Dealer E
NS Vul

75 T4
QJ854 AKT963
AT74 K82
32 97

West North East South
2H   X
3H(1)  3S     4H   4S

(1): 3H was explained as 11+ HCP with support

South asked East a what 3H was and received the explanation above. The director was called to the table as soon as dummy was on the table. The players were advised to play on.

5H went down 2. South called the director and argued that she would have doubled if not for the given explanation of the 3H bid. The director ruled that no damage was done and hence, no adjustment.  He also informed NS of their right of appeal.

NS were considering appealing, but they had an argument as well. South argued that if North had bid 4S, she would have doubled 5H.  Even with the bidding, South’s line of argument was that “the double had already showed the hand” and North had the onus to double. Is this correct? I disagree on the following points:

1) This was MPs, so South should have doubled anyway if she thought 5H was going down. (And she should have done so in my opinion)

2) The double did NOT show the hand. South could easily have a rotten 12 count.

Perhaps a different TD would have allowed an adjustment (but difficult for a full adjustment to 5HX-2 I think), but I think NS would have stood a stronger case if North had bid 4S instead of 3S. Now South would be able to gauge more accurately that West did not have what he promised and doubled instead. Even if West had the correct points, South would be able to gauge that North had a unbalanced weak hand and  double 4S as well.

Any ideas on how to prove any damage if present?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: