1997 Fall NABC
National Appeals Committee Hearings

Board 22 NORTH E/W Vul.   10 8 Dealer East   K 10 9 4 2     Q 5 4   WEST   A J 5 EAST   J 7 6 2   K Q 9 5 4 3   A 6 3   Q   A K   9 8 3   10 9 6 3 SOUTH   Q 8 7     A     J 8 7 5     J 10 7 6 2     K 4 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Mark Brad Jack Richard Stein Holtsberry Coleman Mydloski - - Pass Pass 1 1 1 4 Dbl (1) Pass 4 All Pass (1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 620 for E/W. West considered his bid for about 30 seconds before he doubled 4. This was agreed by all four players. The Director was called when the 4 bid was made. The Director ruled that the 4 bid was suggested over other logical alternatives and changed the contract to 4 doubled down one, plus 100 for E/W.

The Appeal:East explained the virtues of his call. He thought his defensive prospects were not good, despite the double, and if his partner had as little as a good doubleton in spades it might be profitable to play in 4. He also said he made the same bid he would have made if the double had been in tempo. East was asked why he had not opened a weak two-bid in spades. He said that the hand was not good enough. When asked what 2, instead of 1, would have meant, he said the bid was undiscussed. N/S noted that the agreed-upon break in tempo suggested uncertainty about the double and therefore suggested bidding, when passing was a logical alternative.

The Committee Decision: The Committee disagreed with East's analysis of the auction. The Q was not necessarily a wasted value. The Q could also be a defensive value, and if partner has only a doubleton spade, then the SKQ were defensive values. There are hands consistent with the auction where 4 would be the winning call, but pass was very clearly a logical alternative to the 4 bid. The Committee unanimously agreed that the 4 bid could not be allowed. The Committee considered several defenses and lines of play and decided that in a 4 contract, down one was substantially the most likely and the most probable result. The contract was changed to 4 doubled down one, plus 100 for E/W. East stated that he had never appeared before a National Appeals Committee. The Committee knew him to be an expert with a great deal of tournament seasoning. E/W were believed to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the game and its rules to be held to NABC standards for presenting appeals. Under the current ACBL policies, the Committee retained the $50 deposit for an appeal lacking substantial merit.

Chairman: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Brad Moss, Phil Warden, Michael White

(1) No skip-bid warning
(2) Break in tempo. Alerted; penalty

The Facts: 4 made six, plus 480 for N/S. South was considerably more experienced than North. After West's 3 call, North was uncertain about the best action. North broke tempo, looked at the E/W convention card, and broke tempo again before she made a penalty double. The Director was called at the time of the break in tempo and was called back to the table after the hand was over. The Director ruled that unauthorized information was present and the removal of the penalty double could have been suggested by the tempo. Since pass was a logical alternative to 3 for South, the Director changed the contract to 3 doubled made four, plus 870 for E/W.

The Appeal:N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South asserted that he had played tournament bridge for 50 years and that he did not play negative doubles. His approach to doubles was modeled after the . J. Simon book, Why You Lose at Bridge. He stated that the double was a suggestion, not a command, and that he should have about four defensive tricks in his hand to pass the double. South thought his hand warranted the 3 call.

North admitted uncertainty about her choice of calls. When asked why she didn't bid 3, she said she didn't want to bid "just a king-jack suit." She said "I'm doubling to let him make the decision." South submitted that the North hand was not one that called for a double in their methods. He also stated that he had system notes at home which could substantiate and corroborate the criteria he used to decide which penalty doubles to pull and which ones to pass.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that if North's spade and diamond suits had been interchanged, the hesitation was not likely to have occurred. The hesitation thus conveyed the information to South that the penalty double was not based on length and strength in trump. While South did not have an ideal hand for defense, his hand was within the range that his partner could have anticipated when she chose the penalty double. The unauthorized information suggested that bidding 3 was more likely to be successful than passing so South was not allowed to select that action. Since E/W would most probably win ten tricks, the contract was changed to 3 doubled made four, plus 870. The $50 deposit was returned.

