Ruling

[OleBerg]

Any input or advise is appriciated.

 

Pass - (Pass) - 1♠ - (Pass)

4♥¹ - (Pass) - 4♠ - (X)

Pass² - (Pas) - 5♥

 

1 = Long pause

2 = Short pause, but noticeable

 

Pulling to 5♥ was "correct" the 4♥-bid contained a good 7-card-suit and no spade-support.

 

As suggested in the other thread, we are indeed in a context where 4♥ could have been meant as natural. But the 4♥-bidder is known to be very "imaginative", so even if it seems far-fetched, he could maybe have been thinking about something else.

 

Edit, in reply to gordontd's post below: In the relevant jurisdiction any meaning of 4♥ is alertable, either because it is surprising (natural) or because it is artificial. For the sake of discussion, assume the 5♥-bidder claims that the double convinced him 4♥ were meant as natural.

 

So, what is the ruling?

[gordontd]

I think we need to know more and to see the hands. Was 4H alerted? What meanings of 4H (if any) would have been alertable in the relevant jurisdiction? Was the 4S bidder asked why he bid 5H?

[Cyberyeti]

Adjust back to 4♠X, pass must be a LA. Why play in a potential 3-0 heart fit when you could be in a 5-4 spade fit with a 4-0 break. If opener has more than 5 spades so the doubler can't have a massive spade holding having also not doubled 1♠, I might rethink.

[ggwhiz]

Yup. I tend towards rolling it back to 4♠x but need to see the east hand to be sure.

[OleBerg]

Adjust back to 4♠X, pass must be a LA. Why play in a potential 3-0 heart fit when you could be in a 5-4 spade fit with a 4-0 break. If opener has more than 5 spades so the doubler can't have a massive spade holding having also not doubled 1♠, I might rethink.

 

Obviously pass is a logical alternative. It might even be disputeable whether 5♥ is a logical alternative. But that in itself doesn't make 5♥ illegal. For 5♥ to be illegal, the UI has to demonstrably suggest 5♥. (In the relevant jurisdiction for certain, but I would expect it to be the case everywhere.)

 

Edit: Like noted below, you can take my word that pass is a logical alternative.

[OleBerg]

Yup. I tend towards rolling it back to 4♠x but need to see the east hand to be sure.

 

Mostly out of curiosity: If you take my word for it, that pass is a logical alternative, would you still need to see the hand?

[ggwhiz]

Mostly out of curiosity: If you take my word for it, that pass is a logical alternative, would you still need to see the hand?

 

No because I'm not making a ruling, just giving on opinion with an "unless" attached

[Cyberyeti]

Obviously pass is a logical alternative. It might even be disputeable whether 5♥ is a logical alternative. But that in itself doesn't make 5♥ illegal. For 5♥ to be illegal, the UI has to demonstrably suggest 5♥. (In the relevant jurisdiction for certain, but I would expect it to be the case everywhere.)

 

Edit: Like noted below, you can take my word that pass is a logical alternative.

 

The UI clearly indicates that pass (which I would do with 95%+ of hands) might not be right. I would assumne absent the UI that partner has something like a 10 count with 4 spades and one heart. The only bid I would ever make would be with a big hand where I might redouble. 5♥ is a non bid absent the UI, and only exists with it.

 

Opener made his decision on the last round, either partner has hearts or he doesn't, if he didn't know, he effectively said he was backing the splinter when he bid 4♠. The only hand I'd allow him to bid 5♥ on would be if he had enough spades to guarantee that a hand that couldn't bid/X over 1♠ couldn't make a pen X of 4♠, AJ9xxxx, KQx, Kx, x is an obvious 5♥.