[blml] The dog in the night

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 22:05 28/06/2007 -0400, Steve Willner wrote:


>MP/EW vul/Dlr W
>      K32
>      972
>      AQ752
>      A8
>QJ84    AT76
>A6      JT8
>KJT96   84
>J3      QT96
>      95
>      KQ543
>      3
>      K7542
>
>EW were playing a strong-club system with many agreements unfamiliar in
>the ACBL, where this took place.
>
>Auction:
>1D!-P-1S!-?P
>2S-?..P-P-2NT
>P-3NT-AP
>
>
>South intended his 2NT to show a two-suiter, but North took it as
>natural.  EW are not claiming MI; it was clear to all that NS had no
>agreement.  North says he asked the same questions as South because he
>didn't hear the answers the first time and then asked his additional
>questions to make sure he understood the bidding.
>
>3NT went down 1 (NS-50), but 2S by W would have made (NS-110).  EW are
>not sure South's 2NT was legal after North's questions and pause.  Comments?

AG : we know that South thought 2NT would be 2-suited (any ?). within that 
context, the bid is automatic. Pass isn't a LA. Letting EW play 2S when you 
hold such an unbalanced pattern ??
Perhaps even, South bent backwards, refusing to double after the array of 
questions.

To cut it short : WTP ?

Best regards

    Alain