Chairman: Jon Brissman
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Ed Lazarus

The Facts: 3NT made three, plus 600 for E/W. Before the opening lead, East informed his opponents that he believed that in their methods 2 showed the majors. East suggested that the Director be called. N/S stated they wished to reserve their right to call the Director later if necessary. After the play was completed and East's hand was revealed, N/S called the Director and stated that they thought pass was a logical alternative to bidding 3NT. The Director ruled that 3NT had not been demonstrably suggested as a logical alternative over other possibilities such as 3 and allowed the score to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and East attended the hearing. N/S stated that they thought a 3 bid would mean that West had long diamonds and playing strength for a diamond contract. They stated that West knew his partner had made a vulnerable overcall which should show values and that if 3NT were the cor- rect contract, West should bid 3NT over 2. From East's point of view, if his partner could not bid 3NT, there was a real danger that there was no club stopper. They thought that 3 by East would show four hearts along with diamonds, that East might have considered bidding 4 or passing, and that the presence of the unauthorized information made 3NT a logical alternative. East stated that he tried to bid as if he had not heard his partner's explanation of his 2 call. He thought 3 showed a forward-going hand suggesting 3NT as a possible contract. This was the second time E/W had played together. They had agreed to play Landy and transfers over 12-14 notrumps. East did not believe there had been any discussion for weaker notrump ranges. East stated that he thought a bid over a 10-12 notrump should show a better hand than a bid over a 12-14 notrump because of the danger of missing game. He stated that, had the weak notrump required a pre-Alert, he would have agreed with his partner that they would play the same method as over 12-14 notrumps. East stated that he thought it was just unlucky for N/S that E/W were able to make 3NT because the A was onside and the diamonds blocked.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that E/W did not have the agreement that 2 showed diamonds over the 10-12 notrump (Law 75D2) and that West's explanation created unauthorized information. N/S were obligated to call the Director when they were told about the misinformation (Law 9B1a) rather than stating that they wished to reserve their rights to do so later (Law16A1 for ACBL sanctioned events.) East was also required by law (75D2) to call the Director rather than suggesting to North that he do so. The Committee agreed with East that the 3 bid could not be made on a very weak hand with diamonds.

West should not have DKQxxxx with no other values, but even if he did, clubs may split 4-4. They also agreed that had the A been the A, passing 3 would be clearly indicated but agreed that some would still consider passing with the given hand. In the presence of the unauthorized information, however, the Committee believed that 3NT became a logical alternative. In a 3 contract, the Committee determined declarer would lose three diamonds, one heart, and one club. For this reason, the Committee unanimously decided to disallow the 3NT bid and change the contract to 3 down one, plus 100 for N/S.

Chairman: Karen Allison
Committee Members: Lowell Andrews, Henry Bethe, Mary Jane Farell, Michael Rahtjen, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

CASE FOUR

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Flight A Pairs, 22 Nov 97, Second Session

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
James	Alan	George	Judy
Bachelder	Miller	St Pierre	Bianco
-	Pass	Pass	1
Pass	1	Pass	2
Pass	Pass	2	Pass
Pass	3	Pass	Pass
3	Dbl	All Pass

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. N/S did not attend the Committee hearing. West stated he had no intention of bidding. He had reached for his bid box and when he looked up his hand was about three inches too high. He reoriented himself and extracted the pass card from the proper location. He admitted his motion could have been construed as uncertainty. He stated he never considered bidding with only three spades, four diamonds and such a bad club suit. East stated he had planned to balance over 2 if that option became available. E/W stated their general overcall style was sound, that they played together about once a month and that they use bid boxes often at their local club.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that unauthorized information was present. The Committee unanimously decided that the 2 bid was automatic and that pass was not a logical alternative with the East hand. The Committee allowed East's 2 bid and allowed the table result, 3 doubled made five, plus 1130 for E/W to stand. The Committee reminded West to be more careful when selecting bids in the future. Since this was a busy night for appeals, a fifth member for this Committee was not available. The Chairman designated herself as a non-voting member of the Committee.

