Board 24 None vul. Dealer W	NORTH   Q 10 5 4 3   10 5 4   Q 10   K Q 3
WEST   9 8 2   A 8 7 3 2   A 9 6 5 2   - - -		EAST   K   K Q 6   K 8 7 4   A J 5 4 2
	SOUTH   A J 7 6   J 9   J 3   10 9 8 7 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Kassie Ohtaka	Jason Feldman	Carlos Munoe	Lynne Feldman
Pass	Pass	1(1)	Pass
1(2)	Pass	2	Pass
2(3)	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	4	Pass
4(4)	Pass	4NT	Pass
5	Pass	6	All Pass

(1) Alerted; Precision (16+)
(2) Alerted; 8+ points, 5+ hearts
(3) Alerted; at least 5-5, not minimum
(4) Break in tempo

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 980 for E/W. The Director ruled that passing 4 was a logical alternative (Law 16). The contract was changed to 4 made six, plus 680 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling and were the only players at the hearing. E/W stated that the auction had indicated probable extra values and it would be safe to play at the five level. The West hand had a superb minimum (8 HCP, but two aces) for the auction.

The Committee Decision: The East hand was minimum for its previous bidding and had a probable wasted K. This player, misevaluating his values, might well have bid the 27% slam, but Law 16 made allowing further action after the break in tempo inappropriate. The contract was changed to 4 made six, plus 680 for E/W.

Committee: Dick Budd (chair), Mark Bartusek, Robb Gordon.

Board 13 Both vul. Dealer N	NORTH   Q J 10 3   J 4   10 9   J 10 6 4 3
WEST   A 7 6 2   A 9 5   A 7 6   9 8 7		EAST   K 9 5   K 10 6 3 2   8 2   A K Q
	SOUTH   8 4   Q 8 7   K Q J 5 4 3   5 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Howard Gianera	Jay Korobow	Joe Sacco	Craig Ganzer
-	Pass	1	2
Dbl	Pass	2(1)	Pass
4	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 620 for N/S. The Director was called when the dummy was put down. N/S stated that they believed the slow 2 bid demonstrably suggested that 4 would be a better contract than 4. The Director ruled Law 73F1 had not been violated and that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. North and West attended the hearing. North stated that there had been a 20-second break in tempo by East. He believed that the break in tempo created the unauthorized information that East may have only a three-card spade suit.

West stated he had paused for 60 seconds before he bid 4. He reasoned that since he was 4-3-3-3 and if partner had to ruff during the play of the hand he would be ruffing with high trumps since he held SA762. For that reason West believed 4 was a better contract.

The Committee Decision: The Committee determined there had been a break in tempo. The Committee questioned West and found out that there was no unusual meaning for the negative double. West did not assert that he intended to give his partner a choice of contracts. The Committee believed that there were three possible bids by West: 3, 4, and 4.

The Committee believed that most players would bid 3 or 4, but that 4 was a logical alternative. The Committee agreed that the out-of-tempo 2 bid suggested that East had only three spades and that 4 could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner’s break in tempo (Law73F1).

The Committee decided to award an adjusted score (Law12C2). For E/W, the offenders, the Committee decided that the most unfavorable result that was at all probable was 4 down one because some in West’s peer group would choose to play in the 4-4 spade fit rather than the 5-3 heart fit. For N/S, the non-offenders, the Committee decided that the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred was 4 made four. For N/S, the contract was changed to 4 made four, minus 620. For E/W the contract was changed to 4 down one, minus 100.

Committee: Ed Lazarus (chair), Lowell Andrews, Harvey Brody, Abby Heitner, Chris Moll

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gene Prosnitz	Elizabeth Reich	Arch McKeller	Uday Ivatury
-	-	-	1
Pass	2	Pass	3
Pass	3	Pass	4
Pass	5	Dbl	5
Pass	5(1)	Pass	6
Pass	7NT	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 7NT made seven, plus 1520 for N/S. The Director ruled that there had been a break in tempo. The contract was changed to 7 made seven, plus 1510 for N/S.

