Israel v France

Appeals Committee:

John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Dan Morse (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel).

Open Teams Round 3

Board 16. Dealer West. East/West Vulnerable.
	ª Q J 6 © A K Q 7 3 2 ¨ A 9 8 3 § -
ª 7 5 4 3 © 8 5 ¨ - § A 8 7 6 5 4 3		ª K 8 2 © J 9 6 4 ¨ K 10 7 5 § J 9
	ª A 10 9 © 10 ¨ Q J 6 4 2 § K Q 10 2

Comments:

(1) explained by North to East as "values, support ¨, short §"; explained by South to West as "not sure, maybe splinter"
(2) explained by North as "void", by South as "cuebid"

Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South

Lead: Ace of Clubs

Result: 12 tricks, NS +920

The Facts: Three Spades was explained differently at both sides, obviously incorrectly at the South/West side. West claimed he would have led differently with correct information. Well after the session, West came to the Director to state that he might have led a small club. On that lead, there is a chance that declarer would go down.

The Director: Found that since the lead of the small club was not mentioned immediately, it would not be taken into consideration. With any other lead, South is expected to always make 12 tricks.

Ruling: Result Stands.

Relevant Laws:

Law 75D2

East/West appealed.

The Players:

East/West, by means of their captain, pointed out that West was a world-class player, for whom the lead of the small club was a possibility. With the explanations that he received, West was so certain to find the King of Clubs in dummy, that he did not think very long about his lead. East/West found it very strange that South bid three no-trumps naturally, opposite what he explained to be a singleton spade.

South explained that three no-trumps was a sort of a relay, although he admitted he had not alerted it. He apologised for his wrong explanation. He usually plays fragments showing the Ace, and since he held that card himself, he was confused.

North added that it would have been unheard for him to bid five clubs on the King alone.

The Committee:

Found that South had been wrong in not explaining the three spade bid correctly, not alerting his three no-trumps, and not explaining the meaning of the bidding before the lead.

All this added up to mean that West had been denied his chance at brilliancy.

The Committee did not want to quantify this chance, and chose to express their views into imps directly.

The original imp balance had been +11 to the team of North/South (5¨ made at the other table)

The Committee's decision:

Score adjusted to +7 imps to the team of North/South

Deposit: Returned

Page 4 of 4