Correct Ruling?
The hands don't really matter.
North Passes : East Bids 1NT (15-17) : South Doubles (Penalties) : West bids 2H (Not alerted)
North Doubles (Alerted Penalties) East and South Pass and West bids 2S : "Director Please"
During the conversation at the table West now says he should have alerted 2H call and East says they would open 1NT with a 5-card major. (east also holds 4 Hearts)
Under time pressure (I was playing) I asked to be called back if NS were damaged. (Which I wasn't but would still like clarifiaction)
My initial thoughts were that the contract would be ruled back to 2HX-1 (which scored the same or could make) so no damage to NS.
However I think I missed a trick and should have offered South his last call back at the table (with no rectification if he chnaged it). If he didn't then presumably I have to construct the auction after 2H given that NS know what the bid means and EW don't.
NS can make 3NT (North has a Spade and Heart Stop and South a running -with a finesse - 7-card club suit) although no one bid it.
Is that right.
Comments
So what happened after 2S?
Alan
West can't alert 2H, since he bid it. If it was West who said that East should have alerted, does East agree? Do they have a systems card indicating what their agreement is; it's possible that the pair has no actual agreement what to do in that situation and West was winging it. If West was winging it, he does have the UI that partner didn't alert but that might simply be a forget to alert by partner.
I don't see that East's pass is an instruction to West that East is eager to play in 2Hx and that West should now pass with a long Spades suit. I think West is free to bid 2S and, on the face of it, I can't see any grounds for rolling the contract back to 2Hx. Giving S his bid back is dependent on whether EW do have an agreement that 2H is artificial and thus there was misinformation.
I can't immediately see any grounds for using the information that NS had 3NT on, given that they plumped for penalties, rather than chasing their own contract.
The first thing is to ascertain the actual agreement. My guess from the OP is that E/W play transfers ON after a double but E forgot.
If that is so there is misinformation (no alert from E), and you should also apply the golden rule: always check for a possible UI issue in a MI case.
As far as MI is concerned it is not obvious (without the full hands) that N/S would have taken any different action with the correct information. If N is going to double a supposedly natural 2 !h for penalties, then he is presumably likely to double a 2 !h transfer to show hearts. (This may depend on the hand - I can envisage hands on which I would be happy to double a natural 2 !h but would be uncomfortable doubling a 2 !h transfer to show the suit - whether this is an issue would depend on N/S's agreements as to a double of a transfer in this position - is is purely lead-directing or does it show real length, for example?).
Turning to S, he is entitled to know that W has bid 2 !h as a transfer but E has passed it. He is not allowed to know the precise nature of the accident E/W may be having.
In my methods E's pass would show poor spades and good hearts in context, but E/W may not have this agreement (they might have an agreement that it merely denies three spades, or they might have no agreement). If they have no agreement, it is reasonable to suggest that the logic of the situation is that the pass should show poor spades and good hearts. If E/W have this agreement, explicitly or implicitly, S now knows that E/W's hearts are sat over his partner's holding, rather than under, as they would be if 2 !h was natural, and I can envisage hands with long clubs where S would not pass. But in order to consider MI further you would need to investigate E/W's methods further and to consider S's hand.
As far as UI is concerned, the lack of the expected alert of 2 !h is of course UI to W. Kudos to E for admitting that he might have five hearts, which makes a pass more likely to be a logical alternative for W. You would, once again, need to check on any agreements E/W may have about the pass, but in the absence of a specific agreement it suggests playing in 2 !h X opposite tolerance, rather than 2 !s . Even if E may have five hearts for the auction I personally would certainly consider a pass with four good hearts and only a doubleton spade.
So, going through the usual UI steps:
1. Was there UI? - Yes, clearly.
2. Did the UI suggest bidding 2 !s rather than passing 2 !h X? Yes. With an alert, W knows that E knows that W has spades, and E is showing real hearts and offering a choice. Without an alert, W knows that E may not know that W has spades. E may have much better spades and much worse hearts than with an alert, and 2 !h X may be a ridiculous spot.
3. Is passing 2 !h X a logical alternative for W? This depends on W's hand. If W has a singleton or void heart or a sixth spade, then clearly no. If W has three or more* hearts, then clearly yes. If W has five spades and a doubleton heart, then I would be inclined to give E/W the benefit of the doubt. There is a known 7-card spade fit, and a maximum of a 7-card heart fit, and it may be only 6. Besides, if N can double hearts, the spades are somewhat more likely to be onside if not breaking well.
*If W has more than three hearts, pulling to 2 !s looks a bit like blatant use of UI.
Very nice methodologically given answer, and complete.