[shevek]

---

Australia, no screens.

EW play Standard, short club.
This is a new partnership.
All 4 are average club players.

Before acting, South asks about 2♣ and is told "6-10"
EW have a rudimentary system card but this is not listed.

At the end of the play, after the director is called by South, West offers:
"We are a new partnership. I usually play Acol. I thought that after a short club, my 2♣ showed 10+ points, forcing."
They (maintain they) did not agree to play inverted minor raises.

How do you rule?

[BudH]

Adjust to 2C by East making 11 tricks.

[chrism]

How likely is South to balance if told correctly that EW have no agreement here? I think that passing the auction out is likely enough to adjust to 2♣ which will make exactly 11 tricks as close to 100% of the time as ever happens. EW +150 reciprocally to both pairs.

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.

[Vampyr]

chrism, on 2015-April-05, 06:28, said:

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.

No, this is nonsense, and contradicts what you said in the first part of your post. The UI and the passing are inextricably linked. Also, in absence of evidence to the contrary, which we have been told is the case, MI is assumed, so South has bid whilst in possession of MI.

[chrism]

Yes. My point, doubtless not made clearly, was that this is only a MI case, not a UI case. We rule on the basis that South will pass out 2C, but note in passing that West's 2NT call was not a further infraction.

[Bbradley62]

chrism, on 2015-April-05, 06:28, said:

Note that after South balances, West has UI from partner's explanation; however the authorized information that partner just passed an ostensibly forcing bid is enough to let West bid again.

Sitting West, I think I'd have bid 3N over 2♥.

[lamford]

Bbradley62, on 2015-April-05, 19:36, said:

Sitting West, I think I'd have bid 3N over 2♥.

Not that relevant in that it is a routine adjustment to 2♣+3, as BudH says. If East had answered, "No agreement", South would have passed, and it seems that this belongs in the Simple Rulings section.