1♠ means in the partnership methods. If the answer to that is "unbalanced with spades and clubs", then I am not convinced I would bid 2♥ - I might well just bid 2♣, in the hope that if we could make a game, partner would take another bid. Certainly I would do that without the jack of hearts, and I am not sure the jack of hearts by itself is enough to say "there are no logical alternatives to 2♥".

However, the player who bid 2♥ has the UI "partner thinks I have spades" and the AI "if I bid 2♥, partner will think I have five spades and four hearts, and the resulting auction may not go very well for us." That, it seems to me, suggests bidding 2♣ (which at least will be a safe haven) and not 2♥ (over which partner is presumably at liberty to bid 4♠, which will not lead to any safe haven at all). Thus, I would not necessarily classify 2♥ as a breach of Law 16, whereas I might so classify 2♣.

In the actual case, it appears that it was perfectly safe to show five spades and four hearts, because partner with three spades and three hearts chose to raise 2♥ to three and then to pass 4♥. I should like to know why he did that, but since no one saw fit to raise the issue, perhaps I will not have my wish.

[aguahombre]

awm, on May 25 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

I find opener's bidding to be rather odd. When partner is known (supposedly) to have five spades and four hearts, why did he raise hearts on 3-3 in the majors? Why not correct to spades, or raise spades?

However, nothing in the original post suggests that opener had any UI -- just that partner has UI from the alert of 1♥.

disagree. There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring. It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support.

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum). And it is something the opps are entitled to know.

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

[Phil]

aguahombre, on May 25 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

disagree.  There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring.  It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support. 

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum).  And it is something the opps are entitled to know. 

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

Indeed. As a matter of fact at my table the auction was:

1♣ - (dbl) - 1♦* - (pass)
1♥** - (1♠) - 3♥ - AP

* hearts
** - 3♥

(both alerted)

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on May 25 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

awm, on May 25 2010, 01:58 PM, said:

I find opener's bidding to be rather odd. When partner is known (supposedly) to have five spades and four hearts, why did he raise hearts on 3-3 in the majors? Why not correct to spades, or raise spades?

However, nothing in the original post suggests that opener had any UI -- just that partner has UI from the alert of 1♥.

disagree. There is something in the OP to wake opener up to the possibility his partner had not been transferring. It is the failure to alert 1S, which is known to show exactly 3 card support.

This detail might not be AI to responder, but it is an alertable treatment (Presumably people who use xfer responses would bid 2S with 4 card support and a minimum). And it is something the opps are entitled to know.

Once Responder does not alert 1S, both players have UI.

I think you are right on the money. If 1♠ wasn't alerted, the 1♠ bidder has huge UI that partner has stuffed-up and probably doesn't have a ♠ suit at all.

Bidding 3♥ rather than 2♠ is clearly suggested by the non-alert of 1♠ so I would wind the auction back to west bidding 2♠ and then things get interesting. In the absence of the wake-up call, east should think his partner has 6♣ and 5♠ so I think the normal action would be 3♣ which will end the auction.

3♣ looks like it will make comfortably, but no game bonus for EW.

[mrdct]

Jurisdiction is probably important here as a 1♠ response to a transfer may not be alertable in some places. It would be alertable in Australia if it denied 4♠.

[wank]

looks like opener fielded the misbid. I don't if that's considered a faux pas in the ACBL or not.

[greenender]

Agree.

Bluejak will no doubt correct me if necessary, but I believe his view is that whilst specific reference to the concept of a fielded misbid is almost exclusively an English (and probably Welsh ) phenomenon, what is actually going on when a misbid is fielded, properly analysed, is an infraction of Law anywhere.

[bluejak]

That is my view. While the first sentence of Law 40C1 is generally assumed to be about psyches, it does not say it is, and fielding a misbid means that the required condition in that sentence is breached.