Appeal 3 - 2005
Reported by Pauline Gumby

Seniors  ITS Final 22/5/2005

Appeals Committee: Peter Gill (chairman), Gabby Feiler, Matthew Porter

Board 17
Nil Vul
Dealer North

S  Q8
H  KT76
D  Q98652
C  Q

S  J9432
H  98
D  T74
C  T53

S  5
H  A542
C  AJ87
S  AKT76
H  QJ3
D  -
C  K9642


1 Strong
2 Clubs or red suits

Result:  2C NS -100

Tournament Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling: South did not raise 2C, on the basis that her partner's bid may not have been natural. This information arose because of North's explanation of 1S.

It was ruled that South may have acted on the unauthorised information arising from partner's explanation of 1S - an infraction under Law 16.

Score adjusted to NS -800.

Reasons for Appeal: 

  1. North was a passed hand, South may have passed.
  2. South may well have been alerted to her mistake when considering North's 2C bid - was it a cue raise ?
  3. E/W freely admitted that given each had length in clubs they would been unable to double for penalty. West has a virtual Yarborough.
  4. The alteration to a doubled contract is totally unreasonable.
  5. Systemically 4C is not available (minor key card).

Opponents Submission:    

2C  P  4C  P
P     X              = penalties, as no takeout double of 2C.

Decision of the Appeals Committee:  Regarding the appellant's points:

  1. The Tournament Director confirmed that South, having UI, cannot pass by point of law.
  2. Yes, the Appeals Committee assessed "may well have" as 65% chance - leads to 4SX.
  3. The Appeals Committee checked that East has a penalty X of 4C available, due to failure to double 2C for takeout.
  4. Verbal comment re 4C minor keycard: if South without UI bids 1S as natural and takes 2C as natural, may bid 4C whether minor KC or not.
  5. Dismissed as unlikely any call less than 4C by South. Checked EW can double game contracts for penalty.


(40% 4SX -300) = 120
(25% 4SX - 500) = 125
(30% 4CX - 800) = 240
(5% 5CX - 1100) = 55

i..e. 540 to E/W in keeping with recent WBF rulings.

Back to Appeals | Home