First, a hand

[Phil]

MPs, all vul:

 

♠AJx ♥AQxx ♦JTxxxx ♣---

 

1♣ - 1♦

2♣ - 2N

3♣ - ?

 

You may or may not agree with the bidding so far, but here you are.

 

Your call?

[aguahombre]

"Help!"...but assuming the Help card has been removed from my box, I will try "Barf". However, I don't think I would have been any better off responding 1H the first time or committing to game with 2H the second time, so the auction is acceptable until now. Pass, and await the connection to an irregularity. What UI do I have? The people at the playing site would know they are being polled for a UI or MI rulling, too --so no big deal.

[weicc]

pass..

partner might open a weak one suited hand in this situation,say

♠xxx

♥xx

♦a

♣kqj10xxx

 

3c might be the last chance to get plus...

[Sadie3]

Is this a ruling question or a poll on how to make bad bids?

[helene_t]

pass , there is no la imho

[Phil]

I usually wait a few hours before a follow up. Here was the complete hand: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=sajxhaqxxdjtxxxxc&w=sqtxxhtxxxdaxxckx&e=sxxxxhkxdqxxcqxxx&s=skxhjxxdkcajt98xx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Naturally South tanked after 2N. North bid 3N (!?) which I rolled back to 3♣. 3N made on a misdefense.

 

Basically my ruling was based on the fact that North doesn't have any bridge reasons to bid 3N. In his defense he said "3♣ rated to be a poor spot and I thought we could do better in 3N".

 

I said, "the slow 3♣ call suggested that partner was considering something else. It might have been pass, or it might have been 3♦ or 3N. Any of these would make bidding 3N substantially more attractive. If your judgment says that the hand is worth only 2N (which I don't have much of a problem with), and your partner expresses an opinion that 3♣ is better, you can't overrule him after a slow 3♣".

 

NS who are actually very good friends of mine were very incensed and called a committee.

 

Table result stands, although one of the members thought that North had a 3N call initially.

[helene_t]

I think your ruling was fine.

[aguahombre]

the member's opinion about whether North should have bid 3NT earlier is mildly interesting. this North did not, but rather invited. Nothing about an in-tempo 3C bid by south should change his evaluation. Good ruling.

[pran]

My immediate reaction was PASS, he has told his story.

 

So when coming here I see that I join the club.

 

regards Sven

[aguahombre]

Welcome.

[jdonn]

Their appeal was meritless. If it was on the basis of passing not being a logical alternative, it's more accurate to say 3NT is not a logical alternative. In fact their argument can be used completely in reverse, 3NT rates to be a poor spot and they are likely to do better in 3♣. I mean south had honors all over the place and 3NT still was a bad contract while 3♣ was cold!

[peachy]

Your ruling is correct, contract 3C.

3NT is an illogical alternative in the given bidding. Responder deemed his hand worth an invite (otherwise he would have bid 3NT instead of 2NT). The reason he changed his mind could demonstrably be due to the UI he received. Any appeal of the ruling is without merit because the original ruling is so clear, in accordance with law, and all the facts are there and established/agreed upon.

[Phil]

Your ruling is correct, contract 3C.

3NT is an illogical alternative in the given bidding. Responder deemed his hand worth an invite (otherwise he would have bid 3NT instead of 2NT). The reason he changed his mind could demonstrably be due to the UI he received. Any appeal of the ruling is without merit because the original ruling is so clear, in accordance with law, and all the facts are there and established/agreed upon.

I'm not sure an AC would give an AWM. I've seen less clear appeals skate by without one.

 

North did have bridge reasons for his call. While I disagree with them, I'm not sure my bridge judgment should enter into it. Frankly he might have said that its quite possible we have the same number of tricks in NT than clubs. Give South a diamond fragment and that would well be the case.

[ochinko]

South should have realized that his prolonged thinking ethically bars North from bidding further, and he should either take a shot at 3NT himself, or accept the fact that the final contract is going to be 3♣.

 

Sometimes different players have different perception of the time spent, but if all agree that 3♣ was slow, then indeed no other ruling is possible. Leaving 3NT as the final contract would make sense now only if 3♣ was forcing or 2NT was game forcing.

[suprgrover]

3N made on a misdefense.

I think pretty good defense is needed to defeat 3NT. West needs to lead spades at trick 1 (or lead spades after starting with a heart lead and getting a club return) and then the defense needs to continue spades to develop a fourth spade trick.

[bluejak]

Normal ruling, perfectly correct. Not only do I pass 3♣, I would at least consider passing 2♣ the previous round.

 

As to whether the appeal was meritless, that is unanswerable, because it depends very much on what North-South say. If North argued that a slow 3♣ does not suggest 3NT over pass because he was merely choosing the higher scoring of two bad contracts, I would not agree with him, but accept he had a sufficient argument for merit. If he just said he was always bidding 3NT that is definitely meritless.