Board 25 E/W Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   9 7 5   Q   K Q J 9 7 5   9 5 4
WEST   A K Q 8 4   9 7 4   - - -   K Q 8 7 2		EAST   J 6 3   A 6 3   10 6 3 2   A 10 3
	SOUTH   10 2   K J 10 8 5   A Q 4   J 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Zawislak	Campos	Krupowicz	Aranha
-	2	Pass	2NT*
3	Pass	4	Pass
4	Pass	5	Pass
5	Pass*	5	Pass
6	Pass	6	All Pass

Lead: Q Result: 6 down one, +100 for N/S Present: All four players and both team captains The Facts: 2 was weak; 2NT showed hearts. South explained the meaning of his 2NT bid to West but North forgot his agreement and failed to inform East that 2NT showed hearts. West intended 3 as spades and clubs. After the 5 bid North remembered that 2NT showed hearts and called the TD. The Director: The mix-up in the auction caused East to think that 3 was natural and 4 a cue-bid. Ruling: Score adjusted to 4 made five, +650 for E/W (Laws 75D1, 40C and 12C2). Appellants: N/S appealed saying that when North belatedly informed East of the meaning of 2NT it was obvious to East that he had already cue-bid twice (4 and 5), so his further cue-bid (5) would lead his partner to bid the slam. But he also knew that bidding the slam would have “no risk” since if it went down the TD would adjust the score while if it made…good. The players: East initially thought 3 and 4 were natural and 4 was a cue-bid, so he cue-bid 5 in return. West then cue-bid 5, at which point he learned the 2NT bid’s true meaning. Now he knew that 3 showed spades and another suit (likely clubs, but it was unclear whether E/W had that agreement; West claimed he explained 3 as spades and clubs but South said he never received any such explanation). Given the “new” meaning of the auction East’s 4 bid was not a cue-bid in their methods: it merely showed a “good” 4 bid. But West might have a good hand (as indeed he did), even if minimal in high cards: for example, he might be six-five. So given the confusion that existed East thought he should cue-bid his A (knowing that he had previously only cue-bid his A, from West’s perspective) in case West needed specifically two aces for slam. E/W also pointed out that had the 2NT bid been properly explained to East immediately, as required, East would simply have bid 4 and they would never have even reached the five level. The Committee: The Committee members quickly agreed that the TD’s ruling had been the proper one. North’s failure to explain the meaning of 2NT as soon as it was bid created considerable confusion and E/W were due a fair amount of leeway in trying to recover from the misinformation. While some players holding the East cards might have signed off in 5 once the true meaning of the auction was made known and even this East might have done so on another day, the 5 cue-bid was not unreasonable (for example, give West a sixth card in one of his suits and slam would have been more-or-less cold) and even had it been less reasonable than it was N/S were clearly responsible for creating the confusion without which E/W would likely not have ventured beyond the four level. The Committee's Decision: The Committee upheld the TD’s ruling to adjust the score to 4 made five, +650 for E/W. Deposit: In discussing the merit of the appeal it was pointed out that even if East’s 5 bid had been judged to have been the proximal cause of his side’s poor result, and had they consequently been left with the table result, N/S would still have been responsible for causing E/W to get beyond game, and so they could never expect to receive a more favorable score than the one assigned them by the TD. This is precisely the sort of appeal (where a pair causes damage and insists that their opponents should have recovered from it anyhow and that they, the offenders, should be allowed to keep their ill-gotten result) that we wish to inhibit. However, most of the Committee members believed that East’s 5 bid appeared dubious enough to N/S to justify the appeal. Therefore, the deposit was returned. Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, chairman), Jens Auken (Denmark), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), John Wignall (New Zealand) Appeal No. 2 Event: Venice Cup Round: 5 Teams: Egypt versus Brazil Appeals Committee: Gerard, Auken, Endicott, Le Bendig, Rand.

