[Bende]

In an instant IMP tournament, my GIB partner held ♠KT6 ♥T3 ♦AT72 ♣KQ86. Opponents were vulnerable. With the dealer on GIB's left, the bidding started (2♥) - dbl - (3♥). On all tables were this occurred, GIB chose to pass. Can that really be the right call?

[1eyedjack]

Here is your hand.

---

It is IMP, by the way, +200 scoring a 5 IMP loss

And no, Pass by North can never be right.

Interestingly it started off the same way at all tables. I say interestingly because the other tables were on an earlier version of GIB. So no change there, across the versions.
The winners were those who re-opened again as South, typically with 3S (getting to 4S), or 4S (which North then pushes on to 6D making via RKCB).

[Bbradley62]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-15, 10:57, said:

Interestingly it started off the same way at all tables. I say interestingly because the other tables were on an earlier version of GIB. So no change there, across the versions. The winners were those who re-opened again as South, typically with 3S (getting to 4S), or 4S (which North then pushes on to 6D making via RKCB).

It did not start off the same way at all tables (for South). The people who re-opened with 4♠ had overcalled 3♦ instead of doubling, so they were not thought to have longer spades than they actually held. In those cases, North passed 4♠. It's not clear to me that it's right to play a Moysian 4♠ rather than a 9-10 fit in 5♦, but that might be a conclusion North reached based on simulations.

Those who end in 6♦ re-opened with 4♦, not 4♠. Of course, 6♦ is a horrible contract, but North can't sign off in 5♦ after finding out his side is missing 2 keycards:

---