Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 1

Open Teams. Round 2.
Hong Kong v Austria

Board 10.
Dealer East.
Both vul.

			A K Q 4
			K Q 10 9
			Q 6 2
			A J
	7 5 3 2	N W E S			9 8 6
	J 7				6 5 3 2
	A 10 8				4
	Q 9 6 5				K 7 4 3 2
			J 10
			A 8 4
			K J 9 7 5 3
			10 8

West	North	East	South
Vernle	Wan	Krittner	Chin
...	...	Pass	Pass
Pass	2NT	Pass	3(1)
Pass	3NT(2)	Pass	4NT(3)
Pass	5NT(3)	All Pass	...
(1)Explained (N to E) as "minors"
(2)Explained as "no interest in minors"
(3)Quantitative

Lead: Small heart.
Result: Twelve tricks, NS +690.

The Facts: After opening of dummy East called TD, explaining that he was told dummy would have both minors. If he have known the actual distribution was possible, he might have led otherwise. The explanation is not in line with the actual hand. North/South showed their system-details, that state 3 to be "Minor-suit Stayman". The convention card shows "3S - minor interest".

The Director: Deemed that there are discrepancies between the given information, the convention card and the system details, resulting in damage to the opponents. The ruling was a consensus after discussion between the Directors and some players.

Ruling: Incomplete information given. Score adjusted to 5NT-2, NS -200 to both sides.

North/South appealed.

The Players: The appellants commented that the system agreement between North/South is "Minor-suit Stayman." While different pairs play this convention differently the specific arrangement of this pair is that the bid shows both minors with mild slam interest.

The primary evidence is the supporting system notes, duly furnished after the Director was summoned. The notes say "Minor Suit Stayman, mild slam interest, opener bids 4C/D to set the suit and invite cue- bid."

If 3 promises only one of the minors, there is no way opener can set the suit on his own. So North did give the correct system meaning to East when he wrote "minors".

As for South, he realized that he had made the wrong bid (3) after the tray was pushed to the other side (systematically he should go through 3, Stayman, then rebid 4 to show this type of hand).

Consequently, for fear of complicating matters, he dared not bid 4 over partner's 3NT (signoff) and instead, invited with a quantitative 4NT. The good diamond slam that was bid at the other table was thus missed.

The respondents said that North told East that South had both minors when asked about his 3 bid. Consequently East was damaged as he was talked out of his rational club lead.

At the appeal East said that he would have asked further questions if the answer had been Minor suit Stayman.

The Committee: Noted that the player explained "Minors", the convention card said "Minor interest" and the system details said "Minor Suit Stayman." The Committee felt a club lead was unlikely anyway, but possible, and decided on a weighted assigned score under Law 12C3 to reflect this.

The Chairman expressed his worry that players did not know their system and felt at this level that consequent results were not what should decide bridge matches.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 80% of 5NT+1 by North, NS +690, 20% of 5NT-2, NS - 200 to both sides.

Relevant Laws: Law 20F, Law 75C

Deposit: Returned.