[twcho]

The bidding gone (without intervention):
1♦(1) - 2♦(2)
2♠ - 3♦(3)
3NT
(1) precision, 2+
(2) Inverted minor
(3) Long hesitation

The 3NT was made but it can be defeated if defender finds the ♥ lead.
The defenders summoned director and the BIT were agreed. Both players of the offending side said that the 3♦ is GF and cannot be passed but the only information in their CC is that 2♦ is F1. How will you rule?

(If it matters, the responder is holding a hand of 15 HCP without ♥ stopper)

[gordontd]

I'd ask them to explain which sequences are forcing to game and which can be dropped.

[campboy]

twcho, on Aug 16 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

(If it matters, the responder is holding a hand of 15 HCP without ♥ stopper)

It matters more what opener has, since the ruling will depend on what his logical alternatives are.

[richlp]

campboy, on Aug 16 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

twcho, on Aug 16 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

(If it matters, the responder is holding a hand of 15 HCP without ♥ stopper)

It matters more what opener has, since the ruling will depend on what his logical alternatives are.

Except that this gives some rather significant support to the assertion that 3D was forcing to game.

[campboy]

richlp, on Aug 16 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

campboy, on Aug 16 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

twcho, on Aug 16 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

(If it matters, the responder is holding a hand of 15 HCP without ♥ stopper)

It matters more what opener has, since the ruling will depend on what his logical alternatives are.

Except that this gives some rather significant support to the assertion that 3D was forcing to game.

Well, it gives some support to the fact that responder thought it was, which doesn't help to determine opener's LAs. More to the point, it is difficult to see how 3♦ can sensibly be forcing to game on this auction unless the 2♠ bid already established a game-force. If they claim 2♠ was GF, well, opener's hand will give us some idea whether that is the case, and if opener's hand is worth a GF over an inverted raise then passing isn't going to be an LA anyway. On the other hand if they claim 2♠ was not GF but can't tell me how they can stop out of game afterwards when responder doesn't have a heart guard then I don't see why I should attach much weight to those claims.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Aug 17 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

richlp, on Aug 16 2010, 07:55 PM, said:

campboy, on Aug 16 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

twcho, on Aug 16 2010, 06:25 PM, said:

(If it matters, the responder is holding a hand of 15 HCP without ♥ stopper)

It matters more what opener has, since the ruling will depend on what his logical alternatives are.

Except that this gives some rather significant support to the assertion that 3D was forcing to game.

Well, it gives some support to the fact that responder thought it was, which doesn't help to determine opener's LAs. More to the point, it is difficult to see how 3♦ can sensibly be forcing to game on this auction unless the 2♠ bid already established a game-force. If they claim 2♠ was GF, well, opener's hand will give us some idea whether that is the case, and if opener's hand is worth a GF over an inverted raise then passing isn't going to be an LA anyway. On the other hand if they claim 2♠ was not GF but can't tell me how they can stop out of game afterwards when responder doesn't have a heart guard then I don't see why I should attach much weight to those claims.

I think these conclusions depend a lot on the experience of the partnership involved.

Many partnerships have inconsistent methods and it seems to me entirely possible that a partnership may have agreed that followups are game forcing unless opener bids 3♦ or responder bids 2NT for example without acknowledging the possibilities of some very awkward auctions.

It seems to me:

1. The fact that responder bid 3♦ on a 15 count suggests that he strongly believes 3♦ was forcing

2. If opener has a maximum then there will be no problem as he would have no logical alternative any way

3. If opener has a dead minimum then even with unauthorized information it is not clear he would go on unless he also believed that 3♦ was forcing

So the problem hands are the hands were opener has a moderate hand.

Additionally it is not clear to me without further facts that a slow 3♦ suggests extra values. It could have just been a decision between 2NT and 3♦ or 3♣ and 3♦.