Help
Scoring: IMP
West North East South
Pass 2♠ (1) Pass 2N (2)
3♣ X (3) Pass 3♦ (4)
Pass 3N Pass 6♠
1) Pre-empt
2) Relay
3) Explained as showing Good-Good or Bad-Bad by South to West and only Good-Good by North to East
4) Explained as Relay by South to West and Suit/ Values by North to East
5) Explained as showing good, bal hand by South to West and showing stopper and playable spot by North to East
Lead ♣2
Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling
North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. At the end of the auction, West asked South on his side of the screen, the meaning of North’s double and 3n bids. South clearly explained (written and showed system notes) that double showed either Good-Good (both quality of suit and points) or Bad-Bad (both quality of suit and points) and that 3n showed Good-Good and bal hand. West checked with South at the end of the auction and again before playing to the second trick whether North can have a singleton and South clearly mentioned (written) that North cannot have a stiff for his 3n bid. Playing 3rd and 5th best leads, East led ♣2, West won ♣A, and continued with ♣Q. Declarer ruffed in dummy and promptly proceeded to make the contract (12 tricks). West called the director at the end of the deal and informed him that he would like to appeal because of wrong explanation of 3n bid. Additionally, West & East mentioned that different written explanations were given on both the sides of the screen for both the double and 3n bids by North. Director let the table result stand, but asked EW to appeal since it is complicated matter
Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations
East-West appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together.
AC checked with both West and East on the explanation of meaning of double. East explained that North informed him that double shows a good hand and West explained that South told him it showed Good-Good hand or Bad-Bad hand (Pass replaces all lost bids and Double replaces the bid by opponents-3♣ in this case). AC checked with both West and East on the meaning of 3n. West explained that South informed him that his 3♦ bid was relay and North’s 3n bid showed a Good-Good, bal hand w/o singleton. East explained North informed him that it showed a club stopper and a playable spot.
AC checked with both South and North on the above facts and they confirmed that different explanations were given on both sides of the screen for both X and 3n bids by North. AC checked the system notes of NS and verified that South’s explanation to West is as per notes (not explicitly mentioned if it applies on intervention as well) for bids of X and 3n by North and 3♦ by South. North had forgotten the system and he took all bids as natural.
AC asked West on the reason for playing back ♣Q at trick 2. West reasoned that playing back a ♥ at trick 2 could cost if declarer has AKTXXX, QX, XXX, XX. Similarly returning a ♦ at trick 2 is not required even if partner has ♦ void since declarer will go down anyway. Based on the explanation of 3n bid as a bal hand and partner’s 3rd/5th leads, West felt it was absolutely safe to play back ♣Q since declarer is odds on to have only 2 ♣s. He also indicated on slam auctions, partner will lead ♣2 even from T9XX2 and not T playing 0 or 2 leads.
AC sympathized with West that he had a difficult defensive problem because of explanation given to him, but they felt West would lead ♣T from T9XXX even in slam auctions, hence West should preferably a ♥ at trick 2 or return a low ♣ instead of ♣Q. AC also felt with xxxx, TXXX,-JXXXX in West hand he would have supported/pre-empted clubs in the auction or made a lightner double of final contact. Additionally the members felt that this auction is quite rare, hence likely to be mis-intrepreted even if the partnership has discussed it earlier. To summarise, AC felt that there was sufficient grounds for West to realize that the wheels had come off NS bidding and that he should have worked out to play a ♥ . AC rejected the appeal and let the table result stand (Law 75C and 40C). Appeal was deemed to have some merit and the deposit was returned.
A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s role, AC proceedings and variations to get a better perspective:
a) What is your final ruling on the appeal based on above facts?
Can South or North refer to system notes and clarify West’s/East’s questions at the end of auction? Can/Should East or West ask for system notes of opponents to verify explanation?c) Should the director rule on the deal instead of just referring it to AC?
d) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts?
e) Should AC question North and South separately to verify system details?
f) Should AC ask any other questions to any of the players?
g) Even assuming, playing back ♥ or low ♣ is correct, isn’t West not entitled to redress because he was misled by South’s explanation to go on the wrong track?
h) Will you change your ruling if South indicated to West that he is not sure of meaning of 3n bid but took it as showing bal and good hand?
i) Will you change your ruling if East did not ask North explanation of his bids and North gives same explanation of his bids to AC, as South gave to West at the table?
j) Will you change your ruling if North gives same explanation (treat his hand as balanced!!) to East at the table, as South gave to West for his 3n bid?
k) Will you change your ruling if South’s ♥ suit is AKXX instead of AK9X?
l) Will you change your ruling if the East player is not World Class?
m) Will you change your ruling if North-South are a new partnership or lower class of event (club, sectional or regional)?
n) Should there be any procedural penalty to be imposed on North-South for differing /wrong explanation even if appeal is rejected?
