In a recent club game, with the opponents passing throughout, the bidding began 1S - 4H . Opener alerted and explained the 4H call as "Exclusion". Opener, with 3 keycards, answered 4NT. Responder, holding J2 AKQ8742 732 3 now bid 6H. Opener bid 6S, which ended the auction. Upon tabling dummy, responder allowed that he had forgotten that the partnership agreement was "Exclusion". Did this auction merit a director call, and if so, what would be the ruling?
Of course it merits a director call; whenever there is any irregularity, one should call the director.
In this case, it is important that the director determine whether there has been an infraction of law. Whenever a hand does not match the explained meaning of the bid, it is the director's duty to determine why this is so. In this case, the 4H bidder stated that he had forgotten that they were playing that convention. To determine the veracity of that statement, the director should examine the bidding pair's convention card(s) to determine if the correct explanation was given. Assuming that the bidding side can prove that this was their agreement, there is no infraction of law (misinformation), but merely a mis-bid, which is not illegal. The director should also try to determine whether there was a psyche (an intentionally misleading bid), as some psyches are illegal. Responder's hand verifies his story about having forgotten the convention, and I'm assuming that the convention card was marked in a way that would bolster his verbal comment.
There is, however, a point of great concern in this situation. To wit, there has been unauthorized information provided to the hand that bid 4H. Based on the scenario you've put before me, I believe that the 4H bidder acted on that UI in an illegal manner. (Refer to my disclaimer: this is only one side of the story, and the "offender" has not had his side stated. My ruling from here-on is based on accepting as absolute fact the scenario as it's presented.)
The fact of the alert, and subsequent explanation are each unauthorized information for the 4H bidder. It appears that the timing of the explanation was before the 6H bid, so I'll assume that to be the case. From the 4H bidder's standpoint, the auction is: 1S (normal opener), 4H (to play), 4N (BLACKWOOD IN HEARTS!!!!!!). I'll state this very clearly: ANY BID OTHER THAN THE RESPONSE TO BLACKWOOD BY THE 4 HEART BIDDER IS BOTH ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL. If the 4H bidder should, by experience and laws knowledge should have ANY idea, WHATSOEVER as to what his requirements are, I would happily penalize him, and, would consider a recorder form and/or conduct committee. The 6H bid is incredibly blatent use of Unauthorized Information. If I'd had a similar situation with this same player, I would KNOW that this player knows better, and would absolutely refer it to a conduct committee. If this player should not be expected to know the laws and ethics involved in this situation, I would have a private, heart-to-heart talk with him, and, if I felt he was absorbing what I was saying, I would let it go there. If I didn't feel he was absorbing it, I would include a penalty, as well as the time spent. I would not refer this to a recorder or conduct committee 1st time out, that would be over the top.
You did not provide the whole hand record for this hand, so I cannot tell you in what way I might adjust the board. I can tell you that my starting point would be based on the proper response to 4NT by the 4H bidder. A pair that has agreed to play exclusion I would not expect to be ignorant of RKC, so I would think that probably 5S would be the expected response (2KC + trump Q). Now the fun part, for me, would be digging around to find out what 5S should be based on the 4H (exclusion) 4NT (answer) 5S bid. Presumably it would be to play, so, if 6S made, I'd probably adjust it back to 5S making 6. If 6S went down, I would probably allow the result to stand.
I hope this clears up any questions you have about this situation. It would be more helpful if, in the future, you could provide the whole hand record, and the result. The opening lead can be useful too. (This is the basic information set that is provided to an appeals committee, and, as I'm providing rulings in that setting, it would be useful, more often than not for me to have it.)
Just for the record, all of your assumptions are correct. "Exclusion" was on the convention card. This explanation was given by opener at the time of his alert; i.e., prior to his bid of 4NT. Opener's hand was KT987 6 AKQ AJT2. The contract of 6S failed. It earned no matchpoints, as all other pairs scored either 420 or 450.
