|
Misinformation
- No Damage
| Appeals Committee: |
|
|
| |
Jens Auken |
(Chairman, Denmark) |
| |
Herman De Wael |
(Scribe, Belgium) |
| |
Peter Lund |
(Denmark) |
| |
Anton Maas |
(the Netherlands) |
Senior Teams Round 11
Italy 2 v Great Britain 2
Board 18.
Dealer East.
North/South Game.
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| Silverstone |
Longinotti |
Waterlow |
Resta |
| |
|
2 |
Pass |
| 2NT |
Pass |
3 |
Pass |
3 |
Pass |
4 |
Pass |
4 |
Pass |
6 |
All Pass |
Contract: Six Clubs, played by
East
Result: Twelve tricks, +920
to East/West
The Facts: There had been different explanations on either side
of the screen.
2 was Forcing
to Game, and 2NT showed any good six card suit headed by KQJ at least.
According to West, 3
and 4 had
been asking relays, and he had shown a spade suit by his bid of 3,
and only six spades (by his 4).
According to East, 3,
3 and 4
had been natural, and 4
was a cue-bid.
North/South claimed they could have sacrificed in Six Hearts if North
had received the explanations West had provided. North would then have
doubled 3
and South would have bid 4.
The Director: Considered that 6
would certainly have been doubled, and probably four down (-1100 to North/South),
so he ruled there had been no damage.
Ruling: Result Stands
North/South appealed.
The Players: East/West, by way of
their captain, explained the misunderstanding. West did play these meanings
with another partner, but not in this partnership.
North stated he did now not ask redress from a possible sacrifice, but
from interventions by North/South that might keep East/West out of slam.
The Committee: Found that a player
who did not intervene over 2NT, when holding a 6-5 in the red suits, and
some playing strength, would not intervene later either.
The Committee found that there was really no reason for North/South to
appeal.
The Committee's decision: Director's
decision upheld
Relevant Laws: Law
75A
Deposit: Forfeited
|
