@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