Board 1
Nil Vul
Dealer North
WEST |
NORTH
 K5
 A109742
 QJ985
 - |
EAST |
Q876
KJ6
K64
KQ8 |
SOUTH |
93
5
A72
J1097653 |
|
AJ1042
Q83
103
A42 |
|
Auction and Explanations
| West | North | East | South |
| 1H | 2S* | X |
| XX | 3D | P | 3NT |
| P | 4H | All Pass | |
| |
|
* explained as Spades or
both minors |
|
Play
| CJ | A | 8 | D5 |
| D3 | 4 | Q | A |
| C10 | 2 | Q | H2 |
| DQ | 2 | 10 | K |
| CQ | H4 | 3 | 4 |
| HA | | | |
|
Result:
4HN NS -50
Tournament Directors
Statement of Facts and Ruling: EW had a misunderstanding over the meaning of 2S.
It was claimed that the explanation was correct and that East had
misbid.
The agreement marked on the EW system card indicated
that Jump Overcalls were played as "TWERB". EW claimed they were
using a variation, so that the explanation was correct. (East
was not clear about this and at the table said that they had
now decided not to play it until they had worked it out.)
As East's hand fits the TWERB system as described on
the system card, I asked for further clarification,
specifically if they held any notes as to their agreements
in this sequence. As EW had no further documentation, I believed that
I was required under Law 74 to rule this as a
mistaken explanation and therefore an infraction.
It was ruled that NS may have
been damaged by the infraction and an adjusted score
of NS +420 was awarded.
Reasons for
Appeal: We were playing a
two-way exclusion bidding approach (TWERB) in which we exclude the
bid suit so that on hand 1 ( as my partner explained duirng the
auction) over opponent's 1H opener, 2S excludes the bid suit H and
shows a weak 2 in spades or a two suited hand with C and D. It was
the first time that our discussed approach had come up.
I was thinking about what 1NT meant in the opponent's
system and mistakenly bid the TWERB bid which applies over
opponent's NT where 2S excludes the suit bid (i.e. S) and shows a
single suited C or a two suited hand with D and H.
We
do not understand the director's ruling or the reasons for it.
We believe that a bidding mistake should not give advantage
to the opponents.
Opponents Submission:
Decision
of the Appeals Committee: Director's decision upheld.
Insufficient evidence of "wrong bid, correct information". In fact,
EW seemed to have little agreement,
if any, of these 'TWERB'
actions.
| 
|