Join Bridge Winners
Help needed with a player upset with a director's ruling

East faced a balancing decision on the auction below:

West
109542
82
K1093
105
North
KQJ7
A
QJ86
AJ94
East
A83
KQJ765
754
Q
South
6
10943
A2
K87632
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
1
3
P
P
?
D

East asked about the jump raise to 3.  North said the jump was weak.  East balanced, and North-South reached 5.  When dummy tabled, East called the director.  The director asked about the auction and the explanation.  The director told the table to play the hand and call him back if there was a problem.  After declarer scored 11 tricks, the director was called back to the table.  The director ruled the result should be changed to 3 making 5.  North has experience with South making weak bids with constructive or better values.  North-South had previously been advised to disclose their wide ranging preemptive style when asked.  The director reminded North that full disclosure required North to tell the opponents about their tendency to make weak bids with stronger than expected hands.  Withholding information about their preemptive style didn't allow East to properly evaluate the potential North-South had missed a game.  

South later appealed the ruling.  South argued their 7 HCP hand was weak.  Their style is based on the law of total tricks.  With a 9-card or better fit, South wanted to obstruct with a jump raise to 3.  The director reminded South of their partnership's tendency to make bids advertised as weak when holding constructive or better values.  The director stated that full disclosure required mentioning the partnership's implicit agreements.  The appeals committee asked what a 2 bid would have shown and whether 3 was weaker than 2.  South answered that 2 could also be weak, but with less clubs.  The opponents didn't know North-South did not have a way to show a constructive raise, and didn't ask about constructive raises.  The appeals committee voted to let the director's ruling stand.  South feels strongly that describing their jump raises as weak is an adequate explanation for their opponents even though there is a history of weak raises with hands which many players would consider to be constructive or better.  

Please share your opinion of the ruling in the poll below.  Comments with your advice are greatly appreciated.  

I agree with the director's ruling
I disagree with the director's ruling

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
loading...
1115 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top