North East South West
1D P 1H P
2H P 3C P
4H All Pass
There was no alert for 3C. After the hand was played East-West approached the director to lodge a complaint against their opponents, claiming that had they knew that 3C was not a suit West could have led a spade and brought the contract down. They also objected to the fact that the opponents did not have a convention card and thus the TD must ruled the infraction as misinformation. They cite an two earlier incidents when the director was also called as examples of N-S's unorthodox methods (The TD was called and dismissed both incidents - one was when North opened 3rd in hand nonV weak 2 on KQ10xx, and the other was when South opened 1NT with a balanced 16 count and 5-hearts) The TD approached North-South for an explanation of their auction. North-South claimed they were using simple Standard methods, that 3C invites the partner to bid game if he has values in the suit.
The Director's Findings:
The action of North supported his explanation of his partner’s call and it was thus decided that there had been no misinformation.
The Director's Ruling:
The TD allowed the table result, 4H making 10 tricks, to stand but caution North-South that normally opponents are entitled to expect 3C to be based on at least a 3-card suit and that if they continued to bid on a doubleton they would have to alert in future and give adequate explanation to their opponents. The TD further indicated that he would make a note of the hand and watch out for future complaints against North-South for similar incidents. East-West appealed.
The Committee's Finding:
3C as ‘help-suit’ game try is natural and doesn’t require an alert. In addition, East-West could have defeated 4H. The committee upheld the ruling.
The deposit is refunded.
Do you agree with the decisions?