This hand occurred in the first round of a six round Sectional Swiss Teams yesterday. Because it had no effect on the outcome of the event, no appeal was pursued. But I thought I would present it for discussion.

The 3♠ bid was alerted as a mini-splinter.  Upon further inquiry, East insisted that the partnership agreement was that 3♠ showed shortness in spades and invitational values.  I know that this makes no sense, but that is what he said.

At the table, West bid RKCB over 4♦ and continued on to slam, which was cold.  And bidding slam on the hands was not abnormal.

After the auction concluded, I asked West what his understanding of the partnership agreement of the 3♠ bid.  West knew that the 3♠ bid was a normal game-forcing splinter bid.

Given that West had made a game forcing splinter bid,  I thought that his 4NT bid was a blatent use of UI, in that he knew that opener was making a slam try opposite an invitational hand.  West's hand is pretty much as advertised by the 3♠ bid (per the actual partnership agreement), and if there is a slam here it is incumbent upon partner to make a further move.  In my opinion, opener's 4♦ bid should be considered to be almost obligatory, merely cooperating with responder in case responder has a very strong hand.  At the table, West stated that he thought that 4♦ was a slam try, not just a cooperative move.

So, now that I have thoroughly poisoned the discussion by stating my views, do any of you have any thoughts on this?

Getting results...