Join Bridge Winners
Both teams win a Swiss match?

I got this ruling this weekend.  My hand was:

South
10953
KQJ8
104
985
W
N
E
S
1NT
2
2
?

2 was DONT, clubs and another.  Both opposing CC's were in plain sight on my side of the table, my RHO's announced that system was on over X and 2, LHO's simply said "any."  I didn't have to even touch either card to read them.

So I doubled to allow partner to compete to 3 if that was his other suit.  This ended the auction; partner asked about the 2 bid at his turn and got inconclusive answers, so he also ended up looking at both cards.

I led the 9, and dummy tabled:

West
AK76
1093
Q75
AQ4
South
10953
KQJ8
104
985
W
N
E
S
1NT
2
2
X
P
P
P
?

I called the director when dummy hit, and his ruling was, of course, "play on, and call me back if you feel you were damaged."  He did examine both opposing cc's and claimed to have been unable to read the "any" on LHO's card.

Since declarer had xxx 7xxxx AKx Jx, the hand was cold.  He ducked the opening lead, won the diamond shift in hand, and played a trump.

Of course we called the director back.  The directing staff had been discussing the ramifications, and we were advised to score the match.  One of the directors came over to see our comparison, the result of the other 5 boards was a net of 11 IMP to us, so we lost by 2. This director examined my teammates' result on this board, saw that it was -100, and decided that the equitable ruling was to give us the average IMP score of -110 vs. -100 (-5) and -670 vs. -100 (-13), conveniently giving us a score of -9 on the board and a win by 2 IMP.  

But the opponents' score was not changed, so both sides won the match by 2 IMPs.  There are a lot of open issues.

1.  Why did I not place any significance on LHO's failure to announce the transfer?  I know that LHO was rather inexperienced, and believed that they might not know that "system on" carried with it the responsibility to announce the transfer.  The floor director also knew LHO.

2.  Why were the opponents not assessed a procedural penalty for non-identical CC's?  Beats me.

3.  How should one handle the sensible agreement that system after 1NT is on only after some 2 overcalls?  Obviously, if 2 is Landy, "system on" is pointless.  And "system on" may be better served in the cases of DONT/Meckwell and natural by treating the double as negative rather than Stayman.  The space available to describe your "system on" situations is woefully inadequate for anything like this.

4.  Should we have appealed?  This was the 2nd round of a Swiss, and I didn't want to create a lot of extraneous issues for my teammates.  It's obvious, if the opponents had told me that system was not on in this case, that I had nothing resembling a penalty double of 2.  Of course they were both too inexperienced to have this level of detail in their understandings.

5.  Should LHO have been required to accept the "transfer" and struggle in 2?  It's not really much of a struggle, a  ruff in dummy is the 8th trick, and the fact that I can ruff the 3rd is just trading trick for trick.

6.  Was this a case where a split ruling was feasible?  I thought they only applied when the result of the assigned contract afte the ruling was in doubt.  Or was I adjudged to be partially at fault for failing to assign sufficient importance to the lack of an announcement of the "transfer?"

Lots of interesting stuff for those of us in ACBL land. 

40 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top