| 1D = 8-12,
4+ S not 4H|
3C NS: +150.
Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling:
I was called by South during the play of the next
hand. On reading the EW system card, he noted the statement
that 2 of a major may be bid on shortage opposite opening bids that
deny a major. He therefore believed that 2H should have been
East contended that this was not part of the present
partnership's agreement and that the system cards provided at the
table were not correct.
The NS agreement was that the double of 2H showed 16+
I ruled that the score would stand on the basis that :
there was no infraction - NS had been provided
with an accurate explanation of the EW agreements; and
even if it was found that EW had infracted, the
damage suffered by NS was not because of the failure to alert
Next hand I (South) was dummy and I looked at the
system card at
the table:- noting the possibility of shortage of H in the 2H bid. EW
admitted that the card was not theirs but stated that even their system
notes had the 2H showing the possibility of shortage
The problem that I have is that the event is a
Selection Event - the used system card states that it may be
At which point is the system card accepted as the
real system or that a
player may change it at
- whatever is fair is good.
EW have no agreement ie 2H, other than natural/non-forcing. With
others this would show length or shortage and be alerted as such. EW
have no recent instances of this type of psyche.
of the Appeals Committee: Committee unanimously found
was an infraction.
-it contributed in part to NS missing
-score adjusted to weighted score of NS +400.
procedural penalty of 1VP.
-Director to restate
EW's obligation to disclose implicit agreements or not use