The Appeal That Wasn't

by Herman De Wael

Round 4 Board 3. Dealer South. East/West Vulnerable.
	♠ Q 8 ♥ J 10 9 3 2 ♦ A 7 6 3 ♣ K Q
♠ 4 ♥ 7 4 ♦ K 9 4 2 ♣ 9 8 6 5 4 2		♠ K 10 3 2 ♥ A K Q 6 ♦ 5 ♣ A J 10 3
	♠ A J 9 7 6 5 ♥ 8 5 ♦ Q J 10 8 ♣ 7

West	North	East	South
			2♠
Pass	3♠	3NT	4♠
4NT	Dble	Pass	Pass
5♣	Dble	All Pass

4NT was explained by West to South as for the minors, while East explained it to North as being natural.

North called the Director after the play, stating that he would have passed 4NT if he had known that it had been for the minors. He wanted his +200 changed into +400 from 4NT undoubled 4 down.

The Director ruled that there was in all probability no agreement between East and West and that the explanation "natural" had therefore been the correct one.

But just suppose there is some chance that the explanation that West has given (minors) is the correct one. Is there a reason to rule that North is damaged? Personally, I don't believe there is. Because in order for North to pass out 4NT, he would not only need to know the correct meaning of the bid (in that case, minors), but he would also need to be informed that East thinks it is natural, and that East will pass it. That second bit of knowledge, North will not have, nor is he entitled to it. Over 4NT for the minors, there is every chance that North will also double, in order to tell his partner not to compete to the five-level, but rather to double for penalties whichever minor is finally chosen. Of course for that, we need to know a little bit more about North/South's methods over two-suiters, but it is quite possible for the ruling to be "you would also double with the alternative explanation".