helene_t, on 2014-March-12, 04:42, said:
Anyway, as MrAce says, when opps pass a forcing bid it is common sense not to balance since they apparently had a misunderstanding so 3♠ is likely to be a bad contract for them.
This is only one of several possibilities.
It is anything but clear whether there was a misunderstanding at all, what is going on and whether further balancing is a rational option (probably not here). Here, according to what we were told, there was no misunderstanding.
For example the 1
♥ over-caller might not have his overcall and there is a world of difference whether the 1
♥ over-caller passes a forcing bid deliberately (For example Kit Woolsey recommends passing "forcing" bids when the conditions are right) or whether the 1
♥ over-caller considers the bid not forcing in the first place.
However, it is difficult to see where the damage is.
Responder bid 4
♣ after the 1
♥ over-caller had passed a "forcing" bid.
So the surprise happened and was obvious before the final decision was made.
The 4
♣ bidder could have asked opponents about the nature of their bids. He had all the information that something "unusual" was going on.
Claiming that opponents failed to alert is not sufficient, you have to make a case why the non-offending side has been damaged by this type of irregularity.
This is tough here, but not impossible.
For example if the 1
♣ opener has a hand, where he could convincingly argue that he would double 3
♠, if that bid would have been alerted and explained as non-forcing and in this case responder would never compete further, there might be a case of damage.
Rainer Herrmann