|
Unauthorised
Information during Play
| Appeals Committee: |
|
|
| |
Jens Auken |
(Chairman, Denmark) |
| |
Herman De Wael (joined
the Meeting after the start and acted as Scribe) |
(Scribe, Belgium) |
| |
Jean-Claude Beineix |
(France) |
| |
Peter Lund |
(Denmark) |
Open Teams Round 12
Switzerland v the Netherlands
Board 15.
Dealer South.
North/South Game.
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| Zivkovic |
de Boer |
Levy |
Muller |
| |
|
|
Pass |
| Pass |
1 |
Pass |
1 |
| Pass |
1NT |
Pass |
2 |
| Pass |
2 |
Pass |
2NT |
| Pass |
3NT |
All Pass |
|
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played
by North.
Lead: Two of spades.
Play:
| West |
North |
East |
South |
4 |
x |
2 |
Q |
2 |
9 |
x
|
Q |
3 |
J |
K |
x |
x |
x |
5 |
A |
x |
A |
x |
x |
A |
J |
x |
x |
x |
… |
|
|
Result: Eight tricks, -100 to North/South.
The Facts: Two diamonds denied three cards in hearts.
North called the Director after the end of play. East had returned the
spade to trick four after a considerable delay. North claimed West had
known from the pause not to play spades in trick seven, but rather hearts.
The Director: Established that
East had indeed taken some 20 seconds before leading to trick four, and
asked about the signalling. The 2
was fourth best, and the 4
and 3 showed
count.
The Director ruled that there had been Unauthorised Information, which
suggested the heart return, and that the spade return was a Logical Alternative.
Ruling: Score adjusted to Three
No-Trumps, making nine tricks, +600 to North/South.
East/West appealed.
The Players: West explained his
play. He knew from the bidding that North had 2 hearts, and this is why
he had returned the suit.
North/South, by way of their captain, told the Committee that in his opinion
the hesitation made it a lot easier for West to return hearts.
The Committee: First of all confirmed
that Law
16 applies to plays as well as to calls.
The Committee established that there had been Unauthorised Information,
and that the hesitation was very likely to indicate that East did not
have the king of spades, and thus suggest the heart return in trick seven.
The Committee then made an analysis of the play so far, which showed that
a spade return was still a Logical Alternative. Just exchange K
and Q for
J and K .
The bidding and play would have been the same, but the spade return would
have been right.
Since the West player was in the possession of Unauthorised Information
that suggested a heart return, he should have returned a spade in stead.
The Committee's decision: Director's
decision upheld.
Relevant Laws: Law
16A, Law
12C2
Deposit: Returned
Committee's note: The Committee
wishes to remind the players that Law
16, Unauthorised Information, also applies to plays. Players should
be prudent when hesitating during play.
Very frequently during the play, information is exchanged, quite unintentionally,
but nevertheless unauthorised. Quite often, the same information is available
from authorised sources, and the suggested action can be taken without
penalty.
In this case, no such authorised information was available to West, and
he must suffer the consequences.
It must be noted that West could have played the ace of hearts at trick
seven, on which East could have given a positive signal, thus giving the
same information in an authorised manner. In that case, a heart continuation
would have been allowed.
|