Chairman: Karen Allison
Committee Members: Lowell Andrews, Henry Bethe, Michael Rahtjen, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

The Facts: 4 went down one, plus 100 for N/S. After the agreed-upon slow double of 3, South passed and West pulled to 3. After two more passes, South asked West about the double and was told it was penalty. East then quickly flashed his convention card to South indicating by pointing that the double was not penalty. South then bid 4 and after two passes, East doubled in tempo. West then bid 4. Because the 4 bid might have been made more attractive by the initial slow double of 3 and the improper actions involving his convention card the Director changed the contract to 4 doubled made five, plus 990 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. West and North attended the hearing. West stated that with six-card spade support and almost zero defensive strength, he was always going to pull the double. West agreed he had already shown no interest in defending by pulling the double of 3. When asked why he had not bid 4 immediately over 4 he stated that he was afraid he would be doubled and would go down too much.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that although the 4 bid had considerable bridge logic, West had already in effect shown his (evaluation of) his hand by his pull of 3 doubled. This, coupled with West's failure to bid 4 immediately over 4 and East's improper flashing of the convention card created a situation where the delayed bid could not be allowed. The Committee unanimously agreed to change the contract to 4 doubled made five, plus 990 for N/S. After discussion, the Committee decided to return the deposit because the appeal had merit.

In addition, West was told that the flashing of the convention card in the manner that East did was the equivalent of telling everyone at the table that partner had erred in his explanation -- a most improper action. West was told to inform his partner of this and that the Committee regretted not having the opportunity to explain this to him in person.

Chairman: Dave Treadwell
Committee members: Phil Brady, Brad Moss, Brian Trent, Ellen Siebert

With both clubs and spades splitting, the contract can easily be made with two overtricks. However, after a diamond lead taken by the ace, declarer pulled two rounds of trump, cashed the CK and then pulled the last outstanding trump. At this point, with the hand a claim, declarer, intending to run the clubs, discovered that instead of having pulled a club from his hand, he had played his last trump. He tried to retract the card immediately, but by the definition of a played card (Law 45C2), he admitted that the card was played. The Director allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling.

They were seeking no redress for themselves but were appealing because, "even if you feel that the interpretation of the laws is against N/S, it is ludicrous for E/W to be given a ton of matchpoints for a clearly inadvertent, illogical mistake, immediately corrected by their opponent."

South, declarer, confirmed the facts as stated, emphasizing that it was only when the card was in a played position that he looked down and saw that, though black, it was the wrong suit. East, the only defender present, said that, while she had sympathy for declarer, by the laws of bridge as they now exist she was entitled to and therefore wanted her trick. This is similar to the situation which exists for revokes, where the opponents are awarded the trick(s) lost due to the revoke.

The Committee Decision: The Committee unanimously upheld the Director's ruling on the basis that once it was determined and agreed that this was a played card, there would be no basis for the Committee to know the laws better than the Director. Since N/S were not asking to have their score adjusted, the Committee decided to return the $50 deposit to N/S. The appeal would have been deemed frivolous had they been asking for a change to their own score.

Chair: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Doug Doub, Bobby Goldman, Michael Rosenberg, Steve Weinstein

The Facts: 4 made five, plus 150 for E/W.
East broke tempo for 20-25 seconds before passing the double and the meaning of the Alert was not requested. At his turn, West asked about the meaning of the Alert and was told it showed the A or K (but not necessarity a heart raise.) South led the J, covered by the K and North won the A. North led a small spade, ducked and won by the 10 in the dummy. Declarer then easily took 11 tricks. The Director changed the contract to 3 made three, plus 120 for N/S on the basis that West's 3 bid could have been suggested by East's break in tempo.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling stating that East was always going to rebid her good seven-card diamond suit. East stated she did not ask the meaning of the Alert because she thought E/W could make seven or more tricks in 1NT doubled.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that although West's 3 bid could have been influenced by East's hesitation, it was irrelevant insofar as the final contract was concerned because 1) the 3 bid made East's rebid less attractive and 2) if the 3 bid had not been made, East would have bid 4 over North's probable 3 bid or 3 and then 4 if necessary. N/S had an opportunity to collect plus 200 with reasonable defense or plus 500 if 4 had been doubled.

