Join Bridge Winners
Should a Committee, Overturn or Uphold This Ruling? (And how would you, as a director, have ruled?)

Would you overturn or uphold this club director's ruling on Board 15 of the Common Game, 7-13-17, afternoon?:

West
A8654
Q85
6
J752
North
K9
J103
AQ753
AK9
East
QJ1072
AK942
108
6
South
3
76
KJ942
Q10843
W
N
E
S
P
P
1
X
1
1
2
2
P
P
P
D
2 West
NS: 0 EW: 0

E-W are strong flight A players. For what it is worth, East is a sectional director. And N-S are a winning flight B pair having 1,000-3,000 average master points average per partnership.

North's 1C is alerted as strong, artificial and forcing.

East's X is alerted and incorrectly explained by West as showing either the red suits or the black suits.

South's 1D is alerted. And when asked later, South says his 1D bid is artificial, showing 5-8 hcpts.

East's 2H bid is alerted and explained as confirming the red suits.

After the final pass, and before the lead, East makes the opponents aware that his partner has misinformed them about the meaning of his bids, and the club director is called.

East repeats what his partner said about each bid and says both explanations are wrong. His bid does not show two suits of the same color.

While the director is reviewing the auction, South states that, had he been aware that East did not have the red suits, he would have raised diamonds. And he asks if the director if it is possible to back the bidding up so he can bid 3D. (East later says South asked about bidding clubs, but the director disagrees.)

East speaks up to say South is giving UI to North and that North may not take advantage of the fact that South would have raised his suit. (The director is obviously not in control of this situation, as two players have already spoken when they should not have.)

The director offers North a chance to change his call, but North passes. The director then advises N-S to call him back if they believe they are damaged by the misinformation.

The hand runs well into the next round. South calls the director back, claiming he would have bid 3D, had he known East did not have the red suits. 

During the next round, the director advises both sides that he is adjusting the score based on damage that he believes was incurred by N-S.

East contends that South knows by his partner's 2D bid and by looking at his hand that East cannot possibly hold both red suits, and, therefore, the score should stand.

E-W are informed that they will get a chance, after the last round, to convince the director that the actual score of +140 should stand. They decline the opportunity.

In a later discussion, East says the club director ruled incorrectly. 

His main point is that if South had bid 3D, he, East, would surely have bid 3S at his next turn. He does not believe N-S would have gone to 4D. (The director did not ask North or South if they would have bid again, had the opponents competed further, but he stated that he believed they would.) The director did mention to East that he believed that only by using UI  could he bid 3S. East replied that his immediate raise was lead directing and that he would now show his second suit. He does not believe there is UI since he would bid that way behind screens.)

East additionally, does not believe the director should have made the players aware of the ruling during the next round, especially if a protest could lead to a revised ruling. (This game does not actually use committees of players, but the director does consult with several other directors when/f a ruling is questioned.)

To further support his case, East stated that he had never heard of a tournament director assigning a score that had not been achieved at any other table.

1. If you are a director, what ruling would you have made? And which of East's points do you agree or disagree with?

2. If a committee is called at the time, and you are willing to serve, do you overturn or uphold the director's ruling and on what basis?

85 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top