[akwoo]

The bidding goes 1N (pard, 15-17) - Dbl (pen) - 2H (me, *) - P - 2S

(*)2H is announced as a transfer by partner, but our partnership agreement is that it is a natural drop dead bid over the penalty double.

Do I have unauthorized information here from the announcement, or is my partner's 2S bid already prima facie evidence that he forgot our agreement?

If I have unauthorized information, what am I ethically required to do with a 2623 3-count? What about a 0634 3-count?

[Cascade]

akwoo, on 2011-May-31, 22:39, said:

The bidding goes 1N (pard, 15-17) - Dbl (pen) - 2H (me, *) - P - 2S

(*)2H is announced as a transfer by partner, but our partnership agreement is that it is a natural drop dead bid over the penalty double.

Do I have unauthorized information here from the announcement, or is my partner's 2S bid already prima facie evidence that he forgot our agreement?

If I have unauthorized information, what am I ethically required to do with a 2623 3-count? What about a 0634 3-count?

Yes.

What happens next depends on other agreements.

If 2♠ would show spades and not hearts then pass seems normal with a 2623 hand and 3♣ normal with a 0634 - perhaps 3♥ but that may be taking advantage of the UI.

If 2♠ is some sort of superaccept of hearts then 3♥ is in order in both cases - I want to discourage partner as much as possible.

[JLOGIC]

Perhaps this is too hard lined of an approach but I always believed if this happened, and parnter had described 2H as natural, you would "always" logically play him to have psyched 1n and bid 2S natural. I mean seriously imagine they ask about 2H and he says natural and bid 2S, if you passed you would not be accused of being fielding a psyche because the auction logically suggests a psyche...

Anyways, this is a tough part about bridge and I'm not sure about whether or not I'm right, I imagine a director would allow pulling with a void.

[karlson]

I agree with jlogic but on the other hand I remember several committees at national events ruling that the only logical explanation was that partner assumed transfer. If there was a reasonable way of searching those, I would try to find the cases.

[mfa1010]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-01, 01:58, said:

Perhaps this is too hard lined of an approach but I always believed if this happened, and parnter had described 2H as natural, you would "always" logically play him to have psyched 1n and bid 2S natural. I mean seriously imagine they ask about 2H and he says natural and bid 2S, if you passed you would not be accused of being fielding a psyche because the auction logically suggests a psyche...

Anyways, this is a tough part about bridge and I'm not sure about whether or not I'm right, I imagine a director would allow pulling with a void.

Yes, I think that is too hard lined.
The laws tell us to compare to a situation without UI. They don't tell us to compare to a situation with UI stating the opposite.
If this had happened behind screens, then for most players it would be clearcut that there was a misunderstanding. For those players it would not be a LA to play partner for a psyche, beacause too few would consider it or actually do it in practice (the law requirement for a LA). So those players may bid on as responder here.