Board 11 None Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   Q 7 2   A Q 6 4 3   A K 9   5 3
WEST   10 5 3   K 7 5 2   7 5   J 9 7 6		EAST   A K J   10   Q J 10 6 4 3   K Q 10
	SOUTH   9 8 6 4   J 9 8   8 2   A 8 4 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Doria	Choukri	Gottschalk	Assouad
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1NT	X*	Pass
2	X	Pass	Pass
3	Pass	3	All Pass

* clubs or diamonds or Hearts and Spades Result: NS - 110 Present: All four players, the Brazil Captain, and the Director. The Facts: After the opening lead the Director was called. North expected at least six Hearts in dummy, having been told by East that the possible responses were 2 (pass or correct) or 2NT (forcing one round, and asking for distribution), so that 2 (undiscussed) must be prepared to play there without a fit. The Director: Consulted the CC and reached the conclusion East’s explanation was correct and that West had misbid. A 2 response was not listed on the CC. Ruling: Table score stands. Appellants: N-S appealed. The players: North explained that she had asked questions of East; the tray had been delayed returning to West’s side of the screen and she felt West was influenced by the slow return of the tray. In that case North argued that West should not be allowed to make the club bid. East said that if West bids any other bid than 2 or 2NT she proposes to play in the suit. West said that with such poor Hearts and being aware of East’s possible holdings she had considered she should retreat to clubs. The Committee: ascertained that nothing had been said to the Director during her visits to the table about the slow return of the tray, but in any case noted that it had been North who had caused the delay in returning the tray by her extended questions to East, so that there was no unauthorized information for West that had been created by East. The evidence showed that the Heart bid was a misbid and the explanation to North was correct. This is the kind of appeal that has no foundation and should not be brought to the committee. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: retained. Appeal No. 3 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: 12 Teams: Poland versus Sweden

Board 3 E/W Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   9   A 7 5   A K J 10 6 5 3   J 5
WEST   K 8 6 4 3   J 10 6   7 2   10 7 2		EAST   A Q 10 7 5   K Q 9 8 4   4   K 8
	SOUTH   J 2   3 2   Q 9 8   A Q 9 6 4 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Fredin	Krupowicz	Lindkvist	Zawislak
-	-	-	2S*
Pass	2NT*	Pass	3C*
Pass	3D*	Pass	4
Pass	5	All Pass

