System Confusion
Had to make a call on the hand attached. Bidding starting with South:
2N - 4d (1)
4h - 5d (2)
(1) Oppos asked meaning of 4d. Not on bidders card, but he stated, somewhat vaguely "looks like a transfer".
(2) Was asked about the the 5d, and evenly more vaguely suggested "probably a 2nd suit".
...and passed it out.
Oppos reckon N had UI and was compelled to bid again in this "slam try auction" and score should be corrected to 6D, or 6H minus a few, instead go 5d making (East unlikely small club lead).
I ruled that score stands on grounds that no useful UI passed hands (of which I was aware) and that N is always rebidding diamonds has no inclination to play in hearts opposite a hand that opened 2N, and passing any diamond contract at first available opportunity. A wheel had clearly come off with the 4D seemingly "undiscussed".
Have I missed anything?
North had:
S T6
H 3
D J97642
C 9753
Cheers,
Graham
Comments
North did have UI but it's hard to see that there was any LA to rebidding 5D. Unless South had UI (such as from North indicating discomfort at the explanations) he's free to rebid or not as he wishes. I imagine the opponents' questions might have pointed him to the right conclusion, but in any case he does have better diamonds than hearts.
I can imagine that there are some partnerships where 5!C wouldn't be interpreted as strong/forcing. In that case it's probably a logical alternative to 5!d. (In particular, if the jump is non-forcing, the choice-of-suits followup probably isn't forcing either.) If S interprets that as a choice of clubs or hearts, things get interesting (with a likely correction to 5!h).
That said, from North's point of view, 4!d is natural and nonforcing and thus 4!h is pretty much an impossible bid. So North's allowed to know that something has gone massively wrong, and that likely means that North has no UI and can do anything.
In South's mind, having taken the 4D bid as a transfer, how would North have bid if he had 5 hearts and 4, more likely 5, diamonds?
We don't know, but S must be asking himself why N didn't bid 3D (which is definitely a transfer) and followed by 4D.
From S's point of view 4d was "off piste".
Well 4!h may be an impossible bid - but you must carefully avoid assuming it to mean the most favourable interpretation you can. That being said, whether you take it as being a natural suit or as a cue bid showing exceptional support for diamonds, rather than just completing a transfer I think there is no LA to rebidding 5!d on that hand.
4H hardly seems an impossible bid, especially if they might have a singleton diamond, but for many it would simply be a suggestion to play in a good 5 card suit, I can think of plenty of players who'd do that with 4 - 4 - 1 - 4. I'm not completely convinced that 5C, as mentioned by ais523, or pass aren't logical alternatives. I'd like to do a poll of players if only for my own peace of mind. It seems quite draconian to adjust though, certainly this partnership don't seem to imagine it to be any kind of a slam try auction. I'd probably rule the same way as Graham.
Maybe South thought that his partner had bid 4D as a Texas Transfer to H in the belief that it is applicable to 2NT opening bids.
What I would like to ask South is, 'If you thought your partner's 4D bid looks like a transfer, what made you think that the 5D rebid by partner showed only a diamond suit and not a massively distributional hand with 6 hearts and 5 diamonds'?
If you were South how would you answer?
Gordon has made the point that 'unless South had UI from North indicating discomfort at the explanation....' Doesn't South's pass of 5D give rise to a strong suspicion that some kind of such indication was more likely than not?
You need to have evidence that there was UI in order to rule based on it. An unusual action by the partner does not provide such evidence.
The argument being put forward by EW is that "given S thought 4D was a transfer then he cannot (on this round) pass 5D which is surely forward going". EW have not stated that there was UI, and I did not intend to lead the witness by asking, especially as the claimant is himself the club's senior TD and would surely have volunteered such information as being material.
My ruling is based on S being somewhat confused and hedged his bets by passing what to him looked like a fit in N's 2nd suit. Gordon thankfully is supporting that view.
N is also a director and is well aware of not conveying UI.
I don't think this is true. People don't have to play in the way that suits their opponents.
Quite, you're allowed to change your mind about a bid, at your own risk of course. So long as there isn't UI, and all the UI we're told about comes from South in this case.