All Vul N Dealer	♠ ♥ A J 9 2 ♦ A J 7 5 3 ♣ Q J 9 4
♠ Q 9 8 3 ♥ 8 7 5 4 ♦ K 9 2 ♣ 7 5		♠ A 7 5 ♥ K 6 3 ♦ 8 6 ♣ A K 10 6 2
	♠ K J 10 6 4 2 ♥ Q 10 ♦ Q 10 4 ♣ 8 3

2♠: 10+pts, 5+♠ (including 2 length, and 3 tens). Marginal but good 6-suit.
Result: Down 4 vul, when others made 3NT. A distant bottom. North said 3♠ was sign-off. South agreed, but only if North was balanced. Who was at fault?

Hi Sid,

I think the result was very unlucky. Some might say South should make a negative double followed by rebidding 2♠ to show this type of hand (long suit with less than 10 points), and that would be perfect if the opponents promise to be silent afterwards. But because they don’t stay silent, it seems a reasonable compromise to bid 2♠ to begin with.

North has no choice but to rebid 2NT (in competitive auctions, 2NT there doesn’t necessarily guarantee a balanced hand and with this North’s hand there is no ‘perfect’ rebid). South now has a difficult set of options to choose from between Pass, 3♠, or 3♦. Each of them has its flaws, and I would likely have rebid 3♠ as well as a sign off, not minding if it’s a 6-1 fit. Over 3♠, North might consider rebidding 3NT but would be disastrous if South has better spades such as AQJTxx and less in the outside suits (making 3NT a disastrous contract).

So overall, I think it was quite unlucky – and it’s also not an everyday thing where a combined 21 HCP makes 3NT. Most likely the other tables got to 3NT thinking 3♠ would be a worse off contract (I can easily see that it could have been the other way, 3♠ making but 3NT going down four).

Kind regards
Andy