|
Appeals
Appeal
No 32.
Hesitation
| Appeals Committee: |
|
|
| |
Jens Auken |
(Chairman, Denmark) |
| |
Herman De Wael |
(Scribe, Belgium) |
| |
Grattan Endicott |
(Great Britain) |
| |
Peter Lund |
(Denmark) |
| |
Anton Maas |
(the Netherlands) |
Open Teams Round 30
Poland v Italy
Board 2.
Dealer East.
North/South Game.
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| Duboin |
Tuszynski |
Bocchi |
Jassem |
| |
|
2 |
Pass |
2 |
Pass |
Pass |
3 |
| Pass |
Pass |
Dble |
Redble |
3 |
Dble |
Pass |
4 |
| All Pass |
|
|
|
Contract: Four Clubs, played by
South.
Result:
Seven tricks, -300 to North/South
The Facts: Two clubs showed 3-10 points, at least 4-4 in the Majors.
East's Double over 3
was for take-out, showing a maximum opening. North's Double was after
a hesitation of more than one minute. West called the Director immediately
after the call of Four Clubs.
The Director: Changed the result
Ruling: Score adjusted to Three
Spades doubled, made, +530 to East/West.
North/South appealed.
The Players: North admitted his
pause for thought.
East/West told it was 5 minutes long.
North had never seen this auction. First an intervention of 3 ,
and then a Redouble. It must mean a good suit, and something more. He
was trying to work out how South would interpret his Double and finally
came to the conclusion that he could indeed Double, knowing that South
would understand it as asking for a spade stopper in order to play 3NT.
South explained that his Redouble would normally show some offensive values.
West pointed out that it was clear that North/South had not discussed
this sequence, but that by thinking for 5 minutes North transferred the
meaning that the Double was not for penalties.
The Committee: Considered the hesitation
to be proven.
The Committee concluded that the answers to three questions were all that
was needed, and that these were surprisingly easy:
1) was there unauthorised information?
Yes
2) did the unauthorised information suggest bidding? Yes
3) is Pass a logical alternative? Yes
The decision was then so straightforward
that the Committee was close to keeping the money.
The Committee's decision: Director's
decision upheld.
Relevant Laws: Law
16A, Law
12C2
Deposit: Returned, but only just.
|