[jillybean]

---

ACBL

2♥ preempt
3♣ North thought they were playing 3♣ as shortness ask
4♣ raising partners suit
4♥ After 4♣, North realizes mistake , no agreement to play 3♣ ask in this partnership.


Before the opening lead, North advises that he bid 3♣ as shortness ask.

Director is called.

Players told to play hand.

What questions do you ask, how do you rule?

[smerriman]

Does 4♣ exist as a response to a 3♣ shortness ask; if so, what does it mean?

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2024-November-14, 01:34, said:

Does 4♣ exist as a response to a 3♣ shortness ask; if so, what does it mean?

4C does not exist in response to 3C shortness ask.

[mycroft]

Are you convinced that they do not play 3♣ shortness ask? If so, North didn't even have to say anything; they did, which should not hurt the defence.

So much for MI. [ETA: I see the discussion on the Other Site. As I said, I agree you check. But the same people who say "E-W were damaged because north convinced us not to bid our suit" are the ones who would laud a "Zia control bid" with a stronger hand and ♣xx, when they didn't find their club lead into 6♥. I see zero difference between that and "I knew it was forward-going with a suit, I could control the auction into hearts, I was trying to [stop a club lead|inhibit a club sacrifice]". Why is this kind of "tactical bid" okay, and misbidding not - when both are legal, and for both there is no recourse for the opponents?]

UI: North is never playing anything but hearts. He was (I assume) looking for diamond shortness, or playing 3♥. Oh well, whatever 4♣ meant, we can't play 3♥ any more. Let's hope we're not off two diamonds, a club and a spade, or three diamonds, two clubs and a spade, for that matter.

You're not thinking North is thinking slam, are you? That needs a stiff diamond *and* an outside Ace and King. Sure, the hearts are known Kxxxxx at best, but really?

4♣ is Always Gerber? Even here?

Are you convinced that North did nothing during the auction to show surprise? Okay, so South has no UI and is free to guess however she wishes.

Okay, opponents, I don't see an infraction. If you do, show me.

[jillybean]

100% convinced N/S do not play shortness ask and also sure North would not have given partner UI after the freaky 4♣ response.

It appears to be quite a simple ruling, although not popular.

[smerriman]

 mycroft, on 2024-November-14, 10:43, said:

Why is this kind of "tactical bid" okay, and misbidding not - when both are legal, and for both there is no recourse for the opponents?]

If North is in the habit of making such a tactical bid or misbid, then it's only legal if this is disclosed to the opponents (which it wasn't). But assuming not, then result stands seems clear.