Appeal 1

[MFA]

What do you do here?

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj5h54dkt53c98753&s=sakt862hjt7djckj6]133|200|Scoring: IMP

Pass-1♣-1♠-X

pass-2♥-2♠-X

all pass[/hv]

 

The first double was high-low: normal negative or just about any GF (new suits NF).

The second double was for blood.

 

♥2 (4th) to east's king. ♣A (small-small-small), ♣T.

 

E-W are reasonable players, but they had been overmatched in this tournament, and now it was the last match of a long 2-day team qualification (13*10 boards).

 

What do you do?

 

---------------------------

 

---------------------------

 

As is was, it was established that E-W didn't really have an agreement about the second double. West thought that it was just extras and east guessed it was for penalties and explained "for blood".

 

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sj5h54dkt53c98753&w=s97hq863daq864cq2&e=sq43hak92d972cat4&s=sakt862hjt7djckj6]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

South thought that west must have the spades, and therefore east would have to have 4 clubs (likely 1-4-4-4, signalling for a heart back). So declarer finessed clubs and went down.

 

Should the score stand or be corrected?

[TylerE]

What exactly is the NS complaint? That EW didn't face their hands?

[peachy]

There was MI given to NS when East explained West's second double as penalty (blood) when in fact it became established that EW did not have an agreement what the second double means. One must not go guessing unless there is prior experience with this partner that supports such a guess.

 

If there was damage to NS from this MI, then TD needs to redress the damage by adjusting the score. So the only question is: Was there damage from the MI?

[campboy]

The explanation South got does make playing the ♣J more likely to work, but I would probably have played the same way even if told "no agreement". So I don't think there was damage.

[MFA]

The explanation South got does make playing the ♣J more likely to work, but I would probably have played the same way even if told "no agreement". So I don't think there was damage.

A strong argument for thinking clubs might not be 1-4 is the lack of a club lead.

[bid_em_up]

Additionally, it's practically impossible for East to hold a stiff spade. If he did, he should have led it at trick two, and not the A♣.

[Codo]

I really do not get the last coments.

 

E/W are the offending side.

 

So we need strong effidence that South did not protect himself or tried a double shot before we can refuse him a correction.

 

That someone with a stiff trump does not lead one is no strong evidenceat all. Why shouldn`t East try to give West some ruffs?

And people with 4 trumps do not always lead a singelton. This surely is a sign, but is this enough to condem South?

 

We are all sure that there was MI.

We are sure that it was more likely to play the king with the correct information, but by no way this play was a lock, aren`t we?

 

Playing against a french opponent it had been close to impossible that East is 1444. He had opened 1 Diamond. But in Scandinavia this is no lock, so maybe South should have asked what East had opened with a 1444.

 

Are all these signs enough to "know" that the explanation is wrong?

 

I hope not. I think that we should give all credits to the non offending side, not vice versa.

[WesleyC]

First a disclaimer: I'm not and never will be a director :P I'll offer my 2 cents anyways.

 

With the 'Penalty Double' explanation the Jc play seems clear. If declarer had played the Kc, found West with Q9xx Qxxx AQxx x and gone for -300 he would certainly be stuck with that score.

 

However if the double was explained as 'No Agreement' declarer HAS got a reasonable chance to find the winning line. East is marked with a balanced hand including the AKh, Ac and exactly 3 clubs and he'll often have the Qs.

 

Therefore the incorrect explanation removed declarer's chance to make the contract and they deserve adjustment.