Join Bridge Winners
Board 15 - Round of 16, First Segment - USA vs Spain (director was called)

A director was called on this hand: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=46708

I was watching on vuegraph and the live feed simultaneously. I find that watching the live feed on the side maked the kibbitzing even more interesting, it is almost like being there with te added advantage of seeing all 4 hands. In Goded/Lantaron's (Spain) bidding system, South's 2S bid over the 1NT overcall conventionally is a transfer to Clubs (not a raise in Spades). Obviously the bidder forgot his system and bid a "normal" competitive 2S raise. At some point Greco (the next bidder on the same side of the screen as the 2S bidder) asked about the bid. The South (I think) alerted the bid as a transfer to Clubs (he remembered that he forgot, if you get my drift). Greco held S: void H: T943 D: A653 C: QT875. In my opinion if it was really a transfer to Clubs he must pass, if it was a raise in Spades he must bid something (what is a matter of discussion, but I would volunteer that Pass is not an option). On the other side of the screen 2S was dutifully alerted, but the alerter said it was possible that partner might have forgotten that 2S was conventional. The auction developed into a hopeless 3NT contract (down 2). A more normal contract might be 4H (hard to make), or even 5C (unlikely to make on the lie of the cards). After the hand was played, the director was called. It was clear that South did not have the cards for the conventional Club transfer and obviously forgot the convention at the time of the bid and bid the "normal" non-conventional 2S. The director's ruling was that the bids were explained properly by both sides, proper information given about the bids. USA asked the director how could it be possible for USA to bid properly on such an auction? Greco was effectively barred from bidding if the 2S hand really held clubs, and how could you recover from that in subsequent bidding? I watched all this on the live video... the director eventually recorded the events and ruled that the score stood, but he would look at it more off-line. As far as I know, the score stood (3NT down 2). Any comments from Bridge Winners readers? I think that there should be an adjusted score (4H making for a push), but that is my opinion, not a judgment from the laws of bridge. As USA said, it is unfair that opponents profit from a fortunate misbid and that it made impossible a bidding sequence to recover from the conventional information given.

PS: As a footnote, I can explain why the following board (the last board of the set) was shuffled. During the director call of this board (15) one of the players unintentionally took a hand out of the presumed board 15 to show to the director the "offending" hand of the disputed board 15. Unfortunately the hand was removed from the wrong board (16), the next hand to be played! Thus, a hand from an unplayed board was exposed to all. Since there was enough time left in the match, the director took the board to be shuffled and replayed in the other room. That is why the vuegraph could not show the shuffled board or intelligently present what happened in the play of the cards.

8 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top