Join Bridge Winners
Ruling fron Eastbourne

Before I give this hand, please let me declare that I am somewhat biased, the aggrieved are my wife and daughter (has been playing for 3years inbetween studying full time for a degree and tutoring maths).  This was Board 13 from the third session of the Harold Poster Pairs, a main event at the Not Brighton (Eastbourne) Congress.  I would be most appreciative of your views.  My daughter's hand was a nondescript, JX, XX, AXXX, J987X. and she was East.  The bidding went, N: E: S:W  - All Vul.

                    1C P 1D P

                    1NT P P 2C

                    2D 3C P P 



The hand was played out with nobody asking any questions and went one down.  The North player, best described as, "mercurial", and playing with a sponsor (he won one of your major tournaments this year), complained that if 2C had been alerted (partner had majors), he would have found the defence to get it two down.  My daughter stated that she thought that it was natural and my wife, who plays it as majors with me, said that she had not agreed this with my daughter, she just assumed that it showed majors.  My daughter obviously thought that it showed clubs because she supported them.  The ruling was that my daughter should have said that there was no agreement - not what she thought at the time, and that if the oppo had known this, then the defenders would have found the defence for two down, yeah, of course they would!  This cost 3VPs.  Without discussing, and it was not, how my wife should interpret 3C, given that she thought that she had showed the majors, what do you think of the ruling?

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top