Join Bridge Winners
Pre-alerts and suggested defense ruling

Board a match, 1st Q session, board 17

http://live.acbl.org/event/NABC163/OBAM/1/board-detail/J?board_num=17 

West
K8
93
AKJ8543
86
North
43
A108652
10
QJ107
East
Q10652
7
Q7
AK942
South
AJ97
KQJ4
962
53
W
N
E
S
2
2
4
5
P
5
P
P
P
D
5 East
NS: 0 EW: 0

No pre-alerts, no suggested defense on the table.

North open 2. Alert. "Transfer block with "

East 2

South 4

West 5

After pass from North, East, who never discussed the situation and was not sure about meaning of his and partner bid in the auction, bid 5 for the lost board.

After the lead, during long time North was thinking about play in a trick 1, East sees director walking nearby and asks him if using 2 preemptive convention required pre-alert. After director check and confirm that pre-alert and printed defense is required East asks for ruling, saying that they were missed opportunity to discuss continuation.

North-South gave following arguments:

1. East should speak out right after 2 bid, not after he saw the dummy and see they are in the bad contract. They would be giving opportunity to discuss if asked for it.

2. Seems like EW was on the same wavelength, but final bid from East was a bridge mistake, no linked to convention.

Result: 5 E down 2, other table 4 N, down 1.

 

Director decision: after unproper use of convention normal result on the board cannot be determined. Ave+/Ave-.

North- South appeal. The head director agree with them and restore the table score giving NS procedure penalty 1/4 of the board. 

One additional reasoning voiced by TD was: ACBL approved suggested defense does not have anything that could help EW in that case.

I did not participate in committee and did not see the write up, so additional arguments may exist.

What is your take?

76 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top