Join Bridge Winners
UI Rule Intepretation Question

West
AK62
AK1094
A542
North
Q973
J6532
J3
76
East
J1085
AKQ984
8
109
South
4
107
Q7652
KQJ83
W
N
E
S
P
1
2NT
X
P
3
P
3NT
P
4
P
6
P
P
P
D
6 East
NS: 0 EW: 0

This hand came up in the IMP Pairs final session.  All parties agreed that there was a break in tempo by west before bidding 3NT.  The director was called after the auction, and then again after the play of the hand.

Here are the facts determined by the director:

East and west were unsure of their agreement on the meaning of the double.  West stated that she intended it as penalty.  Away from the table, East told the director that he thought she might have spades because of the double.

The director ruled that there was unauthorized information.  The director polled 9 players, and all of them passed 3NT.  However, both the director and the DIC stated that because no one stated that the 4S bid was demonstrably suggested by the BIT, there could be no adjustment.  The polled players gave a variety of possible explanations as to what partner might be doing with the 3NT bid, but none thought 4S was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.  My partner and I find this absurd, as it seems clear from the poll that pass is a logical alternative, and the BIT demonstrably suggested SOME action, even if not the specific action taken.  An appeal is pending.

We would like to hear the BW community's thoughts on how this rule is supposed to be interpreted.

108 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top