Appeal 1 - 2013
Reported by Pauline Gumby

State Mixed Pairs Qualifying - 04/02/2013

Appeals Committee: Appeals Committee: Fraser Rew (chair), Bruce Neill, Michael Wilkinson

Board 24
Nil Vul
Dealer West

S  3
H  J8632
D  AQ64
C  865

S  J987542
H  A1097
D  J
C  7

S  AKQ106
H  54
D  732
C  KJ3
S  -
D  K10985
C  AQ10942

Auction and Explanations

West North East South
3S P 4S X
P 5D 5S 6D
P P Dbl* P
6S P P P
* agreed hesitation

Play - N/A

Result:        6SW NS +100

Tournament Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling :     In line with Law 16B, and after polling a number of players, the director ruled that Pass was a Logical Alternative, and that bidding 6S was suggested by the hesitation.

Score adjusted to NS +1090 

Reason for Appeal: The Appellants presented their system notes. The two relevant pieces of information were that 1) they play doubles effectively for takeout at high levels; and 2) West's 3S bid showed a 6-loser hand with 1, 3 or 4 cards outside the suit. As West had one more loser than normal and the minimum number of defensive cards, pass is not an option.

Decision of the Appeals Committee:  The committee overturned the director's ruling. In the context of the East-West system, there is no logical alternative to bidding 6S. Further, the unusual nature of the double means that it is normal to pause before doubling. Therefore, no Unauthorised Information was passed.

Furthermore, the committee noted that the appealing side should ensure that they always take a consistent length of time before doubling in such auctions.

Final result: NS +100

Back to Appeals | Home