svenpran at online.no
Wed Dec 15 11:34:51 CET 2010
On Behalf Of Magyar Ádám
> Hi all,
> I was the director at the table, and it seems that you're missing the
> When NS first played the board, there was no double, when they re-started
> against the right opponents, they doubled. The double seemed reasonable in
> MP's, the doubler having KJTxxx over dummy's suit, the trump ace and a
> (so maybe this is more than reasonable). But the doubler may have noticed
> irregularity, since the TD was watching the auction.
> He is clearly the NOS, he is just doubling normally, but he gets 60%
> 100%, what 6H doubled -2 would have scored.
> I gave them 60, opponents 40, what the Laws say, they appealed. They said
> maybe the text of the laws sounds like this (I've shown him 15C), but not
> Could you give them more than 60% according to the (spirit of the) Laws,
> would you, if you could? After you've given your opinion, I'll tell you
> appeals committee gave.
No, NOS shall have 60%. The board could not be played and TD is not at
liberty to judge what he believes a result would be.
Notice that even if 6H undoubled would most likely have resulted in a better
score than 60% the fact that NOS doubled and thus caused an artificial score
to be assigned NOS would still receive "only" 60%.
The reason for TD being present at the table and the condition for a play of
the board to be allowed should be known to both sides during the second
auction, so it is just bad luck for NOS that the incorrectly seated E-W in
the first auction did not also made the reasonable double of the final
contract. (NOS must of course not in advance be told how the original
auction had proceeded!)
More information about the Blml