The Committee changed the contract to 4 made five, plus 150 for E/W.

Chair: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Brian Trent

The Facts: 2 made four, plus 170 for E/W. The Director was called at the conclusion of the play when the nature of North's hand became evident. N/S both maintained that the double of 2 was takeout and that North had misbid. E/W stated they would have bid 4 had they known that there was a question as to whether North intended the double for takeout. The double of 2 had not been Alerted. N/S were not a well practiced partnership. The Director changed the contract (Laws 21B3 and 40C) to 4 made four, plus 620 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. West did not attend the hearing. N/S stated that the opponents were given an accurate explanation of their agreement.

The Committee Decision: The Committee found, after hearing from South, that he believed that they did in fact have the agreement that a double of Drury was a takeout double of the opener's major. The Committee also believed that N/S had at one time made a general agreement that doubles of artificial raises were takeout. That agreement was consistent with South's double of 2 and his failure to bid or lead clubs. However, Law 75 provides that in cases where the explanation of a bid conflicts with the bidder's actual holding and intent, the "Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." There was not sufficient evidence to the contrary here and therefore the Director was correct in awarding an adjusted score.

The Committee decided that N/S were remiss in the following ways: (1) an experienced pair in the Life Master Pairs have a responsibility to know their own system; (2) South should have Alerted his partner's double, since their agreement was not standard; and (3) when asked to explain the double, South should have warned E/W to proceed at their own risk because, while double for takeout was their agreement, they had not played together very often and the situation had not previously arisen leaving open the possibility that the agreement was not firm.

Because of North's concern that an adverse decision would imply some sort of "improper" action on his part, the Committee wished to make it absolutely clear that no one believed that there was any evidence of purposeful wrongdoing by N/S. However, the Committee decided (four to one) to adjust N/S's score. E/W were assigned the score of plus 620 or Average Plus, whichever was greater, and N/S were assigned the score of plus 620 or Average Minus, whichever was less. N/S's deposit was returned.

Dissenting Opinion (Michael Rosenberg): Firstly, this is not a case about which I had very strong feelings. Furthermore, my dissent would not have resulted in an adjustment since it turned out that Average Plus for E/W was more than plus 620.

Once the Committee determined that there had been misinformation rather than a misbid, it should have assigned the same score for both sides, unless the non-offenders committed an egregious error by their standards in which case they should keep their bad result. (Non-offenders get an adjustment only if the misinformation resulted in damage and the damage must be more than merely subsequent to the infraction.)

I will not go into detail here about why I believe this N/S infraction should be treated as misinformation and not a misbid. Suffice it to say that the former should always be assumed in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Just because a pair once discussed something does not mean they really have an agreement. Thus when there is damage as a result, adjust the score. The message that I want to send is that not knowing your methods is hazardous, not only because of the disaster you might achieve, but because of damage you might cause. This is very different from Wolff's CD where points can be deducted even when there is not a scintilla of damage, which sends the incorrect message that the Director should be called for every little (irrelevant) misunderstanding.

A separate issue in this case was that the North player was extremely agitated and incensed because he thought he was being called a liar. This is exactly the opposite of the sort of feeling we should wish to engender in players. This is a process in which cool-headedness and detachment are important if we are to educate the bridge community. It takes a lot of extra time to educate someone who is incensed or upset.

