Appeal No. 19
Austria v Sweden
Appeals Committee:
Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Joan Gerard
(USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel)
Open Teams Round of 16 - third session
Board 5. Dealer North. North/South Vulnerable.
K 9 7 5 4
Q 2
10 8 7 3
A J
A Q 8 6 3 2
A 10 5 4 9 7 3
Q J 6 K 4
8 7 3 K Q 10 5 2
J 10
K J 8 6
A 9 5 2
9 6 4
West North East South
Wernle Sylvan KriftnerSundelin
Pass Pass Pass
1H 1S 2C Pass
2NT Pass 3S Pass
3NT All Pass
Contract: Three no-trumps, played by West
Lead and Play:
D7 to the Ace
SJ, taken with the Ace
C3 for Jack and Queen
C2 for the Ace, South completing his count signal.
SA
Result: 9 tricks, NS -400
TD's statement of Facts:
During the auction, North had asked about the meaning of 2NT, and East wrote
"14-16 Hcp (5+) 6+ H". North called the Director after hand, saying he had
counted West's hand to have just 2 spades, so expecting to be dropping the
Queen.
The Director:
Checked the Convention Card and found no positive proof to suggest that the
explanation had been correct. West stated that he wanted to be in game if
partner held 10 points.
The Director ruled there was misinformation, and consulted several players
who would all have played the King of Spades with the information as given
at the table.
Ruling:
Score adjusted to three no-trumps, one down
Both sides receive NS +50
Relevant Laws:
Law 40C, 75, 12C2
East/West appealed.
Present: All players
The Players:
East/West explained that East had given the correct information about the
bidding. Since East was a passed hand, West should now simply pass as he had
nothing more to add. They play 14-17 NT, so the hand was not a 1NT opener. A
2H bid would show five, or even six with 11-13, and 2NT shows 5 hearts and
14-16.
East explained he had bid according to the explanation he had given,
deciding to play game but bidding three spades in order to have partner
choose between three no-trumps and four hearts. Three hearts would have been
non-forcing.
West explained that he had bid two no-trumps because he had been tired and
was not thinking about the systemic meaning of the bid.
South stated that he too had played the opponent's system and that he
realized it was difficult for West to pass. He appreciated West's judgment
and he found it strange that under those circumstances the call of two
no-trumps still showed five cards in hearts.
North explained that the first trick, and the spade return, told him that
West had to have three diamonds. Partner's count signal in the third trick
told him declarer had three clubs, and so with 5 hearts he now counted
declarer for the bare Queen of Spades.
The Committee:
Started by stating that North might have seen from other evidence that
declarer had three spades, but then concentrated on the real problem:
Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Bid.
Some members found that East/West had fallen short of their attempts to
prove the system, but other members found the explanation to be fully
consistent and natural.
In the end, a consensus was reached. The call was to be considered a
Mistaken Bid, and so the explanation had been correct and there was to be no
score adjustment.
The Committee's decision:
Original table result restored
Deposit: Returned
Comment: The parameters in determining "mistaken bid" or "mistaken
explanation" are so subjective and clouded that everyone involved in the
decision process can have the reasoning and conclusion of their choice and
thus can have the power to rule for whom they want. This makes the justice
process rife for bias. We must change it. Bobby Wolff.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.twbbs.org)
◆ From: ms10.hinet.net