Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 14

Women's Teams Round 19
Denmark v Indonesia

Board 9.
Dealer North.

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

West	North	East	South
Syofian	Ege	Bojoh	Rahelt
...	1NT(1)	Dbl(2)	Pass(3)
Pass	Rdbl	Pass	2(4)
Dbl(5)	2	Dbl	Pass
3	All Pass	......	......
(1) 11-14
(2)14+
(3) forcing to redouble
(4) clubs and a major
(5) take-out

Result: 8 tricks, N/S +100

The Facts: The bid of two diamonds was the important one. North explained it as showing just the majors, so East doubled, thinking she was showing diamonds. She then passed the three diamond bid, believing it to be natural.

On the other side of the screen, South explained two diamonds as either a five card, or asking for majors. West now believed three diamonds to be a cue bid, and since she knew partner must hold the stopper, she expected partner to play 3NT.

The Director: Found that the differing explanations messed up the opponent's auctions and adjusted the score.

Ruling: Score adjusted to 3NT= by East (N/S -600).

North/South appealed.

The Players: South explained she had asked about the double over two diamonds, and was told it was penalty. North contributed that at her side, that double had not been alerted so presumably it was indeed intended as penalty. South decided to pass two diamonds, showing a small willingness to play there if North indeed held five of them. South added that West had asked if she had promised three diamonds, to which she had responded in the negative.

North/South said they did not understand East/West's decision to play in three diamonds.

East/West agreed that the double over two diamonds was indeed for penalties. West explained that she had bid three diamonds, intending to ask for a stopper. She realized that East must hold one, and was intending to put the contract of three notrump in partner's hand.

East explained that she had interpreted three diamonds as being non- forcing, suggesting to play there.

The Committee: Started by trying to decide what the real explanation of two diamonds should have been, and found that it was very hard to determine. The Committee decided to follow both explanations separately and see what the result was.

It was clear that if West had received the explanation that North had provided, she would not have made the call of three diamonds. Equally clear was that East would not have let three diamonds become the final contract had she received the explanation that South had provided.

Even so, the Committee did not believe the case was so easy.

The Committee was under the impression that East/West were to a great extent to blame for their bad result. They were on a course of penalty doubles, and had North/South running to find a suitable fit. Then when they had seemed to settle in what could hardly be a good place, East/West had let them off the hook. Whatever three diamonds meant, it was a mistake from East to stop the bidding now, and not go on towards game. So it was decided to let the table result stand for East/West.

The Committee then turned its attention to North/South. There was an opinion among some members that North/South did not deserve their result of +100. But when it was noted that in Bridge, you are entitled to good scores from opponents' mistakes, the Committee unanimously decided to allow the table result to stand for North/South as well.

The Committee's decision: Original table result restored.

Relevant Laws: Law 21, Law 12C2.

Deposit: Returned.