 Tuesday morning, October 9, board 7, NS1 v. EW16 |
|
|
At the table, EW scored 170 for 3♥W+1. There was an acknowledged break in tempo (BIT) before East’s second-round pass.
The director polled several players of comparable skill to West on what they would call with West’s hand when the actual West bid 3♥. The director then ruled that Pass was a “logical alternative” to 3♥, that the BIT “demonstrably suggested” bidding rather than passing, and therefore that West was required to pass. (laws 16B and 73C)
The director adjusted NS’s score to –100 for 2♠S–1 (“the most favorable result that was likely”) and adjusted EW’s score to –110 for 2♠S= (“the most unfavorable result that was at all probable”). (law 12C1e)
|
|
| Last updated : Oct 11, 2012 17:05 EDT |
|
|
|
| Tuesday morning, October 9, board 19, NS17 v. EW14 |
|
|
East alerted West’s 2NT bid and explained it as a transfer to diamonds. At the table, East made 3NT for 600.
The director ruled that the EW agreement was in fact four-way transfers and systems on. West had made a “mistaken call.” East had not given a “mistaken explanation.” NS were correctly informed about the EW agreement. (laws 21 and 75)
When West bid 3NT, he did have unauthorized information from his partner’s “unexpected” alert and explanation, but he did not, in the director’s judgment, have a logical alternative, so the director allowed the table result to stand. (laws 16B and 73C)
|
|
| Last updated : Oct 11, 2012 17:04 EDT |
|
|
|