[pran]

3♦ was intended to show side suit and (additional) strength
4♠ was intended to show maximum

[bluejak]

Well, at least we all know it is North's fault. 4♣ is a lazy bid: if he had bid 3♠ then his pass over 5♠ would be forcing and there woudl be no problem.

But, of course, poor bidding often leads to UI rulings!!!!

[lamford]

jallerton, on Mar 21 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

[pran]

lamford, on Mar 25 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

jallerton, on Mar 21 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

The situation was commented in the room afterwards and absolutely nobody considered (even remotely) that pass could be a logical alternative after 5♠.

As OS kept their top score also after having the score adjusted (down) to 5♠X -4 naturally reduced any discussion to a minimum.

[FrancesHinden]

pran, on Mar 25 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

lamford, on Mar 25 2010, 01:14 AM, said:

jallerton, on Mar 21 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

So normal in fact that I would impose a PP for the 6C bid for a clear 73C infraction (and double would get the same PP too). I completely agree with all your comments on this one.

The situation was commented in the room afterwards and absolutely nobody considered (even remotely) that pass could be a logical alternative after 5♠.

As OS kept their top score also after having the score adjusted (down) to 5♠X -4 naturally reduced any discussion to a minimum.

Well, I also cannot remotely consider any call other than pass on the hand and agree entirely with lamford and jallerton.


[This is a very rare event in contentious rulings. On the phone earlier this evening bluejak said to me that even before phoning to consult on a hand, he'd warned someone else that 'Frances and Jeffrey never agree']

[dburn]

pran, on Mar 20 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Dealer: East Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ 643 ♥ A32 ♦ 7 ♣ KQJT84

I should have gotten the auction in here, but didn't find out how, so here is:

East opened with 1NT (10-12)
South (the displayed hand): Pass
West 2♥ (transfer)
North Pass
East: 2♠
South: 3♣
West: 3♦
North: 4♣
East: 4♠
South: Pass
West: Pass
North:5♣
East: Double
South: Pass
West: 5♠
North: Pass after hesitation
East: Pass
South: 6♣ and then AP

Do you allow 6♣?

Well, 6♣ is not a logical alternative since it is truly ridiculous. That removes it from consideration under Law 16 except in the ACBL, but if it happened to work then it could still be cancelled under Law 73. Double is also fairly ridiculous, but it is suggested over pass by North's shenanigans, so it could be cancelled under both Laws. North-South might argue that North's pass to 5♠ was forcing, but it is my experience that passes are forcing not as a function of system but as a function of tempo.