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		ª K10763 © 5 ¨ AJ10763 § 3
	ª A52 © 76 ¨ 542 § 108542

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

Page 4 of 5