Search MSO Worldwide

Appeal No 3

Misinformation

Event: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, second qualifying session

Board 2
Dealer: East
Vulnerability: N/S

			2
			K J 10 8 6 5 3
			J 3
			A 10 4
	Q 10 7	N W E S			K 9 5 3
	A 7				9 2
	A Q 9 2				10 8 7 6 5
	Q J 6 2				K 7
			A J 8 6 4
			Q 4
			K 4
			9 8 5 3

West		North	East	South
L Borak		Rajadhyaksha	E Borak	Landen
			Pass	Pass
1NT		2 (1)	Dbl (2)	Rdbl (3)
Pass		2	Pass	Pass
3		3	Pass	4
All Pass
(1)	Alerted; single-suited hand
(2)	Not Alerted; intended as Stayman
(3)	Alerted; bid your suit

The Facts: 4 went down two, plus 200 for E/W. The opening lead was the K. After the hand was complete, the Director was called because the double of 2 had not been Alerted. East had meant his double as Stayman. West took the double to mean clubs. The Director determined through extensive questioning that even though E/W had been playing together for 20 years, they had not discussed this auction and, therefore, had no agreement. The Director allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. They each had played their partner to have club shortage because of the opponents' bidding and otherwise would not have bid 4.

The Committee's decision: The Committee accepted the Director's representation that E/W did not have an agreement. The table result of 4 down two, plus 200 for E/W, was allowed to stand.

The Committee also discovered that this appeal had not been screened. The Committee had every reason to believe that if management had provided proper screening and explained the appropriate laws to the appellants, this appeal would have been withdrawn. For these reasons, the Committee did not assess an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point.