Chairman: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Stasha Cohen, Doug Doub, Michael Rosenberg, Carlyn Steiner

The Facts: 3 went down one, plus 50 for E/W. When it was West's turn to bid after 3, he asked about the 2 call and was told by South that it was not forcing. Because 2 was Alertable, E/W called the Director. The Director backed the auction up to 3. East did not change his call. East told the Director that he would have doubled 2 if it had been Alerted. The Director decided that double was not a probable action and allowed the table result to stand. The board was pushed with their teammates.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and only East attended the hearing. East simply stated that he believed he had an easy passed hand double over a non-forcing 2 bid. With both opponents limited, there was a fair chance that West had enough HCP or spades for their side to compete.

The Committee Decision: The Committee unanimously agreed that a properly Alerted East had a reasonable double of 2. Assigning the most favorable result that was likely to the non-offending side would give E/W a spade partscore or 3 doubled, but since all such results would be better than plus 50, the score for E/W's team was changed from a tie to a full win for the board.

Chairman: Phil Brady
Committee Members: Harvey Brody, Doug Doub

The Facts: 3NT made four, plus 430 for N/S. 2NT was explained at the end of the auction as a relay to 3 that could be passed or corrected. The Director discovered that South thought 2NT was natural and invitational. The Director ruled (Law16A) that there was unauthorized information from North's Alert and that pass was a logical alternative. He therefore changed the contract to 3 made four, plus 130 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players present for the hearing. N/S had seldom played together over the last five years. North thought they had the agreement that 2NT was the beginning of a minor suit run-out. South did not believe they had such an agreement. Their convention cards were checked "four-suit transfers", but no further agreement was indicated. N/S agreed they had a bidding misunderstanding but believed the South hand justified a 3NT bid.

The Committee Decision: The Committee was unanimous in believing that it would be illogical and even irrational for South to pass 3, irrespective of whether 2NT had been Alerted or not. Even if N/S had a firm agreement that 2NT was a relay to 3 (which, in fact, they did not) and South had simply forgotten, the 3 bid itself was sufficient to wake up South, regardless of the Alert. South could then bid as he chose since his bid would then be based on authorized information. The Committee restored the table result of 3NT made four, plus 430 for N/S. N/S were admonished to firm up their agreements and to fill out their convention card more completely.

Chairman: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Nancy Sachs, Brian Trent, Phil Warden, Michael White

The Facts: 7NT made seven, plus 2220 for E/W. Both the 4 and 6NT bids were made after agreed lengthy breaks in tempo. The Director was called after the 7NT bid. At the end of the auction West explained that 4 had been Blackwood and 5 showed one ace. West stated that the entire auction had been slow. The Director ruled that pass over 6NT was a logical alternative and changed the contract to 6NT made seven, plus 1470 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W were a new partnership that had been formed that morning. East stated he was not sure that 4 was Blackwood but he did know that 5 would be taken as either one ace, or a cuebid that showed the A. East knew he was on shaky ground as to exact meanings of agreements in high level auctions but that either interpretation his partner chose would match his hand. West chose to bid 6NT because he was unsure of the meanings of other bids over 5. East bid 7NT because aside from the A he had already shown, he had two kings that had not in any way been disclosed in the auction.

The Committee Decision: The Committee discussion focused on whether Blackwood followed by slam meant partner could not bid more. Eventually this line was abandoned because the Committee concluded that 4 was not clearly Blackwood and therefore the partnership was not involved in a final decision over the Blackwood auction. The Committee decided that a slow 6NT bid did not convey any different information from a fast 6NT bid. The Committee decided to allow the 7NT bid and changed the contract to 7NT made seven, plus 2220.

