Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 19

Open Teams Round of 16 - third session
Austria v Sweden

Board 5.
Dealer North.
N/S vul.

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

West	North	East	South
Wernle	Sylvan	Kriftner	Sundelin
...	Pass	Pass	Pass
1	1	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	All Pass	...	...

Contract: Three no-trumps, played by West
Lead and Play:

7	to the Ace
J	taken with the Ace
3	for Jack and Queen
2	for the Ace, South completing his count signal.
A

Result: 9 tricks, NS -400

The Facts: During the auction, North had asked about the meaning of 2NT, and East wrote "14-16 Hcp (5+) 6+ H". North called the Director after hand, saying he had counted West’s hand to have just 2 spades, so expecting to be dropping the Queen.

The Director: Checked the Convention Card and found no positive proof to suggest that the explanation had been correct. West stated that he wanted to be in game if partner held 10 points.

The Director ruled there was misinformation, and consulted several players who would all have played the King of Spades with the information as given at the table.

Ruling: Score adjusted to three no-trumps, one down Both sides receive NS +50

East/West appealed.

The Players: East/West explained that East had given the correct information about the bidding. Since East was a passed hand, West should now simply pass as he had nothing more to add. They play 14-17 NT, so the hand was not a 1NT opener. A 2 bid would show five, or even six with 11-13, and 2NT shows 5 hearts and 14-16.

East explained he had bid according to the explanation he had given, deciding to play game but bidding three spades in order to have partner choose between three no-trumps and four hearts. Three hearts would have been non-forcing.

West explained that he had bid two no-trumps because he had been tired and was not thinking about the systemic meaning of the bid.

South stated that he too had played the opponent’s system and that he realized it was difficult for West to pass. He appreciated West’s judgment and he found it strange that under those circumstances the call of two no-trumps still showed five cards in hearts.

North explained that the first trick, and the spade return, told him that West had to have three diamonds. Partner’s count signal in the third trick told him declarer had three clubs, and so with 5 hearts he now counted declarer for the bare Queen of Spades.

The Committee: Started by stating that North might have seen from other evidence that declarer had three spades, but then concentrated on the real problem: Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Bid.

Some members found that East/West had fallen short of their attempts to prove the system, but other members found the explanation to be fully consistent and natural.

In the end, a consensus was reached. The call was to be considered a Mistaken Bid, and so the explanation had been correct and there was to be no score adjustment.

The Committee's decision: Original table result restored

Relevant Laws: Law 40C, Law 75, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned