Board 9
EW Vul
Dealer North
WEST |
NORTH
 KQ
 AKQ95
 Q
 KT983 |
EAST |
AT8653
-
K9875
J4 |
SOUTH |
J974
JT62
J2
Q76 |
|
2
8743
AT653
A52 |
| West |
North |
East |
South |
|
1H |
P |
2H |
| 4S |
P* |
P |
5H |
| P |
P |
X |
|
| |
| * Agreed hesitation |
Play:
Spade lead to Ace. Club switch.
Result:
5HX NS: +650.
Tournament Director Statement of Facts and Ruling : I was
called to the table at the end of the play. There is no dispute of the facts
that North hesitated before passing the 4S bid by West. Law 16 -
unauthorised information. For a player to base a call on information received
following a hesitation may be an infraction. Accordingly the partner may not
choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been
suggested over another by receipt of this information. I did not believe that
the bid of 5H was suggested by the hesitation but rather the bid resulted from
the re-evaluation of the hand which there had been an initial "mis-bid" where
the player has "mis-sorted" the cards. Accordingly I therefore allowed the
table result to stand as there had been no infraction.
Reasons for Appeal:
We feel that North's break in tempo influenced South's 5H bid.
Opponents Submission:
South had mis-sorted her hand as a 2-4-5-2. With a 1-4-5-3, the system bid is
4H over 1H. Over 4S, South's 5H was a catch-up bid. The break of tempo is
agreed, but probably no more than one would expect over the 4S bid.
Decision of the Appeals Committee: The committee disallowed
the 'mis-sorting' explanation of the respondents - without doubting its
veracity, it was considered to be 'convenient' and self-serving.
Bridge law states that after a break in tempo, South may not choose
from alternatives one that may have been suggested by that break in
tempo The 5H bid satisfies this criteria and is cancelled. However, holding two
aces opposite an opening bid, pass would not be reasonable. 4SX has been
assumed - normal play resulting in two down.
Correction of Score: NS +500; EW -500
|
|