East opens 1♠, South – pass, West – 1NT, North – 2♣, East – 2♦, South – 2♥, West – 3♦. North then hesitates for a long time and passes. South now bids 3♥ on:
♠ QJxx
♥ QJxxxx
♦ x
♣ xx
The auction then proceeds: 4♦ by West, passed out, and the result was -1.
Questions:
Can South justify bidding 3♥ after the long hesitation?
Should the director (called) have disallowed the 3♥ bid, and adjusted the score to 3♦ making?
Mike Baker – Haverfordwest
It is always difficult to know how to answer the question whether South can justify a call after unauthorised information (in this case a hesitation) from partner. Maybe he did not notice the hesitation. Maybe he thought his 3♥ call was automatic. Maybe he did not think partner’s hesitation suggested bidding 3♥. So maybe South can justify it, maybe not.
Should the director have disallowed the 3♥ bid? Certainly, pass is a logical alternative, i.e. it is a call that many people would consider and some would choose. Furthermore, 3♥ is suggested over ‘pass’ by the hesitation. So the 3♥ bid should be disallowed, which means a ruling of 3♦ making. This is not a close decision: it is quite obvious.
David