UI from enquiring about the meaning of alerted bid
Dealer W, vulnerability unknown, MP Pairs.
(Apologies for not laying the auction out nicely, I can't remember how to do it.)
South 3S Alerted
West then asked for the meaning of the bid and was told that 2NT would show a strong raise to 3 therefore 3S was a less strong raise (7-9 ish). The auction continues:
East 4C Passed Out.
I was asked for an opinion as to whether E's bid of 4C was affected by W's enquiry.
If E had hesitated I would have ruled UI and disallowed the 4C (Pass is clearly a logical alternative).
Against the UI from the enquiry, assuming E (as he should) only asks when he has a reason to do so, I would do the same (4C is a dangerous bid against a part score with no help from partner), but feel less comfortable about it.
E is in an unenviable position, If he does not enquire, then he risks working on a wrong assumption, but if he does, then he creates UI. The "simple" solution of enquiring for the meaning of all alerted bids is actively discouraged.
I am interested in other people's opinion on the 4C, but also on whether there is any difference in UI from hesitation (within the control of the player) and from enquiring about an alerted bid (outwith the control of the player).