[blml] De mortuis nil nisi bonum [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Grabiner]

Richard Hills writes:

> Imps
> Dlr: South
> Vul: East-West
>
> South holds:
>
> K64
> 82
> AKT42
> KQ2
>
> The bidding has gone:
>
> SOUTH     WEST      NORTH     EAST
> 1D        Dble      1S        2H
> 2S        3H        3S(1)     Pass
> 4S
>
> (1) Break in tempo

I need another piece of information to determine whether 3S demonstrably 
suggested one action over another.  Do N-S play maximal overcall doubles?  If 
they do not, then 3S is at least somewhat invitational (even if ostensibly 
competitive, South might go on), so it doesn't demonstrably suggest anything; he 
could have been considering a pass or penalty double (which would suggest pass 
over 4S) or 4S (which would suggest 4S over pass).  Thus, no matter what South 
does, I will not adjust.

If N-S play maximal overcall doubles, then 3S is purely competitive, showing 
long spades, with no expectation that South will bid 4S except as a sacrifice. 
It is unlikely that North was considering a pass, so I could rule that the slow 
3S (apparently considering double) demonstrably suggested 4S over pass.

> What ruling do you make if:
>
> (a) the North-South agreement is to
> open 1NT with 12-14 hcp?

South is minimum for the 2S raise, so he would not normally accept an 
invitation.  If N-S are playing maximal overcall doubles, I can't tell whether 
South is being actively ethical (thinking that North was considering a pass, and 
bending over backwards) or actively unethical (competing because he thinks North 
has extras), but I have to rule against him if I think that North was unlikely 
to be considering a pass.

> (b) the North-South agreement is to
> open 1NT with 16-18 hcp?

South is medium for the 2S raise, with the maximum 15 HCP but only three spades 
and a doubleton heart which is likely to be a duplicated value.  If N-S are 
playing maximal overcall doubles,  I rule that pass is a logical alternative to 
4S.