@Abbeybear said:
As in all these situations, it is helpful to deal with these things systematically.
For each player on the N/S side you have to ask:
(a) Did he have UI?
(b) Did the UI suggest the action taken over other possible actions?
(c) Were any of the less-suggested possible actions logical alternatives?
In order to do this you need to find out as much as possible about N/S's agreements. It is not appropriate to assume that 3 !h over 3 !d showing spades is necessarily impossible, although it may be undiscussed in this particular partnership.
Nor is it appropriate to project your own thinking about what a 4 !s bid might mean over whatever 3 !h means or might mean.
If you can establish that there is no explicit agreement, poll peers as to what they might understand by such an undiscussed action.
When I use "you" in this post, it is not directed at anyone in particular, but there does seem to have been a tendency amongst some posters on this thread to jump to conclusions which may not be justified :/
Comments
In order to do this you need to find out as much as possible about N/S's agreements. It is not appropriate to assume that 3 !h over 3 !d showing spades is necessarily impossible, although it may be undiscussed in this particular partnership.
Nor is it appropriate to project your own thinking about what a 4 !s bid might mean over whatever 3 !h means or might mean.
If you can establish that there is no explicit agreement, poll peers as to what they might understand by such an undiscussed action.
When I use "you" in this post, it is not directed at anyone in particular, but there does seem to have been a tendency amongst some posters on this thread to jump to conclusions which may not be justified :/