Appeal No. 18
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 - second session
Board 27. Dealer South. Nobody Vulnerable.
A 6
A K 5
A K J 10 6 5 3
6
10 8 5 4 Q
10 6 4 Q J 8 3
2 Q 9 8 7
A K 9 7 3 Q 8 4 2
K J 9 7 3 2
9 7 2
4
J 10 5
West North East South
Wernle Sylvan KriftnerSundelin
2D (1)
Pass 3D (2) Pass 3S (3)
Pass 4C Pass 5C
Pass 5D All Pass
Comments:
(1) Multi
(2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds
(3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support
Contract: Five diamonds, played by South
Lead: King of Clubs
Result: 11 tricks, NS +400
TD's statement of Facts:
The Director was called after the board had been played and scored, when
West complained that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness.
The Director:
The director, who was sitting at the table to check on the time problems,
found that West should have called as soon as the dummy became visible, and
concluded that there was no damage.
Ruling:
Result Stands
Relevant Laws:
Law 40C
East/West appealed.
Present: All players
The Players:
North/South explained their system. After the forcing three diamond response
to the Multi, three spades showed spades without diamond support, whereas
four diamonds would show spades with diamond support. There were a few
sequences after which four clubs would be ace asking, and North had
mistakenly thought this was one of them. When he heard the response of five
clubs, North did realize his mistake, but found no occasion to give any
explanations about this, as the bidding was by now over.
South had explained the bid of four clubs as natural, and his reply of five
clubs as support.
West's reasoning about the club lead being obvious, he concentrated on
explaining how he would have found the spade lead with a more correct
explanation. If four clubs is conventional, either cue or ace asking, North
may show a secondary spade fit, and few club losers. That means that partner
must be short in spades, and that the Ace of Clubs is needed as an entry for
the spade ruff (if East has the right diamond holding).
West stated that South had apologized about forgetting it was ace asking.
South objected to that, stating he had said that partner had thought it was
ace asking.
West also pointed out that South had not alerted three spades. South agreed
that he hadn't, because he thought this was not necessary. He now understood
that since it denied diamonds, it should have been alerted, and he
apologized for the failure to alert.
The Committee:
Checked the system notes. These clearly indicate the responses of three/four
diamonds and four clubs over the forcing three of a minor as indicating
minor support and showing the correspondent major. They also explain that
three of a major denies the minor support. They indicate the use of Redwood
or Blackwood in many situations. The bid of four clubs, or any other third
round bid, is not discussed.
The Committee then had to decide whether or not four clubs was conventional
in the system of North/South, taking under consideration their duty under
Law 75 to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid in the
absence of evidence to the contrary.
By a majority decision, 3-2, the Committee decided that the evidence that
was presented was sufficient to conclude Mistaken Bid.
The Committee then applied the Law, which is very clear on this point. Since
there is no misinformation, there is no basis to adjust the score.
The Committee's decision:
Original table result retained
Deposit: Returned
Minority Opinion: a minority within the Committee, Bobby Wolff and Nissan
Rand, wished to make it clear that since the bid was not in the system
notes, it should be termed a Mistaken Explanation. In that case, they felt
an adjustment of some percentage of a spade lead and subsequent defeat of
the contract would have been their preferred ruling.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.twbbs.org)
◆ From: ms10.hinet.net