{short description of image}APPEAL no. 8

{short description of image}
Appeals Committee
Chairman {short description of image}Richard Colker USA
Members {short description of image}Becky Rogers
{short description of image}Eric Kokish
{short description of image}Patrick Choy
{short description of image}Tommy Sandsmark		 USA
CAN
SIP
NOR

Scribe {short description of image}Tommy Sandsmark NOR

{short description of image}
Event
1998 World Championships
Mixed Pairs Qualifying
   
{short description of image}
Countries
France v Germany
   
{short description of image}
Players
NS {short description of image}Carpentier {short description of image}Menessin
EW {short description of image}Maybach {short description of image}Schreckenberger
   
{short description of image}
Board
Board 10. Dealer East. Game All
ª 10 4 3
© Q 9
¨ Q 9 8 6
§ K 10 9 5
ª — {short description of image} ª K Q 8 6 5
© J 10 8 7 2 © 4
¨ A J 10 5 3 ¨ K 7 4
§ J 6 3 § Q 7 4 2
ª A J 9 7 2
© A K 6 5 3
¨ 2
§ A 8
West
North
East
South
Pass 2}¹
Pass 2{² Pass 3NT³
All Pass

¹ Semiforcing
² Relay
³ Explained from N to E: 'For play!'; from S to W: '5-5 in the majors'
   
{short description of image}
Result
3NT+1: +630
   
{short description of image}
Facts
The TD was called to the table after the play. The play went: {J to the queen, [10 to the queen and ace, ]3 to the queen, [3 to the king. Then East played a small diamond to the 10, and another small diamond came back to the king, and then a small spade from East. There was nothing on the convention card that could support South's explanation of 5-5 in the majors.
   
{short description of image}
TD's
Decision
The TD, as instructed by law 75, accepted North's explanation as the correct one and ruled that the table result would stand.

{short description of image}
Appellants
E/W
   
{short description of image}
Players'
Comments
East was told that South had a balanced, strong hand with at least two diamonds and held back the ¨K because she assumed that South held the ¨A. She maintained that if she had known that South had 5-5 in the majors and an intermediate hand, she would have gone up with the ¨K either on the first or the second round of diamonds and defeated the contract. South maintained that in France, this sequence is often played to show 5-5 in the majors. She believed that North knew this. North, who was somewhat less experienced than South, did not know.

{short description of image}
Committee's
Comments
The Committee found that the footnotes under law 75 D2 forced the TD to rule any discrepancy in statements as a misexplanation and not a misbid unless one of the statements could be proved to be true. Furthermore, the Committee believed that if South's statement were true, East would have put up the {K the first or the second time if she had known. On the other hand, if North's statement were true, West might have found a better lead (e.g. the ]J) if he had known the facts. In either case the contract was likely to have gone one down.
   
{short description of image}
Committee's
Decision
The Committee adjusted the score to 3 NT by South, 8 tricks: -100 for N/S; +100 for E/W.
   
{short description of image}
Relevant
Laws
Law 75 D2
   
{short description of image}
Deposit
Returned X
Forfeited  

{short description of image} Return to Top of page To main Championship page{short description of image}