Sep/Oct - District 6

Contest which read:Requirement to Know Own System. Playersare expected to know their system, especiallyearly in the bidding. If it is determinedthat the opponents have been disadvantagedby ambiguous or differing explanations,score adjustments may be applied.Screens. When a contradiction betweeninformation provided on the two sides of thescreen on the same call is apparent, ANYREASONABLE doubt that harm was donewill be resolved in favor of the non-offendersin determining a score adjustment.He ruled that E/W were damaged by thedifferent explanations; with a correct explanationEast would have known that 2♦ wasa transfer and bid 2♥, after which Westwould either have simply bid game (3NT) orat least invited it with 2NT (and East wouldhave accepted).The contract was thereforechanged to 4♥ made four, +620 for E/W.N/S appealed the Director’s ruling andmade several points they believed were relevant.First, they said that using 2♣ as ascramble when a weak notrump is doubled isnot an uncommon practice and E/W shouldhave been aware of this possibility eventhough North neglected to mention it.Second, they thought the difference betweenthe explanations on the two sides of thescreen was not really that significant. Andthird (and the main thrust of their appeal),they said that West’s non-forcing 3♥ bid wasunduly conservative after a 2NT bid that,discussed or not, must have shown a goodhand of some sort—one which, at the veryleast, would have its own source of tricks sothat East could hope to take eight (or nearlyeight) tricks even opposite a yarborough withfive hearts. Thus, E/W should still havereached game (either 4♥ or 3NT) and it wasWest’s 3♥ bid which was responsible fortheir not getting there—not the differentexplanations.When asked by the Committee abouttheir methods after their weak notrump wasdoubled N/S said that had South passed thedouble it would have forced North to redouble,after which South could show variousone-suiters. E/W said they had the samebidding agreements in the present auction asthey had after their strong 1NT opening wasinterfered with. East’s double normallyshowed a strong notrump or better (14+HCP, balanced) but an unbalanced hand waspossible. The latter meant that some continuationsof the auction—like East’s 2NT ornew suit bid—had meanings which E/W hadnot discussed. For example, had Eastopened 1NT his new suit in response to atransfer would have shown a pre-acceptancewith shortness in the bid suit. But in thepresent auction a new suit should theoreticallybe natural and deny a fit. Similarly,East’s 2NT bid here did not necessarily showa good balanced hand with a three-card fit asit would have if East had opened 1NT.Finally, West admitted that his 3♥ bidwas an error. He suspected from East’sundiscussed 2NT bid that something hadgone awry (East would not spring a bid likethat on him when a straightforward encouraging3♥ bid was available), but even so, herealized that East’s 2NT showed a good handof some sort and that E/W should reachgame given his hand. However, he failed toappreciate that when he bid 3♥ intending toshow his suit and give East a choice of contractsit would be interpreted as a signoffwith a weak hand and long hearts. East saidthat had N/S explained their agreementproperly he would never have bid 2NT,which he intended as constructive with hisexcellent diamond fit since 3NT was stillpossible opposite as little as king-sixth ofdiamonds and out (remember, East thought2♦ was natural); he would have acceptedthe transfer and bid 2♥ with his three smallhearts. West would then have either bid 3NTor 2NT (and East would have bid game) andthe problem would never have happened.Okay, those are the facts. Decide how youwould adjudicate this case and I’ll be backnext time to explain what the Committee didand offer my own opinion.- 18 -