[blackshoe]

Had this come up before? Did they ever discuss it? It sounds to me like "no" and "no" and so they had no agreement.

We here may think UNT is ridiculous in this position, but that's irrelevant. We aren't them.

[mrdct]

lamford, on 2011-January-10, 09:12, said:

If we disallow the 4C bid, however, then we do not have to make this decision, and I cannot see North pulling 3NTx himself.

To decide whether or not 3NTx may have been ripped by North if South had passed, we really need to know a bit more about the players. Although largely self-serving so of limited value, the TD could also enquire of North as to what was running through his mind when 3NT got doubled. I think against decent opponents and a partner with a track-record of system-forgets, running from 3NTx looks like quite a likely action from North.

[lamford]

dcohio, on 2011-January-10, 12:58, said:

I called the director immediately before declarer called for a card from dummy. (Is this proper procedure?)

16B3 states "he should summon the Director when play ends", but a footnote states it is not in infraction to call the director earlier or later.

[campboy]

dcohio, on 2011-January-10, 12:58, said:

When asked by the director,

South claimed he thought it was Unusual NT for the minors (rediculous after partner opens 1♣ imo) and north thought it was a balanced 10-12. Card was not marked, no correction was made by south before the opening lead was faced.

In that case passing 3NTx is clearly an LA. South's hand is perfectly normal for what he thinks he has shown, and there is nothing in the auction to suggest a misunderstanding.

[mrdct]

dcohio, on 2011-January-10, 12:58, said:

When asked by the director,

South claimed he thought it was Unusual NT for the minors (rediculous after partner opens 1♣ imo) and north thought it was a balanced 10-12. Card was not marked, no correction was made by south before the opening lead was faced. I called the director immediately before declarer called for a card from dummy. (Is this proper procedure?)

This was in the "C" bracket of a bracketed swiss teams (teams with avg MP of 200-500). It was not their first time playing together.

Well this clarifies a few things, although we need to also ask South what the range of his "unusual NT" is as if it's wide ranging and he's minimum the 4♣ bid will be more defensible. So clearly now north-south have "no agreement" so there was unambiguously a misexplanation of 2NT by North and with the associated non-alert South is in possession of UI that he partner thinks the agreement is "natural 10-12". The UI suggests to South that his partner is playing him for a hand far better suited for NT than he is actually holding and does suggest not sitting the double. However, South is also in possession of AI that LHO has made a freebid of 3♠ and RHO has made a penalty double of 3NT. South's hand is particularly ill-suited for NT and I still don't think in these circumstances pass is a logical alternative (particularly if a 6-count is minimum or sub-minimum in South's mind).