Posted Today, 10:06
It would not be difficult to argue in the bar that "trying for 9 instead of 10 with a 3343 minimum" was a rational decision. And without UI, sure, you get to try to make that argument to partner when it turns out to be wrong.
But it's day 3 where we tell players "play in the 8-card major fit, pass only when you only have 2 spades". As I said, as you get more experienced, you can start to let your expertise override first-day teachings. But it's day one teaching for a reason - it's rarely wrong.
When your partner tells you, other ways than the bids they make, that this time it's right - "you don't get to be brilliant".
Did North "carefully avoid" using the information? Clearly no. Even if the polls tell me that this hand pass is the right bid (which I absolutely do not expect), this is a violation of 73B.
But I bet that the polls are going to tell me "4♠. But you're asking me this question, so probably this time passing 3NT is right. I'd think about it, but wouldn't do it." In which case, assigning a score is going to be interesting. Some (small) fraction of 4♠ undoubled, some (equally small) fraction of 4♠ doubled, some fraction of 5♥ doubled (after South panics on the double), some fraction of 5♦ doubled or undoubled (which is clearly their best spot after 4♠, but can they get there and stop?)
I'd like to hear the arguments, though. Depending on North and South's experience, this is likely to be a great education for them; or alternatively a "here's a quarter board that, if you're smart, will imply that we're now watching carefully for 'expert judgement'." But the whole action by N-S feels like "newer players that didn't get a Proprieties lesson with their bridge lessons" and we'll protect E-W and hope the education stops the "next time".
Long live the Republic-k. -- Major General J. Golding Frederick (tSCoSI)