| Board 13 Vul: Both Dealer: N West (Cheri Bjerkan) |
North (Michael Rosenberg) |
East (Larry Robbins) |
 J 10 8 2 Q 9 4 2 A K 8 7 6 |
A 9 10 7 A K Q 5 Q J 10 9 2 |
|
| South (Zia Mahmood) K Q 7 6 5 A K 9 8 5 2 J 10 |
Bidding
N E S W
P 1NT 2
* 3NT
P P 4 DBL
4
P P DBL**
P 5 DBL P
P P
* Majors
**Break in Tempo
Table Result: 5X making 5
Director's Ruling: NS play 4x making 4
Directors: Matt Smith & McKenzie Myers
Directors' Statement:
The directors gave the hand to many players. Some woud never defend 4 and in fact would have acted directly over 4, because they believed that the DBL of 4 showed clubs. Other players thought that the DBL of 4 showed a willingness to defend. Those players thought that it would be normal to Pass 4 and 4x. Those players also thought that the slow DBL of 4 suggested pulling. The directors decided that since in this partnership the DBL of 4 was undiscussed, the slow DBL of 4 made it easier to conclude that this sequence showed clubs and to pull the DBL of 4. A player with the other type of hand (defensively oriented), would have DBLd 4 in tempo. The players and directors all concluded that it was clear that the break in tempo was by West, not East.
The Hearing
Bjerkan indicated she intended the double of 4 to mean clubs. Pass then double of 4 would be to play. The partnership had no Lebensohl agreement re stopper-showing calls over 2. the partnership had no detailed agreements about ‘double then double’ or ‘pass then double’ in similar auctions.
Robbins indicated the partnership was occasional rather than regular with some detailed system notes, but that they had only played a few regionals together recently. They played GNT.
Rosenberg indicated that a partnership who didn’t have detailed methods should not have ascribed to them agreements in complex auctions re the x of 4. A fast or in-tempo double of 4 would always not be pulled.
Appeals Committee Ruling
The committee discussed whether the x of 4 should or could be interpreted as clubs by an unpracticed partnership. Everyone agreed that the slow double made the removal to 5 more attractive. The only question was whether there was a logical alternative to bidding 5. If the double of 4 showed clubs then it was agreed the removal (immediately or later) was clear enough that the slow double should not inhibit it. But the committee was not willing to allow an unpracticed partnership to be assumed to have that agreement. An alternative treatment – that the double of 4 simply indicated the desire to defend at least one of the majors was equally common and equally plausible.
The question of whether North’s 4 call instead of a 4
"punt" implied that N/S had found a real fit was also raised and dismissed.
After consideration of whether it could ever be right for East to pass and wait for partner to bid 4NT (they would never do this and it could almost never be critical to play that contract as opposed to 5) the committee unanimously upheld the director ruling and left the score at 4 x made ten tricks.
Appeals Committee
Barry Rigal, Chairman
Larry Cohen, Member
Peg Kaplan, Member
Venkatrao Koneru, Member
Kerri Sanborn, Member