|
Appeal
No 28.
Misexplanation
- No Damage
| Appeals Committee: |
|
|
| |
Jens Auken |
(Chairman, Denmark) |
| |
Herman De Wael |
(Scribe, Belgium) |
| |
Grattan Endicott |
(Great Britain),
|
| |
Anton Maas |
(the Netherlands) |
| |
Krzysztof Martens |
(Poland) |
Ladies Teams Round 16
Israel v Sweden
Board 10.
Dealer East.
Game All.
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| Goldberg |
Zur-Campanile |
Gronkvist |
Levit-Porat |
| |
|
1 |
1NT |
| Dble |
All Pass |
|
|
Contract: One No-Trump, doubled,
played by South
Result:
Five tricks, -500 to North/South
The Facts: This is the same hand as on appeal
29.
West had intended her double as penalty, and had not alerted it.
East explained the double to be Take-Out. North called the Director,
saying that if she had known East could pass the double, she would
have bid Two Clubs, waited for the Double, and Redouble for SOS
to finally find the Spade contract.
The Director: Accepted that
it was a case of misexplanation but judged all other possible results
to be equal to -500.
Ruling: No Damage - Result
Stands
North/South appealed.
The Players: North explained
that she had written on a piece of paper "is it penalty or take-out",
to which West had answered by underlining take-out. That paper was
available at the hearing.
East stated she had at first tried to explain that the Double showed
either four cards in spades and the other suits, or some good hand.
She had also written 8+ on a paper, but this paper was no longer
to be found. She agreed that she had answered Take-Out by underlining
this, but stressed that the Take-Out double promises 8+ HCP.
West stated that the double showed 8+, nothing else.
East explained why she had passed the double if she did not believe
it to be for penalties, by stating that she had no other suit to
run to and wanted to defend.
North claimed that it was not certain that they would end up in
Two Spades doubled. The opponents might have bid on. They might
decide not to double. She might go less than two down.
The Committee: Decided that
the Director had ruled correctly. There had indeed been misinformation.
However, there was no reason to believe that any alternative contract
to one No-Trump doubled would not be at least two down doubled,
which made the appeal without merit.
The Committee's decision:
Director's decision upheld.
Relevant Laws: Law
75A, Law
12C2
Deposit: Forfeited
|
