[A2003]

Bidding goes
1 ♠ - Pass - 3♦ ( No alert) - Pass
4 ♦ when asked about 3♦, says Lots of [6+diamonds] - Pass - 4 ♠ - Pass

Pass - Pass

then It was announced as 3♦ as Bergen Raise 7-9 and 4 card♠ and failure to alert.
Is the 3♦ bidder allowed to correct to 4♠ ?
or 4♦ Bidder allowed to bid pass 4♠ or correct to bid 5♦.
What is the director ruling here?

[TylerE]

3♦ bidder should be drawn and quartered. That is seriously blatant abuse of UI.

[blackshoe]

Moved this topic to "Laws and Rulings" as the more appropriate forum.

---

When West bid 4♦ he was asked the meaning of 3♦ and said that it was natural, with 6 or more diamonds.

Law 20F5 says that declarer or dummy, when his partner has given an incorrect explanation (including a failure to alert when required) must call the Director after the final pass of the auction and then inform his opponents that in his opinion his partner's explanation was incorrect. It looks like East got this half right.

That West has the wrong idea about what East has in his hand is information that is not authorized for East to use in the auction or play of the hand. So he may not (is not permitted to) bid 4♠ unless he has no logical alternative. See Law 16B and Law 73C.

The director, if called before the hand is played, should rule that it be played out in 4♠. If after the hand he determines that there was a logical alternative to East's 4♠ bid and that alternative would have resulted in a better score for NS he should adjust the score to whatever contract would have resulted in that better score. If there is no logical alternative to East's 4♠ bid, then the table result should stand. West has no UI, btw, during the auction, because East's correction of his explanation didn't occur until the auction was over. The auction itself (including East's 4♠ bid) is authorized information for all four players.

[nige1]

West explained his partner's 3♦ as 6+ ♦
At the end of the auction, East said his 3♦ is Bergen (7-9 HCP and 4+♠).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

East should have called the director at the end of the auction.
West's explanation is UI to East who should treat West's 4♦ as a slam-try (likely splinter)
If East's 7-9 point hand is slam-suitable, in context, then he should co-operate.
Only if there is no logical alternative, may East sign off in 4♠.

---

[Stephen Tu]

TylerE, on 2019-January-13, 21:06, said:

3♦ bidder should be drawn and quartered. That is seriously blatant abuse of UI.

That's not correct in this case. 3 diamond bidder is in possession of UI. Possession of UI doesn't mean you have to pass in all auctions. It means you have to not choose among logical alternatives an action *suggested* by the UI.
3D bidder should first determine how he thinks he would interpret the auction if partner had correctly explained the agreement as 7-9 with spade support, then bid 4D. For most people, this would be a slam try of some sort. So if the 3d bidder has the right hand to cooperate he needs to cue bid 4h (e.g. if your style is that 4d denies club control, perhaps east with club control is supposed to "last train" with 4h. Or maybe you don't have this sort of up the line style or don't play last train so should only cue with heart control. Or maybe you are old fashioned aces only cue bidder and you only cue with HA). Basically East should cue 4H if he would have cued 4H over a properly explained 3d then 4d. Otherwise 4S should likely be allowed.

Pass is not required, because passing isn't a logical alternative with 4 cd spade support. If partner had alerted and explained 3d as a raise, one would never pass 4d in a million years, one is not required to pass now as that isn't logical. You dodged a bullet when partner didn't pass 3d as a natural NF jump shift, the laws don't require you to commit suicide now.
opener, the 4D bidder is not in receipt of UI so can pass 4S, if partner bid 4S without any special histrionics. In face to face bridge if 3d bidder made squirming gestures/faces etc. to indicate extreme discomfort with the explanation etc. the director can rule UI was given and perhaps rule that pass of 4S was aided by this and adjust.

[Tramticket]

blackshoe, on 2019-January-13, 21:31, said:

The director, if called before the hand is played, should rule that it be played out in 4♠. If after the hand he determines that there was a logical alternative to East's 4♠ bid and that alternative would have resulted in a better score for NS he should adjust the score to whatever contract would have resulted in that better score. If there is no logical alternative to East's 4♠ bid, then the table result should stand. West has no UI, btw, during the auction, because East's correction of his explanation didn't occur until the auction was over. The auction itself (including East's 4♠ bid) is authorized information for all four players.

I agree with Blackshoe's response. The director might also wish to understand a bit more about (a) what did west think the 4♠ showed and (b) why did west choose to pass the 4♠ bid, with a known diamond fit. As already observed, it is clear that east has UI (based on west's failure to alert and the mis-explanation) but whilst there is no direct evidence that west has UI, the director should nevertheless make some basic inquiries about the reason for the pass of 4♠.

[paulg]

TylerE, on 2019-January-13, 21:06, said:

3♦ bidder should be drawn and quartered. That is seriously blatant abuse of UI.

I hope this was just a knee-jerk reaction. There is no evidence of any abuse of UI.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2019-January-13, 22:30, said:

West's explanation is UI to East who should treat West's 4♦ as a slam-try (likely splinter)
If East's 7-9 point hand is slam-suitable, in context, he should co-operate.

I agree with most of this but "(likely splinter)" is leading the witness

[Cyberyeti]

Would need to see the responder's hand, if he has a maximum and a club control, there may be action to take, but much of the time 4♠ is the only sensible bid.

[weejonnie]

The 1st question is: what is the partnership agreement of 4♦?
If there isn't one then the 3♦ caller knows there is a misbid and he then has to look at possible meanings 'carefully avoiding' making use of the information that the call is based on 'lots of diamonds'. IMHO this suggests that it should be taken as a massive Spade/ Diamond 2-suited hand rather than a splinter. The correct course of action will depend on the hand held, but it is possible that a) 5♦ may be a better contract or 4♥, cue bid might be appropriate (if partnership agreement is that new suits at the 4-level are cue bids.

If there is an agreement then the 3♦ caller must adhere to it - which since they must carefully avoid making use of the UI, possibly means making a cue-bid on a hand where many players would not.

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2019-January-14, 00:33, said:

If partner had alerted and explained 3d as a raise, one would never pass 4d in a million years, one is not required to pass now as that isn't logical. You dodged a bullet when partner didn't pass 3d as a natural NF jump shift, the laws don't require you to commit suicide now.

Where is the OP playing?
In our RA at least (in ACBL too I see) in absence of competition partner has to alert a 3♦ jump shift if he believes it is non-forcing.
So there should be no scenario where he fails to alert and passes.

[barmar]

When he said it was lots of diamonds, did he say whether it was weak or strong?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-January-14, 13:48, said:

When he said it was lots of diamonds, did he say whether it was weak or strong?

More important I think is whether it was non-forcing or forcing, although of course the two things are related.
If he did not alert then presumably it was forcing. If it was not, then he may have violated regulations (depends upon RA) and his 4♦ bid should become object of scrutiny.