Lead: 3 Result: 5 made five, +400 for N/S. Present: All four players, both team captains and the coach for the Swedish team. The Facts: 2 showed a weak hand with either one minor or both majors. 2NT asked which and 3 showed a club one-suiter. North explained his 3 bid as showing values in diamonds, looking for 3NT; South said he explained the 3 bid as “Natural, honors for notrump” but West heard only “Natural” (see below). The play went: 3 to the ace (South playing the deuce); K to the ace; J, K, A, 2; 9 to the ace; 5, 8, 9, 10. West then returned a diamond hoping to kill dummy’s diamond suit but declarer won in hand, drew the last trump and claimed 11 tricks. The Director: West called the TD at the end of play claiming misinformation. He explained that with the explanation of North’s 3 bid as “Natural” he had defended assuming South would not have a diamond fit as good as queen-third (since he would have raised to 4 instead of rebidding his poor club suit, which he had already shown). In that case, playing a diamond would cut dummy off while playing a major was not completely safe in case South had bid this way with four small in either major, requiring West to guess which major to cash to defend successfully. South admitted he had said “Natural” in describing North’s 3 bid but after a while said he added “honors for notrump.” Neither West nor the computer operator who was present on the S-W side of the screen heard the latter part of South’s explanation, and neither the question nor the answer had been written. It was clear that West had not heard the last words of the explanation. Thus, the TD ruled misinformation: with the right information West should gowith the odds and play South not to hold a four-card major but with the wrong explanation playing a diamond covered all possibilities. Ruling: Score adjusted for both sides to 5 down two, ?100 for N/S (Laws 40, 75, 12C; WBF GCC 25.2a, b). Appellants: N/S appealed saying that South had correctly explained 3 as “Natural, honors for notrump” and not just “Natural.” In addition, N/S said they systemically did not open 2 showing a weak minor one-suiter with a side four-card major, but even if South had done so this time he would have treated even four small in a major as a stopper and bid it over 3. South was known to hold six clubs and if he had only two diamonds, as West assumed, he could not hold a singleton in either major since that would leave him with four cards in the other major. West could (and should) have asked if he needed this information. The players: West said he heard South explain 3 as “Natural,” as did the computer operator. In fact, even the Polish captain who was present said he did not hear South’s explanation. The explanation was not written. West said a player of South’s caliber would not hold queen-third of North’s “naturally bid suit” and fail to support him, preferring instead to rebid a poor six-card club suit which he had already shown. He thought it was possible that South might hold a very weak four-card major and have chosen not to show it as a stopper, in which case he would have to guess which major to cash or South would ruff, draw his last trump, and run the diamonds. He chose instead to defend based on the inference that South would not hold queen-third of diamonds. In that case the diamond return would “kill” the diamond suit while West still had a trump left. In addition, West said that guessing to cash a major-suit honor (such as the K) could lose an extra undertrick in some cases (as, for example, if South started with SQxx). The Committee: While it is easy to see how misinformation can induce a player not to explore certain possibilities that seem unlikely or precluded, and though one Committee member had sympathy for the position West was placed in by the deficient explanation, the Committee majority believed that West’s choice of defense had been inferior even given the misexplanation. First, while South was culpable for not writing his explanation of 3 (as is required in this competition), West had not written his question and had accepted South’s oral explanation and so was considered by some Committee members to be responsible for initiating the problem. Second, West failed to ask whether N/S had any agreement about opening 2 (planning to show a minor one-suiter) holding a side four-card major, or bidding a weak four-card major as a stopper over 3. (It was also noted that South might have bid 3 over 3 holding SQxx to show a stopper.) Third, if South held only two diamonds and a weak four-card major East would be marked with major-suit holdings that he very likely would have bid with (SAQJ1075 HKQx or SAQJ HKQ9842 --- plus the K). And finally, most Committee members believed that West should have “taken a sure set” by cashing a major-suit winner based on the substantial inference that South would not hold a four-card major rather than risk what happened. As far as N/S were concerned, the Committee members believed that regardless of any responsibility West might have had in this matter, South’s oral explanation was deficient (even the Committee had to have him repeat it several times before they understood the “honors for notrump” part of what he said) and N/S should not be permitted to profit from their infraction. The Committee's Decision: For N/S the score was adjusted to 5 down two, ?100; for E/W the table result of 5 made five, ?400, was allowed to stand. Deposit: The deposit was returned. Appeals Committee: John Wignall (New Zealand, chair), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Joan Gerard (USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Ernesto d’Orsi (Brazil) Appeal No. 5 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: 16 Teams: USA I versus South Africa Appeals Committee: J. Auken J Gerard J Wignall G Endicott

Board 26 Both Vul. Dealer East	NORTH   A K   A K J 6   10 8 4   J 9 4 3
WEST   Q 9 7 3 2   Q 7 4 3 2   6 2   Q		EAST   10 8 4   8   K 5 3   A K 10 6 5 2
	SOUTH   J 6 5   10 9 5   A Q J 9 7   8 7

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Sprong	Rodwell	Reynolds	Meckstroth
-	-	2	Pass
2	dbl	3	4
All Pass

Lead: Q Result: 10 tricks = NS +130. The Facts: The Director was called by North at the end of the play. He protested that there had been different explanations of the 2 bid on either side of the screen. He had not been given to understand that it was simply a non-forcing bid whereas this had been made clear to South. He said that if he had been given this explanation he would have bid 2NT rather than double. The Director: Examined the EW convention card; it showed in response to 2 that 3 = game force with no interest in majors; 2 as an enquiry; 2NT forcing to 3. The Director considered the explanation that 2 had a constructive connotation (but could be passed) convincing since the 2 opener can be passed. Ruling: Result to stand. Appellants: NS appealed. Present: All four players and the Captains. The players: Repeated what they had said to the Director. They considered the poor description of the two Spade bid had prejudiced North’s position and that they would have arrived in 3NT if North had been given a more consistent explanation. EW produced their convention card for the committee’s inspection upon request but did not wish to add to the discussion. The Committee: Agreed that the Convention Card failed to describe the 2 bid. Agreed North was entitled to the margin of doubt as to which explanation was correct, but considered North had contributed to the poor result for NS by his failure to make the 2NT bid that was supported by a number of the players consulted by the Director even if the 2 bid has a constructive element to it. The Committee's Decision: Award of a weighted score under Law 12C3. 50% of 3NT by North = 9 tricks. 50% of 4 by North = 10 tricks. Deposit: returned. Appeal No. 6 Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Q.F. Teams: USA II versus Poland Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chair); Grattan Endicott; Jean-Paul Meyer; Nissand Rand; Barry Rigal.

