Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 13

University Teams Round 18
USA v Belgium

Board 16.
Dealer West.

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

West	North	East	South
Hung	V Overloop	Lasota	De Donder
1	1	Dbl(1)	3
Dbl(2)	3	Dbl	5
Dbl	All Pass	...	...
(1)both majors
(2)explained by West to South as "TO, general extra strength", by East to North as "both majors".

Contract: Five diamonds doubled, played by North
Result: 8 tricks, NS -500

The Facts: North claimed he would not have bid three hearts if he had received the explanation that West was showing points. He now thought East/West had a double major fit and he wanted to steer them into spades. The convention card did not provide a definite answer as to the real meaning.

The Director: Had to rule on the basis of misinformation. Therefore he adjusted the score. He considered that the "most unfavourable result that was at all probable" was three hearts making, but that the "most favourable result that was likely" was four diamonds doubled, two down. He assigned a split score.

Ruling: Score adjusted to

North/South receive 4 * -2 by North (NS -300)

East/West receive 3 made by East (NS -140)

East/West appealed.

The Players: East/West presented their Convention Card, which showed "responsive doubles through 3D". East interpreted it this way, West did not. They had only been playing together for one week.

North stated he would not have bid three hearts with the explanation of "general strength".

The Committee: Cited the Laws and the Code of Practice to confirm that when different explanations are given, and there is no clear evidence in one direction, misinformation is to be presumed. In that case an adjustment is appropriate. The Committee accepted that North would not have made the call of three hearts with the explanation "general strength". The Committee saw no reason to change the Director’s assessment of the adjustment.

The Committee's decision: Director’s ruling upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned