Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 25.
Misinformation - No Damage

Open Teams Round 24
Croatia v Monaco

Board 16.
Dealer West.
East/West Game.

Please note: Screen runs from top left to bottom right.
			K 10 9 2
			J 10
			3
			A Q J 6 4 2
	8 4	N   W E   S			Q 6 5 3
	Q 8 7 5				A K 9 3
	A J 9 7 6 4				10
	10				9 7 5 3
			A J 7
			6 4 2
			K Q 8 5 2
			K 8

West	North	East	South
Guglielmi	Miladin	Gavino	Diklic
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	2	Pass	3
Dble	Pass	3	3
4	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, doubled, played by East.
Result: Six tricks, -1100 to East/West.

The Facts: Two Clubs showed 11-16, six cards in clubs, Two Diamonds was a relay, and Two Spades showed exactly four cards in spades. Three Diamonds was explained as forcing by South to West, but as non-forcing by North to East.

The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation and that West would not open the bidding if he had received the other explanation.
Although he could not tell in which contract North/South would end up, several of them would end up one down.

Ruling: Score adjusted to -50 to North/South.

North/South appealed.

The Players: North/South were unclear about the meaning of Three Diamonds. Their system notes were quite elaborate about the meaning of Two No-Trumps (the next asking relay), but nothing was there about the alternatives.
According to South, West had doubled first, and only later asked about the meaning of Three Diamonds. West denied this.
West explained that over the forcing Three Diamonds, he doubled to show his diamond suit, meanwhile also asking for the lead. When his partner bid a (in his view) free Three Hearts, he felt he should raise this to Four, because he thought that partner had good hearts and something in diamonds.
East explained that since to him Three Diamonds had been explained as non forcing, he interpreted the double to be for Take-Out, so he duly bid his heart suit.
South told the Committee that he had explained his bid of Three Spades also as forcing.

The Committee: Accepted that the double had been misexplained to West, and would have ruled in favour of East/West in case the auction had ended in Three Hearts doubled.
The Committee found that West - whose partner had not overcalled in hearts, and having been told that both 3 and 3 were forcing - had produced a bad bid in going for Four Hearts, and that East/West should keep their -1100 as a result.
The Committee felt that North/South, although they had contributed in the mistake, would be allowed to keep their good score.
The Committee did not find it normal that a pair come to European Championships without an understanding about the second level bidding of a quite normal, uncontested bidding sequence.

The Committee's decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result restored.
North/South fined half a VP for different explanation in a simple auction.

Relevant Laws: Law 75A & Law 74B1

Deposit: Returned