Board 8 None Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   K 9 6 4 3   A 2   8 6 4   Q 6 5
WEST   A J 7 2   Q J 9 3   J 9   J 10 7		EAST   8 5   K 10 8 7 6 5 4   10 2   3 2
	SOUTH   Q 10   -   A K Q 7 5 3   A K 9 8 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jassem	Wolff	Gawrys	Morse
Pass	Pass	1NT+	2C*
X^	Pass	2	3
3	4	Pass	5

+ 15-17 * ASTRO = minors ^ Staymanic Result: NS +420 The Facts: At the end of the session the USA Captain approached the Director and asked for a ruling on the basis that the odd 3 bid reflected an undisclosed habit of psyching. The Director: Consulted players and discussed the matter at length with the Chief Director and colleagues. Reached a conclusion that the 3 bid was sufficiently strange to suggest that the USA Captain’s protest was justified. Noted however, that South had opportunity to recognize that with a strong No-trump on his right, a positive response on his left, and a free 4 bid from North, his own holding revealed remarkable total values distributed among the four hands. Ruling: Allowed NS only part of the benefit of the doubt, adjusting the score to allow Six Diamonds bid 25% of the time. For insufficient disclosure of partnership agreements EW to be penalized 3 imps in their score. Appellants: East-West appealed. Present: South and the US Captain; East-West and the Polish Captain. The players: Mr. Jassem (West) explained, in excellent English, that he thought that another board in the same match displayed inconsistent judgement by the Directors, the possibility of a three card holding in a suit that was expected to be short not having been indicated by opponents although known. (The US Captain agreed that, if so, this was a failure on the part of his pair.) As to his 3 bid West argued that it was entirely justified by bridge considerations. He held a hand where, on the bidding, there would be likely losers in the minor suits, and which contained nine losers; the question of point count was not the sole matter to be judged. Additionally there was no evidence to suggest that psyches had happened previously in his partnership with Mr.Gawrys (Mr. Gawrys acknowledged that it is not unknown for him to psyche in other partnerships). The convention card announced that they may psyche ‘rarely’, which is a fair statement, West suggested, since it is lawful to psyche even though there had been no past psyche in this particular partnership. East added that the Director had formed his opinion about their psyching experience without asking them. West added that, as is only human, he felt humiliated that the Directors had not believed their assertion that they had no understanding about psyching. The USA Captain stated that he had considered it proper to draw attention to the possible irregularity by entering a protest. The Committee: Enquired what had prompted East to psyche. He drew attention to the state of the match in which Poland was behind by 50 imps. Asked whether he might psyche again Mr. Gawrys responded that it is his right under the Laws to do so. The committee addressed itself to South’s actions. He said that he had suspected there might have been a psyche and if over 4 North had bid 5 he would have raised to six. As it was he had thought of bidding 6 over North’s 4 bid, but could picture hands where this would be wrong. The Committee's Decision: Considered that West had made an acceptable bridge judgement; agreed that there was no evidence of any understanding about psyching. Believed that there was no case for penalizing on disciplinary grounds with no history of psyching and no clear evidence in the particular instance. Considered that for West the auction carried no evidence that a psyche had occurred, although one member was of the opinion that West ‘was smelling’ a psyche. It was agreed unanimously to remove the penalty from East-West. One member of the committee wished to sustain the score adjustment but the remainder agreed to reinstate the table score. The majority was of the opinion that it was South’s choice of 5 rather than the cue of 5 that was chiefly responsible for the failure to find the slam and the responsibility for this was his alone. Deposit: returned. Appeal No. 7 Event: Transnational Teams Round: 9 Teams: Germany versus England (Closed Room)

Board 29 Both Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   10 8 6 5   K Q 9 8   A 8 3 2   5
WEST   9 4   A 10 7 4 3 2   10 4   A 9 3		EAST   A J 7   J 5   K Q J 9 7 6   8 2
	SOUTH   K Q 3 2   6   5   K Q J 10 7 6 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
J Carroll	T Gotard	T Hanlon	J Piekarek
-	Pass	1NT	3
3	All Pass

Lead: 5 Result: 3 made three, +140 for E/W. Present: South, East and West. The Facts: 1NT was 14-16 HCP, 3 was preemptive and 3 was intended as forcing. The Director: South called the TD during the bidding of the next board (Board 30). He told him that he had asked West the meaning of his 3 bid when it was passed and West said that it was forcing. (East had neither alerted nor explained the 3 bid to North.) South said he did not want to help E/W if they were having a bidding misunderstanding and so he passed 3. Later he told the TD that if he had been told that 3 was non-forcing (which he believed it was) he would have bid 3. Ruling: No damage, table result stands (Law 40C). Appellants: N/S appealed. South said he believed that West’s hand was evidence that 3 was not forcing as he would simply have bid 4 over 3 if he had wanted to force to game. Also, after the hand was over and E/W were discussing the bidding East said he thought 3 was non-forcing. The players: West said he intended 3 as forcing and believed his partnership notes supported that position. (E/W’s notes said, in a section on interference over their 1NT openings: “Double and rebid of a new suit are non-forcing except 3 over 2.”) East said that during the auction he had not been 100% sure that 3 was forcing (though he thought it probably was). But since he had opened light (strategically), had no convenient rebid (he lacked both a club stopper for 3NT and a third heart to bid 4), and was uncertain whether 3 had been forcing he decided to pass and hope he was right. He agreed with West, after reviewing their system notes, that responder’s 3 bid (over 2, 2NT, 3 or 3) was clearly forcing in their methods. The Committee: After considering the players’ statements and reviewing E/W’s system notes the Committee was convinced that West’s 3 bid had been forcing and that East had simply deviated from his announced methods for the reasons stated. Thus, there had been no misinformation: South had been told the correct meaning of 3 according to E/W’s agreements. The Committee's Decision: As there had been no infraction of misinformation the table result (3 made three, +140 for E/W) was allowed to stand. Deposit: The deposit was returned. (The Committee believed the appeal may well have been based on an erroneous statement on the Appeal Form that there had been “No Damage” to N/S. In fact, N/|S had been damaged but only by East’s decision to pass 3 and not from any misinformation. A more accurate statement would have been that the table result stood because there was no infraction --- i.e., no misinformation.) Appeals Committee: John Wignall (New Zealand, chair), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel) Appeal No. 8 Event: Venice Cup Round: Final Teams: China versus USA I Appeals Committee: Auken, d’Orsi, Endicott, Rand, Wignall.

Board 3 E/W Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   Q J 6   A 10 7 3 2   A J 5   8 5
WEST   K 8 7 3   5   K 8 6 2   A 10 6 2		EAST   10 9 5 4 2   6 4   Q 9 7 3   9 7
	SOUTH   A   K Q J 9 8   10 4   K Q J 4 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Kennedy	Zhang	Wei-Sender	Gu
-	-	-	1
Pass	1	Pass	2
Pass	2NT	Pass	3
Pass	3NT	Pass	4NT
Pass	5	Pass	6
All Pass

