Search MSO Worldwide

The Maastricht Appeals

Appeal No 2

University Teams Round 5
Germany v Hong Kong

Board 12.
Dealer West.
N/S vul.

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

West	North	East	South
Ng	Reim	Wong	Balschun
1	Pass	1	Pass
2	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	4	Pass
4	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	Pass	5	Dbl
All Pass	...	...	...

Comments: No alerts

Contract: Five Clubs Doubled, played by East
Result: 11 tricks, NS -550

The Facts: North had been told that two diamonds was game forcing, so he understood the meaning of two spades. South had not been told about the game forcing aspects of the bidding, and he claimed he would not have doubled if he had been.

The Director: Did not believe that two diamonds required an alert.

Ruling: Result Stands.

North/South appealed.

The Players: South was not present at the hearing, but North spoke in his place. South had not been informed about the meaning of two diamonds and two spades, so he suspected a bidding disaster. He doubled on that basis. North volunteered that a contract of four spades would go two down, and this was the score correction he was looking for.

East/West explained their bidding system. One spade was forcing, showing 11+. One no-trump would also have been forcing, but showing 6-9. Two diamonds denied a minimum opening hand, and when East continued past two hearts, the situation had become fully Game forcing.

The Committee: Agreed with the Director that two diamonds was not alertable. South had failed to realise that there were questions that he could have asked. He had made a poorly judged double, and he should keep the bad score that was the result.

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

Relevant Laws: Law 21A

Deposit: Returned