The Appeal: Both sides appealed the Director’s ruling. E/W stated that South should pass 5 as it was possible to construct a North hand consistent with prior bids that would make any advancement danger-ous, but the slow 5 bid suggested otherwise.

N/S stated that spades were clearly established as trump, and therefore, while hearts had been bid naturally previously, 5 was an an obvious cuebid. After the second diamond cuebid, North could count 13 tricks.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that North had all the information necessary to count 13 tricks in a notrump contract. Since spades were not bid at the seven-level and N/S had never considered a 6 contract, the Committee could find no basis to change the contract to a strain other than notrump.

As for E/W’s appeal, to suggest that 5 could be meant to be the final contract was considered ludicrous for players of this level. The Committee believed its time had been completely wasted by the whole incident that was caused by the silly objections of E/W at the table.

The contract was changed to 7NT made seven, plus 1520 for N/S.

The N/S deposit was returned.

The E/W deposit was retained and a one-quarter board procedural penalty was assessed.

[Although the ACBL Board of Directors recently recinded the regulation requiring a deposit for appeals in NABC+ events, the new policy had not yet taken effect as of the time of this appeal - Ed]

Committee: Jerry Gaer (chair), Karen Allison, Phil Brady, Lou Reich, Mary Vickers

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	1
2	Pass	2	All Pass

The Facts: 2 made four, plus 170 for E/W. N/S started to inquire as to the meaning of the direct cuebid and was told by East that she didn’t know what it meant. South cut her off at that point, believing that further explanation would help E/W. N/S made no effort to protect themselves. The Director ruled that N/S had not been damaged and allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. They stated that E/W had only one filled-out convention card, and dummy was inconsistent with what was listed on the card as to the bid’s meaning. Confusion led to North’s failure to balance and he subsequently misdefended. E/W were a husband and wife who have played together for many years, but rarely duplicate (they have 75 masterpoints between them). They mostly played kitchen bridge where anything goes and were not familiar with the use of convention cards.

The Decision: N/S never asked either opponent for any explanations after the auction or before the opening lead . North was especially at fault, since even at his skill level (approximately 150 masterpoints) he should have determined that he should have acted (bid his spade suit) in the pass-out position. The N/S partnership could have easily defeated 2. Instead, two overtricks were made. The Committee allowed the table result, 2 made four, to stand.

E/W were reminded of their obligation to have some understanding of the meaning of their bids so that their opponents could be informed of what those bids mean. Also, they were told that they needed to completely fill out two convention cards identically and completely and have them available for the opponents.

The Committee complimented the players for choosing to use the appeal process to straighten out their confusion, something that new players almost never consider. All four players were encouraged to continue having a good time at their first NABC.

Committee: Jerry Gaer (chair), Lowell Andrews, Phil Brady, Dick Budd, Dave Treadwell

Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North	NORTH   x x   A K Q x   A Q x x x x   J
WEST   K Q x   x x   J 10 x x   A Q x x		EAST   J 10 x x x   x x x   x   x x x x
	SOUTH   A x x   J x x x   K x   K 10 x x

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Scott Gates	Brad Moss	Russell Shoup	Fred Gitelman
-	1	Pass	1
Pass	4(1)	Pass	4
Pass(2)	Pass	4	5
Dbl	All Pass

(1) Alerted; showed four hearts and six diamonds
(2) 2 - 3 second pause

The Facts: 5 doubled went down one, plus 200 for N/S. The Director was called after the double of 5 and was told that West had broken tempo before he passed 4. The Director found that there had been a break in tempo that suggested action (Laws 73F1 and 16A2). East bid 4, successfully pushing his opponents to the five level and into an unmakable contract. The Director determined that a pass by East was a logical alternative to 4 and changed the contract to 4 made five, plus 650 for N/S (Law 12C2).