Chairman: Henry Bethe
Committee Members: Michael Huston, Corinne Kirkham, Barry Rigal, Ellen Siebert

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 980 for N/S. North's 3 bid was not Alerted. After the auction and before the opening lead, North announced that there had been a failure to Alert and that 3 showed a singleton. East called the Director and stated she would have doubled 3 had the bid been Alerted. East also said that she played the same methods as North (that 3 was a splinter in support of clubs) but did not want to ask at the time and clear up a misunderstanding. The Director ruled that there was no misinformation because East was aware of the possible meaning of the 3 bid. The table result was therefore allowed to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East, West and South attended the hearing. East stated that after the hand was played North said she would not have bid 6 if the 3 bid had been doubled. East wanted the Committee to consider the possibilities that if 3 had been Alerted and doubled that (1) the final contract of 6 may not have been reached; and (2) West may have doubled the final contract for a diamond lead. The Committee inquired about E/W's agreements regarding lead-directing slam doubles and found that they had none. East also stated that the Director told her that she should have called him at the time of the 3 bid, but that she did not want to for fear of disclosing a misunderstanding. South stated that she did not Alert 3 because she didn't think they played splinters over minors; she bid 3NT because she believed her partner had diamonds. Although both were experienced players, N/S had not played together for seven years.

The Committee Decision: The Committee found that N/S had no agreement that 3 was a splinter and that there was no violation of procedure. North and South had both bid according to what they thought their agreement was, and North had appropriately disclosed her version of the agreement before the opening lead. North was apparently playing a private convention known to her (and East) but not to South. East had all of the relevant information before the opening lead. The Committee agreed that West would have been very unlikely to double 6 even had the auction been different. The table result of 6 made six, plus 980 for N/S, was allowed to stand. The merit of the appeal was discussed and a close decision was reached to return E/W's deposit.

Regarding the table Director's statement to East that she should have called him during the auction, the Committee consulted with a Senior Tournament Director. He disagreed strongly with the table Director's instruction. The appropriate time to call the Director would have been at the end of the auction, when North announced the failure to Alert.

Chairman: Henry Bethe
Committee Members: Bob Gookin, Bob Hamman, Ed Lazarus, Jeff Meckstroth

The Facts: 4 doubled went down two, plus 500 for N/S. The Stop Card had apparently been used. E/W stated that South broke tempo for a few seconds more than ten. N/S stated that the tempo break was no longer than ten seconds. The Director ruled that the double would not be allowed and changed the contract to 4 down two, plus 200 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. E/W did not attend the hearing. The facts were in dispute. Specifically East's use of the Stop Card and South's pause after the bid. N/S both agreed that East had taken a long time to bid 4. North said that when East bid 4, he simultaneously put his bid, and the Stop Card, on the table. He then immediately removed the Stop Card. South did not see the Stop Card at all. When she was aware that a bid had been made, she paused for what she considered to be the requisite time and then passed. South said that she considered her pass automatic. There was no reason for her to break tempo. North said that his style was to always have four spades for a takeout double unless he had a very good hand. When he overcalled 2 it was with the intention of doubling hearts at whatever level they were bid for takeout. He considered his actions to be automatic.

The Committee Decision: The Committee asked the Directing Staff to describe the correct use of the Stop Card. They were told that the correct procedure is to place the Stop Card and the bid on the table. ACBL rules are that the next player should try to bid after ten seconds. The skip-bidder does not "control" his LHO by use of the Stop Card. Having dealt with that issue, the Committee then determined that, on the facts as presented, and given E/W's absence, they could not establish that a break in tempo beyond the ten seconds had occurred, the Director's ruling notwithstanding. There was unanimous agreement that, even had there been a hesitation, a player of North's ability would unquestionably have doubled 4 at his second turn. There was no logical alternative to that action. The Committee therefore restored the table result, 4 doubled down two, plus 500 for N/S.

Chairman: Barry Rigal
Committee Members: Harvey Brody, Doug Heron, Michael Rosenberg, Nancy Sachs

The Facts: 5 went down two, plus 200 for N/S. 3 was Alerted after the 3 bid and explained at length that it hadn't been discussed recently, but that it showed extra values. North reconfirmed his 3 bid and East bid 4, after which South broke tempo briefly before passing. The Director ruled that there had been a break in tempo and that the 4 bid would not be allowed. The contract was changed to 4 down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. E/W did not attend the hearing. N/S were a married couple who play together a fair amount. They were in stratum B of the event. South stated she had broken tempo to digest the explanation of the 3 bid. She considered, but rejected, bidding diamonds next since her partner had already supported spades. North said he thought he couldn't beat 4 and that 4 would be cheaper at down one or two. He said he was pretty sure his partner was void in hearts. North thought bidding 4 was a normal, good bridge decision.

