Join Bridge Winners
Does a BIT always imply UI

West
5
65
42
AKQ97532
North
109432
AKQ9
J73
10
East
KJ8
J72
AK1065
J8
South
AQ76
10843
Q98
64
W
N
E
S
P
3
X
3NT
4
P
4
P
P
5
P
P
P
D
5 West
NS: 0 EW: 0

Swiss teams; 7 board matches.

3 was alerted and explained as an above average pre-empt; at least two of AKQ and an outside entry if missing the Ace. A hand that would expect to make at least 6 tricks opposite a small doubleton. (fwiw: this was the wrong systemic opening; 3 would have shown the equivalent of a gambling 3NT hand).

I was East and had plenty to think about after the unexpected turn of events. I had to consider the relative merits of Pass, X, 4NT or 5 and took some time before passing; too much depended on my partner's actual hand.

South called for the TD after my partner (West)  bid 5 and complained about the blatant use of UI (sic).

West knows (without the BIT) that East has a good hand with at least 2 clubs; otherwise East would not have bid 3NT.

North rather foolishly attempted to cash a third heart and allowed the contract through. South then called the TD who (later) adjusted to 4S-1 by North; this was upheld by the appeal panel.

Assuming sensible defence then 5-1 would have been the best result that N/S could have got on the actual hand once they bid over 3NT; 4S is down 2 after the obvious diamond lead and ruff. 

In what was obviously a high quality match, 5 made at the other table!

Pass was a LA for West; the TD was right to amend the score
5 is the only sensible bid for West; the TD got it wrong
West is stuffed; the TD will adjust whatever they do (if they get a good result)
Other

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
129 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top