Finally, but not conclusively

Brighton - Day 10

The final day of the Brighton Congress feature the Four Stars teams finals and the conclusion of the rest of the Swiss Teams. In the finals we had lots to do, including several rulings; two rulings threw up questions after they had been given, so as to introduce doubt and uncertainty.

Board 4	9 2
Dealer W	A K 8 5 2
Both Vul	8 6 5
	10 7 3
K 10 6 4		A J 8 7
Q J 3		10 9
A K 4		Q 2
A Q 6		J 9 8 5 4
	Q 5 3
	7 6 4
	J 10 9 7 3
	K 2

East played in 4♠ and lost tricks to ♠Q and ♣K, to reach this position with South on lead.

	--
	A K 8 2
	--
	7
4		J
Q J 3		10
--		--
Q		9 8 5
	--
	7 6 4
	9 7
	--

South lead a small heart, suggesting an honour but South thought he could afford to show length here; dummy played low and North had a good think before winning with ♥K. South then said "I shouldn't have put you through that" (meaning North) and then said "Sorry, I shouldn't have said that".

North is now end-played into establishing the hearts or the clubs. North returned a small heart and East (thinking South had ♥A) said he was one off. "What are you going to do?" asked South, trying to give declarer a chance to recover, but East said he would ruff the heart.

We ruled that the remark was misleading and had misled and that, without the remark, South might realise there was still a chance and discard on the heart, winning in dummy. But we ruled that conceding a trick by ruffing the heart was a serious error (within the terms of Law 12C1b). The result without the serious error would be better than the adjustment (case C ≥ B ≥ A), so the application of Law 12C1b/12C1c resulted in NS assigned 30% 4♠=, 70% 4♠-1; but EW get the table score (100% 4♠-1). The result at the other table was 4♠ making, so NS scored 8IMP and EW scored -12IMP, giving a match result of 8-10VP (on a 20VP scale).

When he heard of the ruling, the chief TD pointed out the wording in the law "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", suggesting that Law 12C1b did not apply. "Then call it 'wild'" we said, or "In Sanremo, Ton said we could ignore the words 'unrelated to the infraction'", or ... . I don't think we were convinced either way.

Board 18	10 8 x x
Dealer E	10 x x x
NS Vul	J
	Q J 8 x
Q J x x x		A
--		A K J 8 x x
A Q 10 x x x x		K 9 8
10		K x x
	K 9 x
	Q 9 x
	x x
	A 9 x x x

I thought I hadn't got the hands quite right — corrected and intermediates added 2010-08-31.

W	N	E	S
		1♥	P
2♦	P	3♥	P
3♠*	P	4♣	P
4♦	P	4NT	P
6♦	P	P	P

3♠ was alerted and explained as a control agreeing hearts. 6♦ appeared to be using unauthorised information from the alert and giving the correct response to Blackwood was a logical alternative. After that the auction might continue ...

...	P	6♥	P
6♠	P	6NT	End

6NT by East will probably make only ten tricks. Of course, other final contracts are possible and other number of undertricks are possible, but we thought 6NT(E)-2 was an equitable result. As game had made at the other table, this ruling represented a 24IMP swing from -13IMP to +11IMP. But the table result was restored on appeal, "No logical alternative" to 6♦, so what do we know.