Join Bridge Winners
Not sure if this is a ruling question, but I've never seen this before

West
1086
Q9743
A2
974
North
QJ5
KJ62
Q854
J10
East
A94
A8
107
KQ6532
South
K732
105
KJ963
A8
W
N
E
S
 
1
P
1
2
P
P
X
P
1
3
2N
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
2N
P
3
?
D

 

After the 2NT bid, E stated that the bid was insufficient.  N, assuming this meant that the bid wasn't accepted, now bid 3D at which point the director was called.  The director stated the E had the option to accept the 2NT bid, and after some thought, E did so.  S now alerted 2NT as a hand just wanting to compete to 3D.

South correctly assumed (based on the follow up bid?) that 2N was because N didn't see the 3C rather than for some other reason.   The director wasn't called back, as this was a casual game and the hand against friends, but I found it remarkable, as I've never seen a conventional agreement for an insufficient bid before.

What should legally have happened here.

28 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top