The Committee Decision: The Committee-of-one found: (1) there was a break in tempo based on South's description of her thought process and statement that she needed some time to digest the explanation of the 3 bid; (2) the break in tempo suggested South might be considering bidding because North's hand made it clear that South could not have been considering doubling; (3) North's bid was successful; and (4) there were logical alternatives to bidding 4. With regard to (4): North's statements that he thought South was void in hearts, that N/S couldn't beat 4, and that 4 would likely go down one or two was used as the basis to define his peer group. North's 4 bid was a good bid but the standard for determining logical alternative is high, in part for its deterrent effect.

The Committee tried to consider the 4 bid in the context of a group of stratum B players facing the decision, all of whom believe that 4 is likely to fail, 4 is likely to make, and who only bid 3 at their previous turn. A group so composed would have some members who might think that if 4 is a make, then N/S is going to get a bad result whether defending or going down one or two in 4. Therefore, they might reason that it might be better not to assume 4 is a make. If they make that assumption, then passing and doubling are logical alternatives. For that reason, and based on the actual result at the table, the Committee chose to change the contract to 4 down one, plus 100 for N/S.

Committee: Michael Huston

The Facts: 3 made three, plus 120 for E/W. West broke tempo on her second and third doubles. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative to 2 and changed the contract to 2 doubled made four, plus 470 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S play a 12-14 HCP notrump. When doubled, North's options were: pass (to play); redouble to show a single suiter; and bid a suit to show a two-suiter (four-four at least) in that suit and a higher ranking suit. When asked, South said that North could also be five-four, but if the five-card suit was a major North might treat that hand as a single-suiter.

The 2 bid simply showed a dislike for clubs and did not guarantee diamonds. E/W were playing Cappelletti, so the double was for penalty. West did not think that her first double was slow, but it could have been slow because she was considering bidding 2 (to show spades and a minor) or doubling. When asked whether 2 would have been an underbid, she decided that it would have been; hence the double.

The doubles of 2 and 2 were also for penalty. East stated that with her hand being as weak as it was, she would not have sat for any penalty double and that the tempos of West's doubles were irrelevant. It was determined that East had 2,000 masterpoints and West 9,400. East played a lot of bridge ten years ago. E/W used to play a lot together but not for the past two years.

The opening lead was the K to the A. Declarer played the J and South won the K. Declarer used her entry to hand to play diamonds.

The Committee Decision: The Committee had varying degrees of sympathy for East's action. Some Committee members thought that they might have removed an in-tempo double of 2 to 2; however, E/W were playing the doubles as penalty. West, who knew her hand to be unsuitable for the action, could not bring herself to double 2 in tempo. The Committee thought that West had a normal 2 bid and had simply made a series of dubious calls.

West has an obligation in such situations to make her calls in tempo. Where, as here, West failed to honor her obligations, she deprived East of the chance to exercise bridge judgment. When East bid 2 she would have expected N/S to have a seven-or eight-card fit. (North had not shown five hearts, so there was no strong indication that N/S really had a good fit.) West's slow double was a "bad" break in tempo. On that basis East could not be allowed to bid after her partner's hesitations. The contract was changed to 2 doubled. Since normal play leads to at least eight tricks, a score of plus 470 for N/S was assigned to both pairs.

The Committee discussed the merits of the appeal. In a split decision the deposit was returned. Two dissenters believed that East's argument was substantially without merit; three others believed that the infraction was mild enough, and the argument raised by E/W good enough, that the deposit should be returned.

Chairman: Barry Rigal
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Michael Rahtjen, Judy Randel, Michael Rosenberg