[shevek]

---

Goodish players, North is one of the country's best players.
Assume the Break in Tempo is agreed by all.

Part 1
Table result or give NS +600 in 3NT?
It would be awkward (time-wise & conflicts) to poll West's peers.

Part 2
Say you wind back to 3NT and EW appeal. West has a case at the vul, etc. Then what?

[sanst]

A poll would be preferable. But without one, I would decide that W has told everything about his hand there is to tell. So, the 4♣ was 'inspired' by the BIT. An AS of 3NT= and at least a warning to W for the use of UI.

[pescetom]

If West had bid Double instead of 4♣, what would this mean under their agreement?

[Cyberyeti]

Pass must be at least a LA for W and idding is suggested by the BiT so roll it back, but yes a poll is better.

[steve2005]

Question: I don't enough about what is standard meaning for double of an artificial 3♣ in this sequence.
Does just show clubs?
Does it show defense to 3N which is certainly a possibility?

Is taking time over an unusual sequence so unusual for an east in this sequence?

[chrism]

If the contract is rolled back to 3NT, why give NS +600? A club lead has to be likely, given the double of 3♣, so I would give 100% of NS +630.

[chrism]

In answer to the two original questions:

1. Clearly a poll is desirable. If it is truly impractical, I would judge that the BIT suggests bidding on over passing, and would assign a score for 3NT by North, weighted for making 3 or 4 based on the lead. As noted above, I would actually assign 100% of 3NT making 4 unless it were possible to poll the opening lead, or EW could clearly demonstrate that the double of 3♣ has no lead-directing significance.

2. If this comes to an appeal, a poll becomes even more important. In the absence of a poll, EW probably escape without whatever sanction is available for Appeal without Merit. If there is a poll, and it fails to show a substantial preponderance of 4♣ bidders, then AWM is appropriate.