1 is strong; 2 sets the suit; 2 and 3 asking bids and 4NT Blackwood. Lead: Spade 10. Result: NS + 980 The Facts: The Director was called at the end of the play. East complained that she did not have the same information as South. North had alerted nothing except the opening bid; she had taken all the bids that were in fact asking bids as natural bids. With correct information she claimed she would have led a diamond.. The Director: The Director established that the partnership agreements were as South had explained. A number of players were consulted and with the correct information they were about equally inclined to lead a diamond or a spade. Ruling: Ruled misinformation. On the basis of the consultations with players awarded a weighted score under Law 12C3. NS + 980 and NS - 50 each 50% of the time. Appellants: E W appealed Present: All four players, both Captains, an interpreter for the Chinese team. The players: The Chinese Captain explained that his North player had forgotten her system during the auction but at the end had tried to explain to her screenmate that there had been a bidding misunderstanding and that there were asking bids. East said that she had understood only about the Heart bids and had not heard anything said about asking bids. Both pairs play Precision Club but the E-W pair do not use asking bids. East said that with correct information it stands out to lead a diamond, knowing that there is a missing key card leading from her Queen is the most likely way to establish a setting trick. East believed she was entitled to 100% of NS-50 but had decided to accept the Director’s adjustment. She had believed 3 to be a natural bid. The Committee: Informed the EW players that it had the power to change the adjustment in either direction. Established that East had not thought it necessary to “protect her back” by asking any questions at the end of the auction, however the onus is on North to ensure her opponent has full information. The Committee was not pleased that North and East had written down nothing of the explanation and that their conversation had been in Chinese; each was responsible for any confusion caused by this procedure. The Committee's Decision: Agreed unanimously that there had been misinformation by North to East. Considered the adjustment, based upon the balance obtained from consultations with players, was equitable and supported the Director’s ruling and adjustment. Deposit: Returned upon a majority opinion of the committee. Appeal No. 9 Approved for addition to the jurisprudence (CoP) Event: Bermuda Bowl Round: Final Teams: USA I versus Italy Appeals Committee: J. Auken (Chair), J Damiani, G Endicott, A. Maas, J-P Meyer.

Board 32 E/W Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   2   A J 9 3   K Q 10 9 8 6 5   5
WEST   J 10   5 4 2   A 7   K 10 7 6 4 2		EAST   A 6 5 4 3   K Q 10 8 6   4 2   A
	SOUTH   K Q 9 8 7   7   J 3   Q J 9 8 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Hamman	Lauria	Soloway	Versace
Pass	1	2	dbl
2	3	Pass	Pass
3	5	dbl	All Pass

The first five tricks are won by Club Ace, Heart Ace, ruff with Diamond 3, ruff with Diamond 8, ruff with Diamond J. Declarer then leads Spade K to the Ace. The position is as follows:             NORTH   -   J   K Q 10 9 6 5   - WEST   10   -   A 6   K 10 7 6 EAST   6 5 4   Q 10   4 2   - SOUTH   Q 9 8 7   -   -   Q J 9 The Facts: At this point North is two down if East cashes Heart Q. But East leads a low Spade. Dummy has left the table and declarer is playing dummy himself. He touches the Spade 7, the vu-graph caller says ‘7 of Spades’ and West plays the 10. Declarer says he was playing the Queen. The Director is called. The Director: The Director enquired of declarer as to his actions and he said that he was covering up the King with the seven.. (The King had been played to the previous trick and, because dummy was absent, was still face-up on the table.) The director considered the Spade 7 played. Ruling: 5Dx - 2. NS -300. Appellants: NS appealed. Present: All four players and both Captains. The players: North said that he had picked up the small Spade to “cover the King” and demonstrated his meaning. His intention was to play the Queen. East said he had heard the seven named and both East and West had seen declarer touch the seven of Spades, West playing the ten. Declarer had protested that he was playing the Queen. The Committee: Enquired of declarer whether he had named the card he was playing and he said he had not. Indeed it seems unlikely he would be instructing dummy who is not at the table and it is reasonable to believe the naming of the card was by the vu-graph caller. Requested the Chief Director to explain the law to them, which he did by reading from the law book.. The relevant law says: “ 45C3 A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy’s cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched.” The Committee's Decision: Declarer had touched the seven and it was not evident to the committee that declarer had touched the card for the purpose either of adjusting dummy’s cards or of reaching for the Queen. (By the above law picking up the card in order to place it on top of a played card commits North to playing the card.) The Committee had not heard anything in the evidence that persuaded it the Director’s ruling was incorrect. Accordingly the director’s ruling was upheld. Deposit: returned.