Appeal 1 - 2008
Reported by Pauline Gumby

Open ITS 1A Round 7 - 18/2/2008

Appeals Committee: David Stern (Chairman), Paul Gosney, Ed Barnes

Board 1
Nil Vul
Dealer North

S  QJ104
H  Q
D  Q108
C  107653

S  876
H  KJ64
D  762
C  QJ8

S  AK53
H  A10987
D  A9
S  92
H  532
D  KJ543
C  942

Auction and Explanations

West North East South
P 1H1 X P
2H P 4NT P
5C P 5H* P
6H P P P
 1 1H=5-9

* agreed break in tempo

Play - N/A


Result:    6HW NS -980

Tournament Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling:  West's 5C showed 0 or 3 keycards. After East bid 5H, West claimed that she realised that she had given the incorrect response and so corrected to 6H. EW's defensive agreements to the 1H opening were such that West had not shown any values by the 2H call. West claimed that East's decision to bid 4NT opposite a possibly much weaker hand than she held also encouraged her to bid 6H, once she had given an incorrect Blackwood response.

Ruled that the break in tempo before East's 5H was unauthorised information to West. However it was ruled that the 6H bid was not based on this information, but on authorised information from the auction and on West's previously incorrect call. Result was allowed to stand.

Reasons for Appeal:    Having already shown a GF with long H allegedly, the hesitation which was very lengthy, effectively assured West that no 2 key cards could be missing.

By contrast, an in-tempo 5H would have strongly suggested the possibility of (at least) 2 KC missing.

Having already overbid the hand with 2H there was no excuse, absence the hesitation, for bidding.

By contrast East should have bid 6H - but then West using her therory could raise to 7 - one off.

We believe the score should be adjusted to 5H making six. If Law - or if you want to accept EW's explanation 7H minus 1.

Opponents Submission:    

Decision of the Appeals Committee:   Subject to further submissions that director's ruling be upheld.

1. Hesitation did not suggest 6H to be better from alternative bids

2. Confusion caused by opening bid, etc, have perhaps forced partner to reassess what type of Blackwood was involved and reassed when partner signed off 5H

3. Standard of players considered - lack of defences and uncertainty about 2H may have caused the hesitation rather than consideration of East's 6H.

4. Pass was not considerd superior even without the hesitation assuming she realised the incorrect BW response

Back to Appeals | Home