[nige1]

Humper, on 2011-April-06, 07:02, said:

The insufficient bid was definitely not deliberate. Most likely the student thought she was bidding over 3♠, which would normally be forcing in this sequence but I don't think her parter was sure that she would know that.
The comment was not a joke. She really did want to play 3NT. What do you think the comment suggests about her hand, by the way?

Only she knows whether her bid was deliberate or her remark was a joke but such considerations are irrelevant to my argument:

• Her insufficient bid and remark clearly suggest she has little idea about the game -- not even its basic rules. Given her student-status they only vaguely suggest a severe spade shortage, solid hearts, and stops in the minors. But this unauthorised information demonstrably suggests passing 3NT
• RHO, who is not a student, is keen to defend 3NT rather than 4S -- so keen that he is prepared to condone an insufficient bid. That, too is unauthorised information. But it demonstrably suggests bidding 4S.

The spade-bidder (and then the director) must decide what weight to give to these conflicting pieces of unauthorised information.

Caveat: Just my view. Nobody has endorsed it. And I'm not a director..

[bluejak]

nige1, on 2011-April-06, 18:11, said:

RHO, who is not a student, is keen to defend 3NT rather than 4S -- so keen that he is prepared to condone an insufficient bid. That, too is unauthorised information. But it demonstrably suggests bidding 4S.

Surely that is authorised?

[Humper]

bluejak, on 2011-April-06, 18:43, said:

Surely that is authorised?

I assume you mean RHO's preference for 3NT and not his status as a non-student?

[nige1]

nige1, on 2011-April-06, 18:11, said:

RHO, who is not a student, is keen to defend 3NT rather than 4S -- so keen that he is prepared to condone an insufficient bid. That, too is unauthorised information. But it demonstrably suggests bidding 4S.
Caveat: Just my view. Nobody has endorsed it. And I'm not a director..

bluejak, on 2011-April-06, 18:43, said:

Surely that is authorised?

Bluejak, you're the law-book expert. You tell us.

[bluejak]

I cannot think of any reason why an opponent's choice when he has a choice of action under the Laws should be unauthorised.

[iviehoff]

nige1, on 2011-April-06, 18:11, said:

RHO, who is not a student, is keen to defend 3NT rather than 4S -- so keen that he is prepared to condone an insufficient bid.

Actually that is not clear. RHO may just wish to keep the auction alive a bit longer to have some extra opportunities to think about a penalty double of something. If, as seems likely, 4S must be repeated to avoid misuse of UI, that is precisely what it does and no more.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-April-07, 06:01, said:

I cannot think of any reason why an opponent's choice when he has a choice of action under the Laws should be unauthorised.

Thank you. Fair enough.