Appeal 1 - 2006
Reported by Pauline Gumby

Open ITS Q2 - 8/2/2006

Appeals Committee: Ted Chadwick(chairman), Warren Lazer, Murray Green

Board 1
Nil Vul
Dealer North

S  K5
H  A109742
D  QJ985
C  -

S  Q876
H  KJ6
D  K64
C  KQ8

S  93
H  5
D  A72
C  J1097653
S  AJ1042
H  Q83
D  103
C  A42

Auction and Explanations

P4HAll Pass

* explained as Spades or both minors



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.

Back to Appeals | Home