11th World Bridge Olympiad,
Maastricht, The Netherlands |
Tuesday, 5 September 2000
|
Appeal No.
9
|
Yugoslavia v Israel
Appeals Committee:
Joan Gerard (Chairman,
USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Herman De Wael (Belgium),
Grattan Endicott (England), Jeffrey Polisner (USA)
Open Teams Round 10
Board 11. Dealer South. Nobody
Vulnerable. |
|
ª
Q
© AKJ942
¨ Q
§ AKJ96 |
ª
J984
© Q1083
¨ K98
§ Q7 |
![Bridge deal](../../../../Graphics/Hand/board3.gif) |
ª
K10763
© 5
¨ AJ10763
§ 3 |
|
ª
A52
© 76
¨ 542
§ 108542 |
West |
North |
East |
South |
Kalish |
Vucic |
Podgur |
Vladan |
|
|
|
Pass |
Pass |
2§
(1) |
2NT (2) |
Dbl (3) |
3¨ |
3© |
4¨ |
Pass |
Pass |
4© |
All Pass |
|
Comments:
(1) Alerted, strong, 23+
HCP or up to four losers
(2) Alerted, two-suiter, both minors
(3) Alerted, one ace,
diamonds or spades
Other calls natural
Contract: Four
hearts, played by North
Result: 11 tricks,
NS +450
TD's statement of Facts:
I was called at the end of play by North who complained
because the explanations by their opponents were different on
the two sides of the screen.
(1) East alerted 2NT according
to his system as a two-suiter (minors). Note: the system card
and the written note from the North/East side of screen were
presented to the Committee. But West described 2NT only as "two-suiter".
(2) East's description
does not correspond with his hand (he has { and [).
(3) Why did West bid 3{
if he did not know that 2NT showed both minors?
The Director:
In these conditions it
seems very difficult to reach the correct contract of 6}.
North had correct explanation
according to East/West's convention card. So, no infraction
and no redress.
Ruling: Result
Stands.
Relevant Laws:
Law
75B, example 2
North/South appealed.
Present: All players
except South
The Players:
At the Committee, East
said he made a mistake. He described the sequence of events
as First, he bid 2NT: then he alerted: then he was asked: then
he wrote "Two-suiter": then he realised his mistake: then he
wrote "Minors".
The Committee:
There was no problem in
Law: the Director's ruling was clearly correct. The deposit
was returned because it was not obvious that the players understood
the Law. The Committee comments that a screening process would
be helpful to avoid this sort of appeal.
According to the Law,
a player has a right to get a correct explanation of the meaning
of his opponents' calls, and is entitled to redress if he is
damaged by an incorrect explanation. However, there is no redress
when a player gets a correct explanation but his opponent has
misbid because he forgot the meaning: making mistakes in bidding
is just bridge!
The Committee's decision:
Director's ruling upheld.
Deposit: Returned
|
|