Can somebody explain the ethics here

[jallerton]

If my partner has made a WJO in spades and I hold ♠Ax, I feel I can ask wihout putting my interests at risk.

 

In the very unlikely event that the bid is described as natural, I'll make a penalty double. I don't see what damaging UI is conveyed by my question!

[lamford]

Robin is correct about the procedure (of course).

 

In this case, where it is so implausible that 3♠ might be natural, when the TD is called at the end of the hand he should have regard to a paragraph in the Orange Book:

 

5 H Misinformation and Penalties

5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

In addition, I think he can also rule that 3♠ was not alertable in any case:

 

[OB] 5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable.

 

Surely this fits that category.

[helene_t]

Then at the end of the hand you recall the TD and explain that if 3♠ had been alerted, partner would have doubled to show a spade honour and you would have led a spade.

Sounds more like p was sleeping and made up this nonsense about the alert in order to cover for his failure to double.

 

Unless maybe if p is a beginner.

 

Of course I don't know this, I would have had to be at the table.

[bluejak]

In addition, I think he can also rule that 3♠ was not alertable in any case:

 

[OB] 5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable.

 

Surely this fits that category.

Be serious, Paul.

 

5 E 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if

(a) it is not natural;

I am quite certain it "fits that category".