Both Majors

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9h93dkj976542c4&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1n(weak)2c(explained%20as%20both%20majors%20intended%20as%20singlesuiter)p2d(%21)p4dp4hp5dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Would you consider that either 4♦ or 5♦ was taking advantage of the UI?

[RMB1]

Do we know what South intended 2♦ as?

[Cascade]

I did write it in but its not showing up properly.

 

2♣ was explained as both majors but intended as any single suited hand

 

Over 2♣ 2♦ was just equal length

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9h93dkj976542c4&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=p1n(Weak)2c(Majors - but meant as 1-suit)p2d(Alerted - meant as equal length)p4dp4hp5dppp]133|200|Would you consider that either 4♦ or 5♦ was taking advantage of the UI?[/hv]

I've attempted to change the bid explanations (possibly wrongly). Anyway, IMO,

• 4♦ seems a reasonable bid but just possibly might be construed to be an attempt to wake partner up to the misunderstanding. Pass, however, is also a logical alternative and would be a more effective and unambiguous way of accomplishing that end.
• 5♦ seems reasonable given that you imagine that you've set diamonds as trumps. 4♥ seems like a cue-bid rather than a belated attempt to play.

There may be a UI problem for the 4♥ bidder. Has partner auto-splintered and now confirmed a void?

[campboy]

There may be a UI problem for the 4♥ bidder. Has partner auto-splintered and now confirmed a void?

He doesn't have UI, though, since 2♦ is alertable either way.

[mgoetze]

Um, I would like to ask what a direct 4♦ by South would have shown. If it shows this hand, South definitely used the UI. If not, I will have to think about it some more, but probably yes.