Appeal No. 3 - Ireland v Germany

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Grattan Endicott (England), PO Sundelin (Sweden)

Open Teams Round 13

Board 11. Dealer South. None Vulnerable.
	♠ J 7 4 ♥ 5 ♦ 10 5 4 ♣ A K Q 7 6 5
♠ 10 9 5 2 ♥ 7 4 2 ♦ K Q 7 3 2 ♣ 10		♠ A K Q ♥ A Q J 9 ♦ A 9 6 ♣ 9 3 2
	♠ 8 6 3 ♥ K 10 8 6 3 ♦ J 8 ♣ J 8 4

West	North	East	South
Fritsche	Hanlon	Marsal	McGann
			Pass
Pass	1NT	Dble	Redble
2♣	All Pass

Comments: 1NT 14-15, Dble 15+

Contract: Two Clubs, played by West

Result: 6 tricks, NS +100

The Facts: As a reply to the question about the meaning of the redouble, South had written "transfer to 2 clubs, usually a 1 suited hand". North had explained it as "any single suited hand".

West thought South had shown clubs and intended his 2♣ as conventional. He had written "not discussed, not natural". When South saw this, he wrote as an extra explanation "I may or may not have clubs", but by this time the tray had been to the other side of the screen and had returned with 2 passes, and West had to play 2♣.

The Director: Asked a number of players, who stated that they would understand South's message as showing any one-suited hand, not specifically clubs. The specific mention of the 2 in "transfer to 2♣" should mean that only the bid, not the suit, was indicated. Since this meant there was no misinformation, there could be no adjusted score.

Ruling: Result Stands

Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C

East/West appealed.

Present: All players and the Captain of North/South

The Players: West explained that the correct term for what South meant was "puppet", not "transfer", which means that the one who transfers has the suit he is transferring to.

Especially with players whose first language was English, he felt no need to doubt this, and the "2" had not made him suspicious of anything else. Even when South added that he "may or may not have clubs", he was not suspicious, since it is well known that one transfers to the club suit, intending to start an escape sequence if doubled. Anyway, when that information came, it was already too late.

South explained that he believed this was a common convention, and he thought he had explained correctly. When West bid and alerted 2♣, he had asked what it meant, and he had asked West to write the reply a second time because the first was not very well readable (this paper was presented at the hearing, it contained the words "not discussed, not natural" twice). After this, he had explained, again written, "I may or may not have clubs". South could not remember exactly when in the course of all this the tray had passed over and back.

The Committee asked the Director if West could have taken his bid back, and the Director explained that as long as East had not called, he might have let West (and North) change their bids, but by the time the tray returned with 2 passes, it would have been too late to alter anything.

West was asked why he had only called the Director after the hand and not when dummy came down, and West replied that at that time he still did not know where a wheel had come off; only after the play did he ask his partner what the explanation had been and at that time everything had been clear to him.

South told the Committee, and his opponent, that he had not meant to cause the misunderstanding, and that he was sorry that he had.

North explained that his opening bid had been a tactical one. He had explained the redouble to East as "any 5+ suit", and the tray had stayed at his side for a while, East doing some thinking.

When asked whether he ever used the word puppet in this situation, South replied that it was not in his vocabulary, "puppet" only being used to describe the well-known type of Puppet Stayman over NT.

The Committee: Arrived at four conclusions:

1) South had not explained well enough that he could have had any one-suiter (the "Guide to Completion of the WBF Convention Card" consistently uses the word "transfer" when the suit is real and "puppet" when only the bid is intended). In contrast, North's explanation is a correct one.

2) West could perhaps have done more to protect himself, but he should be able to rely on native English speakers using the bridge expressions in their correct meaning.

3) After having seen that West was confused, South should have realised he might have been misunderstood. South should not have pushed the tray through, he could have kept it on his side until after giving his second explanation.

4) East did not make any effort to get to game. After all, 2♣ was a free bid.

In order to do justice, the Committee decided to award East/West a reasonable partscore.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 3♦ by East/West, making 10 tricks, NS -130.

Deposit: Returned