|
Hand played on |
a long time ago, Eastbourne Congress, Championship Pairs |
|
Board number |
|
|
Dealer |
|
|
Vulnerability |
|
|
Submitted by |
Mike Graham |
|
|
North
|
|
|
|
|||
|
West
|
The hands were not recorded |
East
|
|
North |
Bidding:
East |
South |
West |
|
|
South 21 point balanced hand without a 5-card major |
|
|
3♣
|
No
|
2NT 3♦ |
No End |
Mike writes:
On the subject of Appeals Committees...
Many years ago (mid-80's) I was playing with my brother at the Eastbourne Congress. On one hand in the pairs I picked up a flat 21-count; I opened 2NT. To my surprise, Andy alerted. My LHO enquired; Andy told her it showed 9-13 HCP and 5/5 or better in the minors. This could be fun, I thought. Andy bid 3♣, which I alerted; on enquiry from RHO I explained that this asked for 5-card majors which we played then. I duly bid 3♦, denying a 5-card major, and this was passed out. Both opponents looked at me as if I'd gone completely off my trolley.
As it happened, I got out for one down against a soft defence, for a 90% score. The director was summoned, listened to the facts, and ruled that the score stood. Opposition said (quite vehemently) that they wanted to appeal - the woman on my left said "they've forgotten their system, we should get a top" and generally carried on. The director said that they were entitled to appeal, but advised against it, saying that we had behaved impeccably (would that that were always so...). The rest of the round was rather unpleasant.
Anyway, the case went to appeal. The ruling was that the score stood, and the Appeals Committee also re-iterated that our explanations had been immaculate; the appeal was deemed to be without merit and the deposit was forfeited. Some years later Max Bavin told me that they still used that hand on EBU tournament director courses.
The key point about situations like this one - where the two players have a different interpretation of a particular bid - is that both players must avoid making use of the 'Unauthorised Information' gained through partner's explanations. On this hand Mike was playing a traditional 2NT opening and on that system 3♣ from partner enquired about 5-card majors. Mike must ignore the fact that he knows that partner has a different view of his hand, and so he bid 3♦ to deny holding a five card major. Had he made any other bid he would have been open to the charge that he had made use of the Unauthorised Information gained from the explanation that partner gave.
From Andy's point of view his 3♣ was simply to play opposite a 9-13 minor two-suiter. Mike's 3♦ follow-up was systematically impossible, so Andy is free to pass, as he now knows, from the auction, as distinct from any explanations or 'grimaces' from partner, that a wheel has come off.
It is the rub of the green that 3♦ passed out gave Mike and Andy a good score; Andy's hand was very weak and so other pairs fared even worse on the board.
The basis of any appeal needs to be more compelling than "We got a bad score".