Appeals Committee: Appeals Committee: Fraser Rew (chair), Bruce Neill, Michael Wilkinson Board 24 Nil Vul Dealer West WEST NORTH   3   J8632  AQ64   865 EAST   J987542   A1097   J   7 SOUTH   AKQ106   54   732   KJ3   -   KQ   K10985   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