Please rate this ruling

[dkharty]

From the local club game:

 

Matchpoints, both vul.

 

W N E S

1C p 1S p

1N* p p 2D

p* p 2N* p

3N p p p

 

*BIT

 

Making 4, EW +630.

 

All BITs were agreed, although the lengths were not.

 

The director was called to the table after the 3NT bid was made, and again at the end of the play of the hand. He took the matter under consideration, and later ruled a split score: E/W would keep their score, N/S would get "N" (board score equal to their overall game score).

 

Please rate this ruling on a scale from 1 (worst ruling ever) to 10 (absolutely 100% correct).

 

Also if it's important, West had a 15-count with a stiff spade (I think 1=4=3=5), East had a balanced 9-count with two aces.

[duschek]

We will need to know the hands, particularly East in order to evaluate whether there was a logical alternative to 2NT, with 2NT being suggested by the BIT, in which case 2NT is illegal. So I will have to make some assumptions:

 

1) If the TD is going to let EW keep their score, the implication is that they did nothing wrong, in which case NS must also keep their score.

 

2) Otherwise, if 2NT is illegal, with pass being a logical alternative to 2NT, the score should be adjusted to 2D played by South with whatever number of tricks that is going to make (also for both sides).

 

In any case, I am not going to rate the ruling, as the important part here is to discuss what the correct ruling might be.

[RMB1]

3. (Not the worst I have ever seen, not even close.)

 

There is no legal excuse for a split ruling and no reason for an adjustment of "Not played" when they have played the board.

[bluejak]

Sorry, duschek, the question is a fair one: we know it is a terrible and illegal ruling without seeing the hands. I shall give it a 2.

 

What I like is the general approach as follows:

 

"Director, director, we have done something wrong at this table." :ph34r:

 

"Ok, well here are some extra matchpoints over the 100% as a reward." :)

[blackshoe]

"Rate this ruling" is not the same question as "what is the correct ruling". David is right, procedurally it's a terrible ruling. Not the worst one I've ever seen, but close. Two seems about right.