[uva72uva72]

My link

IMPs, ACBL robot individual

The 3NT bid on this hand gets my vote. And the system notes are such a perfect undescription of North's hand. Note that in those auctions where South bid NT instead of raising ♠s, North bid ♥ twice.

Kudos also to West for its contribution to the general hilarity by underleading the ♣A. Guess it's seen North's high jinks before and couldn't resist joining in.

[iandayre]

I love the CA underlead through the 2C opener. And while 3NT is offshape, move some of North's small Hearts into the minors and it's a perfectly normal call. 4NT would have been BW in your auction, perhaps 2NT the first time would have been better with your completely balanced hand.

[uva72uva72]

If North had had a balanced hand, its bid would certainly not have been ridiculous. It would still not match the system notes describing the bid, which call for 8 total point minimum (it has 6, unless you count singletons and doubletons for the purpose of a NT bid), and partial stoppers in the other suits (it has only one). But the bid would not be ridiculous. With 5-5 in the majors, though, its bid but ridiculous.

Perhaps I should have bid 2NT instead of raising ♠s. However, my choice of bid was shaped by the system notes, which advised that a 2NT bid by me would have denied ♠ support. Since this was IMPs, and I believed I could count 10 tricks in a 4♠ contract, I saw no reason to try to steer the contract away from the known fit. To my way of thinking, North, whose only additional values were distributional, introduced a pointless complication into the auction by bidding 3NT.

I have no complaint about the bad result - the decision to bid 6NT could have worked out badly even if North had had its bid. But this should simply have been a straightforward auction to 4♠.

[iandayre]

To my way of thinking, North, whose only additional values were distributional, introduced a pointless complication into the auction by bidding 3NT.

Yes, I certainly agree with that.