North admitted negligence in not making
sure that East saw and acknowledged the alert. South said she fully expected
the Committee to deal with her side accordingly, but did not believe that
East's 3§ bid merited the redress afforded it by the TD.
South then stated that the two partnerships
had played against one another for many years in their home country and that
E/W were thus familiar enough with N/S's system to have known the meaning of
North's double even without an alert. In response East asked South to describe
what the double of 2ª would have meant in E/W's system had they been in the N/S
seats. South admitted that she had no idea how E/W played such a double.
East then made the point, 'Then how then
can you say that we should have known your system when you don't know
ours'? In response to a Committee member's question, South stated that she
would have bid 3© had East passed North's double of 2ª, and N/S agreed that 3©
was then likely to have been the final contract.
|