[VixTD]

This occurred in a match between the third county teams-of-eight yesterday:

Scoring: IMP

.P..1♦..P..2♣
.P..2♠..P..3♥(A)
.P..4♦*

---

*4♦ was prefaced by a STOP card, at which point the TD was called.

I ruled that North had bid 4♦ so that call would stand, but that South should take care not to take any advantage of any unauthorized information conveyed by the showing of the STOP card. EW could draw any conclusions they liked, but at their own risk. I invited the players to call me back if they felt they might have been damaged by the irregularity.

South decided that his most ethical action was to pass 4♦, which became the final contract and went one off. South called me back and said that if his partner had not placed the STOP card he would have bid 5♦, which East contended he would have doubled. North claimed she would have removed this to 6♣.

Is there any grounds for adjusting the score?

[jeremy69]

I can see no reason to consider adjusting the score. I think South misjudged his ethical position as he has a fair hand facing a reverse but once he has decided what to do however misguided he is landed with it in my view. For him to call you back is remarkable.

[helene_t]

Agree with Jeremy.

[peachy]

I would not adjust. South's hand is too good to pass after opener has reversed. There was no infraction at the time the reverse 2S bid was made, and South has gameforce opposite a reverse and should not stop below game. The infraction of the Stop card came after South had already learned the round before that his partner has extra values. South's ethics are impeccable, his bridge logic in this hand not as good. But I don't understand why he called the TD after the hand.

[gordontd]

Most players (even playing Acol) play that a reverse after a two-level response is forcing to game. Even if they don't, responder has a 10-count opposite his partner's 16+, so there should be no question of passing 4D.

[VixTD]

peachy, on May 10 2010, 11:23 AM, said:

South's ethics are impeccable, his bridge logic in this hand not as good. But I don't understand why he called the TD after the hand.

Haven't you answered this yourself? He called the director because his ethics are impeccable, and he wanted to make sure he hadn't done anything which could be construed as taking advantage of the unauthorized information.

As Gordon says, NS were in a game-forcing auction, so South's pass would not be considered a logical action. However, from his point of view, the pass is likely to work out very badly for his side, so it can hardly be considered "taking advantage". It just so happens that it does work out better (if you disregard North's claim that she would have bid 6♣).

After consultation with the other team's legal expert, we agreed that the score should stand.

[bluejak]

Seems clear. We ask players to follow Law 73C - and he did.