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. They acknowledged that West took 2-3 seconds to pass over 4. However, they contended that this was not a break in West’s tempo. East said that he noticed no break in tempo and West said he thought a moment about what was happening, but tried to do that all the time. East noted that there was nothing in West’s hand to suggest a reason for him to hesitate. Both East and West said that they had discussed as a partnership the importance of even tempos and had agreed to never bid fast.

East referred to his hand as a “classic,” a pure sacrifice. He said that he expected to “buy” 10-12 HCP in his partner’s hand with at most two hearts, three or four spades, and three or four clubs. He said that if West’s values were well placed there might be a very good sacrifice at favorable vulnerability. East said that his team finished the first quarter about two boards after the rest of the field and that this was largely because of the deliberate tempo that he and his partner employed, even in pass-out seat when they had no intention of bidding. E/W also submitted that this kind of bid is not out of character for East. East noted that he had gone down 1100 earlier in the match in a solo dive he took against a game. E/W presented a witness (a friend and former teammate from their part of the country) who attested to their high ethical standards and the fairly consistent and slow tempos used by the pair. He also noted East’s proclivity for taking flyers (“he makes highly unusual bids”).

N/S asserted that the reason for the slowness in the earlier quarter was that East took a very long time to play a couple of hands. N/S said that the E/W tempos were erratic. They presented the testimony of a teammate who had played against E/W in this match who concurred with that evaluation. N/S said that West took 2-3 seconds to bid over South’s 4 bid. They asserted that this was a small but decided break in tempo.

N/S presented another witness (a friend from the home area of one of them) who was kibitzing this table when this incident occurred. They asked him whether he noticed an erratic tempo by E/W. He said that he did not, but he was not paying much attention to the opponents. They asked him whether he noticed a break in tempo over 4. He said that he did not, that he quit paying attention when 4 was bid and “the next thing I knew, the Director was called.” N/S contended that there was a break in tempo and that it suggested action to East, which he took by bidding 4. N/S said that East made no other bids when they played against him which were notably unusual. Since the action was successful (pushing them to the five-level) and pass was a logical alternative, they said that the contract should be rolled back to 4, which would make five. Finally, N/S also said that the double of 5 was noticeably faster than the pass over 4.

The Committee Decision: Both sides agreed that about 2-3 seconds had elapsed between South’s 4 bid and West’s pass. N/S contended that this constituted a break in tempo and E/W contended that it did not. The Committee considered West’s hand and found nothing in it to suggest that West paused to consider bidding or doubling. This lent credence to E/W’s claims. On the other hand, the bizarreness of East’s 4 call lent credence to N/S’s claims. The Committee carefully considered the testimony of the kibitzer at the table, who was a witness provided by N/S. He was unable to confirm N/S’s claim that E/W were erratic in their tempos in general and also unable to confirm that there was a break in tempo on this hand. His qualification that he was not paying much attention to the E/W tempos certainly affected the weight which the Committee attached to his observation, but did not render the observation worthless.

Law 16A says, in relevant part: “After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of . . . unmistakable hesitation, . . . the partner may not choose among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.” After considering all the evidence, the Committee found that there was no unmistakable hesitation.

Therefore, East was free to bid 4 — or whatever he wished. The Committee changed the contract to 5 doubled down one, plus 200 for E/W.

Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Lowell Andrews, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Ellen Siebert

Board 17 None vul. Dealer North	NORTH   9 7 2   7 2   7 3   A Q 8 7 4 3
WEST   K J 10 8 3   A 10 6   K 10   K 9 5		EAST   Q 6 5 4   Q 9 4 3   J 9 6   6 2
	SOUTH   A   K J 8 5   A Q 8 5 4 2   J 10

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Saul Teukolsky	Allen Hawkins	Roselyn Teukolsky	Jim Foster
-	Pass	Pass	1
1	Pass	3(1)	Pass(2)
Pass	4	All Pass

