APPEAL no. 20 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Rich Colker | USA
Members | Naki Bruni Dan Morse Becky Rogers John Wignall Jaime Ortiz-Patino | ITA USA USA NZD GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Junior Pairs | Session 1
Countries
France | v | Holland
Players
NS |  |
EW |  |
Board
Board 1. Dealer North. Love All
| ª | 7 6 |
© | Q J 10 7 3
¨ | A
§ | K 10 7 6 2
ª | A 5 |  | ª | Q J 4 2
© | K 4 | © | A 9 2
¨ | K Q 7 6 5 3 2 | ¨ | 10 9
§ | A 3 | § | J 9 8 5
| ª | K 10 9 8 3 |
© | 8 6 5
¨ | J 8 4
§ | Q 4
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | Pass |  | Pass |  | Pass
1¨ |  | 2NT¹ |  | Dble² |  | Pass
Pass |  | 3§ |  | Dble³ |  | 3©
All Pass |  |  |  |  |  |
¹ Clubs and hearts ² Penalties of one or both suits ³ Penalty
Result
3©=: +140
Facts
North's 2NT bid was explained by North to East as clubs and hearts, their agreement, but by South to West as clubs and spades. (South thought he had written down clubs and hearts and hence did not later correct his error.) The TD was called and told by West that he would have bid 4¨ over 3© if he had been correctly informed.
TD's Decision
The TD ruled that, whichever major North held, West's holdings and defensive potential were the same. Since West failed to bid 4¨ when he thought North's major was spades, there was no evidence to suggest he would have acted any differently had he been told North's major was hearts. The table result was therefore allowed to stand.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
West reiterated that he would have bid 4¨ had he been told that North's major was hearts. He said that, since hearts was an 'unbid' suit, he thought East might have long hearts with South; in any event he thought that East would have to bid over 3©. East, who knew that North had clubs and hearts, said he had no fit for West, modest values and only three hearts. So when 3© came around to him he passed. South said he had been thinking about his own spade holding when he wrote his explanation of North's 2NT bid and he simply wrote spades inadvertently instead of hearts as North's second suit. He never realized that he had not written hearts. In the defense of 3© West said he led the ¨K, won perforce in dummy. When declarer then played a club to the queen, West won his ace and panicked, playing ace and another spade. Declarer then (somehow) managed to escape with only four losers. When the Committee asked West to explain why he had not bid 3¨ directly over the double of 2NT or later over 3©, given the similarity in his defensive prospects against any of the other suits, he could give no reason. East/West also confirmed that East's pass of 3© was against their system and that it, rather than the misinformation, might have been responsible for their poor result.

Committee's Comments
The Committee saw no reason for West to believe that East had better defense against hearts (sitting, as he was, in front of the presumed heart bidder) than against spades (sitting, as he was, behind the presumed spade bidder). By passing 2NT doubled as well as 3© West had indicated his willingness to defend. Thus, the Committee found no evidence that West would have acted any differently (by bidding 4¨) had he known that North's second suit was hearts rather than spades. The Committee also believed that the misinformation given by South was entirely inadvertent, due to the fact that he had just been thinking about his own spade holding. Nonetheless, South's error was careless and caused much difficulty.
Committee's Decision
The Committee allowed the table result to stand for both pairs (3© made three, plus 140 for North/South). A 5% of a top procedural penalty was assessed against North/South (not to accrue to East/West) for South's carelessness in describing North's 2NT bid.
Relevant Laws
—
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page