[mr1303]

---

EW call you to the table after this one. Any grounds for adjustment, or is it just rub of the green?

Perhaps should be in simple rulings forum.

[spaderaise]

mr1303, on 2013-September-18, 02:21, said:

---

EW call you to the table after this one. Any grounds for adjustment, or is it just rub of the green?

Perhaps should be in simple rulings forum.

OK, I'll have a go.

South is not in possession of unauthorised information (let's assume - the answer might be different if for example North had reacted visibly when South didn't alert 2C). Since North appears to show clubs and spades with longer clubs, some people holding the south cards might consider removing 3S or 3SX to 4C, but failure to do so is hardly enough to "provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding", so I wouldn't rule fielded misbid.

North, presumably, is in possession of unauthorised information, because he has seen the lack of alert of 2C. Let's work on the basis that he believed that 2C was showing 5-5 in the majors. (If he believed something different, this could change the answer). His logical alternatives over 3D, believing that he's shown 5-5 in the majors, seem to be Pass and 3S. Is one of them demonstrably suggested by the UI? If anything, I think Pass is suggested over 3S by the UI. Bidding 3S will (in fact) show clubs and spades with longer clubs, and from the north cards it looks very likely that partner will have more clubs than spades, and may correct back to clubs. This looks highly dangerous for NS, while a pass is reasonably safe. So the UI doesn't suggest 3S over Pass at North's second call. I don't see that he has any logical alternative to Pass at his third call. So North's actions look OK.

So I'll rule no adjustment.

[iviehoff]

I think it is reasonable to treat this as a misbid. Assuming no screens, N does have a UI problem, but I don't really see N passing 3D, and so 3S is probably not an infraction. So rub of the green, resulting from poor bidding by both E and W.

[ArtK78]

No adjustment. South has certainly done nothing improper - he has a spade preference. North misbid, and if the explanation of his 2♣ call was verbal, he has UI. But his 3♠ bid is certainly not improper under the circumstances, as explained above. Perhaps he intended to bid 4♥ next in the hope of waking his partner up to the true nature of his hand, but that is of no moment.

West's double reminds me of a story that was told to me second (perhaps third) hand. Bobby Goldman was playing with a client. Goldman opened the bidding and the opponents got into the auction. The client had a 13 count. Eventually, the client doubled, with shortness in the opponents' suit. The contract claimed. When asked why she doubled, she said she had 13 points. Goldman told her "With points you bid, with trumps you double!"