(1) Alerted; preemptive
(2) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 130 for N/S. North called the Director immediately after he bid 4. The Director determined from all parties that South hesitated a minimum of 15 seconds, perhaps more than 30 seconds. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative and imposed it (Law 16A2) after determining that the break in tempo suggested further action and N/S improved their score by bidding 4. The contract was changed to 3 down one, plus 50 for N/S (Law12C2).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. N/S stated that: (1) a very high percentage of their peers would bid 4 in this position; (2) the hesitation did not suggest action; and (3) the auction militates in favor of bidding since South has at most one spade and very likely at least two clubs and if 4 fails, 3 may well make.

E/W stated that: (1) they agreed that probably more than half the field would bid 4, but thought the break in tempo made the bid easier; (2) the hesitation suggested extra values and extra safety; and (3) North hit his partner with 15 HCP and distribution. Through questioning, the Committee ascertained that N/S’s methods did not include any descriptive method for North to bid directly over 1.

The Committee Decision: The Committee found that: (1) there had been a break in tempo by South; (2) The break in tempo suggested bidding; and (3) pass was not a logical alternative. According to Law 12C2, in the event of unauthorized information, the offending pair should receive the most unfavorable result that was at all probable.

The Committee decided that North’s peers would bid 4 in the semifinal of the Life Master Pairs sufficiently often to satisfy this criterion. The Committee acknowledged that there might be an occasional expert who would pass, but decided that there would not be a significant number who would do so. The 4 bid was allowed and the contract was changed to 4 made four, plus 130 for N/S.

Chairman’s Retrospective Note: This Committee (the Chairman included) may have erred in failing to pursue questions about the defense and play of the 4 contract. North must play the hand very well to make 4 against good defense. It is possible that E/W may have erred in the defense to permit the contract to make. If E/W had a chance at a better score on defense than they had playing 3, then the Committee should have probed the quality of the defense to determine whether E/W forfeited their right to an adjustment. However, if the answer had been affirmative, the Committee decision would have still have been E/W minus 130. Then the Committee’s principal finding would have supported the N/S plus 130.

Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Nell Cahn, Jim Linhart

Board 4 Both vul. Dealer West	NORTH   K 9   A Q 10 7 5 4   - - -   Q 5 4 3 2
WEST   A Q 7 4   K 6   K 7 6   10 9 7 6		EAST   J 10 6 2   J   Q J 8 5 4 2   J 8
	SOUTH   8 5 3   9 8 3 2   A 10 9 3   A K

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Mark Bartusek	Sam Nelson	Marshall Miles	Frank Pancoe
1	1	Dbl	2
2	4	4	Dbl(1)
Pass	5	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 5 made six, plus 680 for N/S. There was an agreed 30-second break in tempo before South doubled 4. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative for North but that E/W were not damaged because the likely result in a 4 doubled contract was down three, minus 800. The Director allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. North, South and West attended the hearing. West stated that he believed that passing 4 doubled was a logical alternative for North. West also believed that the following defense was most likely and would lead to minus 500: A lead, club to the ace, K, A cashed, diamond ruffed, club. When South could not overruff the third round of clubs, the position of the K would be exposed.

North stated that he bid 5 because his defen-sive values were doubtful and he had great playing strength.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided the actual result that would occur without the break in tempo was so unclear that it was impossible to assess whether damage to E/W had actually occurred. Reasonable defense could lead to minus 800 (A, club to the king, A, diamond ruff, club to the ace, diamond ruff). Imaginative defense could lead to minus 200 (underleading the A to get partner in to lead diamonds).

The Committee decided that E/W had not been damaged because it was most likely that the defense would lead to minus 800. Therefore, for E/W the table result was allowed to stand. N/S were assessed a procedural penalty (Law 90A) in matchpoints equal to the difference between the score for plus 680 and plus 500.

