Board 9
EW Vul
Dealer North
WEST |
NORTH
 KQ
 AKQ95
 Q
 KT983 |
EAST |
AT8653
-
K9875
J4 |
SOUTH |
J974
JT62
J2
Q76 |
|
2
8743
AT653
A52 |
| West | North | East | South |
| 1H | P | 2H |
| 4S | P* | P | 5H |
| P | P | X | |
| |
| * Agreed hesitation |
Play:
Spade lead to Ace. Club switch.
Result:
5HX NS: +650.
Tournament
Director Statement of Facts and Ruling : I was called
to the table at the end of the play. There is no dispute of the
facts that North hesitated before passing the 4S bid by West.
Law 16 - unauthorised information. For a player to base a call on
information received following a hesitation may be an infraction.
Accordingly the partner may not choose from among logical
alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over
another by receipt of this information. I did not believe that the
bid of 5H was suggested by the hesitation but rather the bid
resulted from the re-evaluation of the hand which there had been an
initial "mis-bid" where the player has "mis-sorted" the cards.
Accordingly I therefore allowed the table result to stand as there
had been no infraction.
Reasons
for Appeal:
We feel that North's break in tempo influenced South's 5H
bid.
Opponents Submission:
South had mis-sorted her hand as
a 2-4-5-2. With a 1-4-5-3, the system bid is 4H over 1H. Over 4S, South's
5H was a catch-up bid. The break of tempo is agreed, but probably
no more than one would expect over the 4S bid.
Decision
of the Appeals Committee: The committee disallowed the
'mis-sorting' explanation of the respondents - without doubting its
veracity, it was considered to be 'convenient' and
self-serving.
Bridge law states that after a break in tempo, South
may not choose from alternatives one that may have been
suggested by that break in tempo The 5H bid satisfies this criteria
and is cancelled. However, holding two aces opposite an opening bid,
pass would not be reasonable. 4SX has been assumed - normal play
resulting in two
down.
Correction of Score: NS +500; EW -500
| 
|