Appeal 1 - 2019
Reported by Pauline Gumby

Open ITS Stage II - 11/3/2019

Appeals Committee: Appeals Committee: Michael Wilkinson (chair), Sartaj Hans, Bruce Neill

Board 26
All Vul
Dealer East

WEST
NORTH
S  843
H  95
D  10762
C  A762




EAST
S  AJ1075
H  KQ
D  4
C  J10853



SOUTH
S  KQ6
H  J1084
D  KJ9
C  Q94
S  92
H  A7632
D  AQ853
C  K

Auction and Explanations

West North East South
    1C 1H
1S* P 1NT 2D
4S All pass    
 
* Alerted as denying Spades

Play - N/A

Result:   NS -620     

Tournament Director's Statement of Facts and Ruling :   

I was called at the completion of play by South, saying that, or words to the effect of, not sure if calling me for use of UI by West or because they saw but failed to defeat the contract. Would I please review the board? At the table I confirmed all the facts and established that the partnership agreement for the alert was correct and that West had mis-bid.

Under Law 16B Extraneous Information from Partner. I was summonsed correctly, L16B3 and now had to determine under L16B1 whether West had chosen a call demonstrably suggested over another by the UI if the other is a logical alternative.

The original director's ruling was that the score would stand. Subsequently on review the CTD decided to refer the board to an appeal's committee under Law 83.

Submission by EW:

I agree the 1S bid was alerted and explained as denying Sís, but I realised straightaway (without needing my partnerís alert) that I had mis-bid and not shown my Sís. My partnerís explanation of my 1S bid also included that it may show Dís or that I may just want him to bid 1NT. South then bid 2D Ė clarifying for the table that I didnít have Dís. It was also clear that they had both the red suits. It was the most logical option for me to then bid 4S as I was 5/5 in the blacks. I also felt my S suit would play well opposite a lot of holdings from partner.

I donít agree with Southís suggestion that 3NT or 5C would have been likely contracts. 3NT doesnít look at all good from my hand, although it was made the 3 times it was played anyway. I would certainly never have considered 5C Ė my partnerís 1C only promises 2 Cís, in addition there are obviously a few high honours missing so I would not choose to play at the 5 level

Director's Submission:

Unfortunately under law once East alerts partner's 1S bid West is unable to realise that they have forgotten their system even if they had done so without the alert. It is important for West to make a bid on the basis that partner has interpreted the 1S call as showing spades and has denied three spades with their 1NT call.

 

Decision of the Committee:

The committee were unclear as to what would have happened next however and so awarded a weighted score;
40% of 3NT by East making 9 tricks
20% of 3NT by East making 7 tricks
20% of 3C by East making 10 tricks
20% of 2DX by South making 9 tricks

One committee member felt that the defenders should be allowed a higher percentage of 3NT failing, however as the law currently stands the intent is to restore equity not punish the offending side.

 

Back to Appeals | Home