Committee: Jerry Gaer (chair), Karen Allison, Phil Brady, Lou Reich, Mary Vickers

Board 18 N/S vul. Dealer East	NORTH   J 8 4 3   Q 9 2   10 5 3 2   A 10
WEST   A Q 6 2   K 10 5   A K 4   9 7 2		EAST   K 10 5   A J 6 4 3   Q J   8 4 3
	SOUTH   9 7   8 7   9 8 7 6   K Q J 6 5

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
1NT	Pass	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	3NT	All Pass

The Facts: 3NT made five, plus 460 for E/W. The E/W agreement was that 2NT showed both three hearts and four spades. West’s 2NT bid was explained (upon request during the auction) as denying three hearts and denying four spades. The Director ruled that N/S’s poor result was a consequence of the misinformation and allowed the table result to stand. The Director assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty against E/W for failing to notify the opponents that the explanation of the 2NT bid was believed to be erroneous (Law 75D2).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. North, South, and East attended the hearing. On the lead of the 3, West won the 10 in dummy and led a heart to the 10, losing to the queen. North then decided that since declarer was going to make 3NT, it was right to defend passively, continuing spades. North contended that with the correct information he would have led a diamond at trick one to which South would have contributed the discouraging 9 (upside down signals) and he could then have played the A and 10 after he won the Q to defeat the contract two tricks.

E/W admitted that there was misinformation and that they accepted the procedural penalty. They thought, though, that North’s stated defense was unlikely.

The Committee Decision: It was the opinion of the Committee that the misinformation affected the opening lead and that North would have led a diamond if he had been given the correct information.

On the diamond lead, it was very likely that West would have won in dummy and finessed South for the Q. When North won that, it was very unlikely that North would continue with the A 10. A passive defense attempting to give nothing away was far more likely. Even though North would have a complete count on the hand, cashing the A is too fraught with danger to be a likely defense or even a probable one. Although on the play of eight red tricks North would come under some pressure, the Committee thought it likely that N/S would defend well enough to win three tricks. The contract was changed to 3NT made four, plus 430 for E/W (Law 12C2).

Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Lowell Andrews, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Ellen Siebert

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1NT
Pass	2(1)	Pass	3(2)
Pass	3(3)	Pass	4
All Pass

(1) Announced; transfer to spades
(2) Alerted
(3) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S. North broke tempo before he bid 3. At the end of the auction North explained that 3 showed four-card spade support, a doubleton diamond, and a maximum. 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 3 made four, plus 170 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. South and East attended the hearing. South said that his was by no means a practiced partnership. He thought that had his partner not been interested in game, he would have re-transferred by bidding 3 and then passing 3. He interpreted his partner’s 3 bid as invitational. He acknowledged that there was a short break in tempo. He claimed that his 3 bid showed only four spades and two diamonds, not necessarily a maximum.

East stated that North had admitted at the table that they had no such agreement that 3 was invitational. He added that North said that his understanding of their partnership agreement was that the 3 bid showed a maximum as well as four trumps and a doubleton diamond.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that once South showed a maximum notrump opening with four spades and a doubleton diamond, he had told his whole story. Without a clear understanding that 3 was encouraging by North, South’s decision to accept his own invitation to game might have been influenced by his partner’s break in tempo.

The Committee was in agreement that pass was a logical alternative to South’s 4 bid. The Committee considered a split decision possibly awarding E/W minus 420. However they determined that minus 170 was an E/W result that was very likely and would probably occur about 80% of the time. The contract was changed to 3 made four, plus 170 for N/S.

When the players were called back, South accepted the Committee’s explanation and decision in an exemplary manner. It was also explained that had his partner bid 3 in tempo, and had he then wished to “take a shot,” no one would have questioned him. Once the break in tempo took place he was no longer allowed to be brilliant. The Committee commended both players for good conduct during the appeal.

Committee: Gail Greenberg (chair), Phil Becker, Harvey Brody, Corinne Kirkham, Lou Reich