Join Bridge Winners
Denver Case N9 - Make up your minds!

I read case N9 from the recent Denver 2015 casebook with interest.  In that case, the director and the committee ruled that a BIT suggested that some action other than pass was a logical alternative, and therefore adjusted the ruling to pass, for down two undoubled instead of down two doubled at the table.

This gave me PTSD flashbacks to this hand from this year's Silidor: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/ui-rule-intepretation-question/.

In that hand, I was told, vehemently, by a very arrogant and condescending director, that the rule means that the SPECIFIC action that was taken must have been suggested by the BIT.  Even though 100% of polled players would have passed, because there was no consensus on what the BIT suggested they do other than pass, the director ruled that the result stood.  We appealed, and lost in what was described to us as a very close decision.  So, now I read the case from Denver, and I am at a loss to understand the rule.

If I'm missing something, and there is a meaningful difference in these fact patterns that accounts for the different outcomes, please let me know.  I'm angry, so I'll admit I could be missing it.

12 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top