Appeals Committee: Richard Colker, USA (Chairman); Becky Rogers, USA; Eric Kokish, Canada; Patrick Choy, Singapore; and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: L. Wright, GBR - J. Cormack, AUS E/W: Lustin, FRA - Kaplan, USA (FRA) Board 10 Game All Dealer East WEST NORTH   6 5 2   Q   A 8 6   A 10 8 4 3 2 EAST   A K 9 8 4   10 8 7 6 5 2   Q 2   - - SOUTH   Q   K J 9   K J 10 5 4   K Q 6 5   J 10 7 3   A 4 3   9 7 3   J 9 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - 1NT Pass 4(1) Pass 4 All Pass (1) Transfer Result at table: 4 by East +1: 650 E/W The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table after the end of play. The play went: 3 to the queen and king, J to the ace, 4 to the 9, Q and at that point there was some confusion as to the succession of events. East did something with her cards as she either played a diamond to dummy's queen or said she would play a diamond, losing only to the ace. South told her partner (when he put his cards back into the board) that if he didn't take the A immediately, she would get a spade trick. N/S stated that North had played the A AFTER East's claim; E/W said that North played the A BEFORE East claimed by saying "A diamond for you!" The players: N/S: North said that he never actually put the A down on the table. He maintained that East said she would play a diamond to the queen, but that she didn't actually do it. At this point North acquiesced, assuming that declarer had another spade for her 1NT opening. North also said that declarer might have made a proper claim after trick three, without cashing the Q. EW: East spoke only French. With her partner as interpreter she denied having said "A diamond for you and the rest are mine". Both East and West insisted that a diamond was played and taken with the ace. The Committee: The Committee found that what had really been going on was that East had probably played a diamond to the queen, then shown her hand to her screenmate to shorten the play. North had quite correctly understood this action as a claim, to which he acquiesced. The Committee did not think that North had actually put the A on the table, but even if it had been played, the claim had come first. When there is a claim, the laws require play to stop, and the TD is to be called if the claim is contested. It is within South's rights to contest any claim, as North may not concede any tricks on her behalf. Thus, the Committee found that N/S were entitled to one more trick, as the claim came after East had removed her last entry to her diamonds with her play of Q. Thus, the contract was adjusted to 4 by East making 10 tricks, 620 to E/W.

Appeals Committee: Steen Moeller (Denmark, Chairman), Dan Morse (USA), Becky Rogers (USA), David Stevenson (England). N/S: L. Wright, GBR - J. Cormack, AUS E/W: Lustin, FRA - Kaplan, USA (FRA) Board 25 Dealer North. WEST NORTH   A Q 9 6 2   K 4 3   10 5 3   K 9 EAST   K J 10   8   A K 2   A Q 10 7 6 4 SOUTH   8 7 3   10 9 7 5 2   9 7   J 8 5   5 4   A Q J 6   Q J 8 6 4   3 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - 1 Pass 1NT(1) 3 Pass Pass Dbl(1) All Pass (1) = alerted Facts: South asked West the meaning of the 3 bid and West told her it was natural. After there had been two passes, South tried to find out more about the meaning of the bid and West refused to describe it in more detail. On the other side of the screen East described it as "Strong". More than one TD attended the table because of some language difficulties. Result at table: 3 doubled making. TD's decision: Double cancelled. Scored as 3 making, N/S -110. Law 75A. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: West said that there was no special understanding between him and his partner as to the meaning of the 3 bid, so he saw no reason to tell South something that was not an agreement, and told her so. He had bid 3, knowing it was undiscussed, and a gamble, since that was his general style. He pointed out that 3 doubled could be beaten on a heart lead. East said she believed that they had discussed the sequence if 1NT was not alerted. She could not remember an alert. She explained that 3 must be strong because of the vulnerability and her hand. South said that she had tried to find out more information and that West had been extremely brusque and used gestures in telling her he was not going to answer. She said that if 3 was strong then her takeout double needed to be stronger in case partner wished to pass it, and she would have bid 3 on the actual hand. North agreed the double was takeout but he had passed it because there seemed no other sensible call. The Committee: The Committee believed that East/West had no further understanding about the 3 bid. The felt that South was not misinformed. They also felt that even if there had been misinformation then there was no damage since the South hand was an automatic takeout double. The Committee felt that West had not acted correctly when asked further questions. If he felt the questions were inappropriate then he should have called the Director rather than lecture his opponent. If the questions were appropriate he should have answered them. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Table score stands (3 doubled making). Deposit returned. 20% of a top Procedural Penalty to East/West for West's actions when asked questions he believed to be inappropriate. Law 74A2.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møeller (Chairman, Denmark), John Wignall (New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Board 13 Game All Dealer North. WEST NORTH   A 7 2   K 6 5   10 7   A J 8 7 6 EAST   6 3   J 4 2   A J 9 5 3   10 5 2 SOUTH   8 5 4   A Q 10 9 7 3   - -   Q 9 4 3   K Q J 10 9   8   K Q 8 6 4 2   K WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pichler Chemla Weigkricht d'Ovidio - 1 2 3 Pass 3NT Pass 4 All Pass Facts: West led a small heart to the queen and East returned a club. South played the king, West the deuce, and now South asked West the meaning of 2. West said that it showed 10-14 points. Therefore South placed East with the ace of diamonds and overtook the club king with the ace to lead a diamond from dummy. The contract went two off, minus 200 North/South. South called the TD and told that had she got a correct explanation of 2 being a weak jump-overcall she would have won the club trick with the king to play a small diamond towards the 10. She claimed that this way she would have made at least nine tricks and probably ten as the defenders would have to play very carefully to beat 4. TD's decision: The TD decided that there had been an infraction and that South had been damaged, but as she could not tell what would have happened without the infraction she scored the hand 60/40 in favour of North/South. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: West told the Committee that he had agreed with his partner to play intermediate jump-overcalls and that he had given a correct explanation to South. On the convention card the jump-overcall was marked "weak", but West said that he and East were using the card normally used by East and her female partner, and that they had forgotten to change the word "weak" to "intermediate". East first told the committee that she felt that her hand was very good and qualified for an intermediate jump-overcall, but later she admitted that she had told North that 2 was a weak jump-overcall. The Committee: The committee decided that there was an infraction, namely misinformation and that South had been damaged.The committee was not so sure of the superiority of playing - in a pairs tournament - a small diamond towards the ten, thus making the contract against less than perfect defence. The committee was happy with the 60/40 decision made by the TD. The committee felt that East/West also should have been happy with that decision and not brought the case to appeal. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: TD's decision to stand. Deposit forfeited. The Committee warned East/West for not playing the same system, or for an incomplete convention card, if they really played intermediate jump overcalls.

Appeals Committee: Richard Colker, USA (Chairman), Becky Rogers, USA, Eric Kokish, Canada, Patrick Choy, Singapore and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: Philippe Carpentier - Madelaine Menessin, France E/W: Robert Maybach - Ulrike Schreckenberger, Germany Board 10 Game All Dealer East WEST NORTH   10 4 3   Q 9   Q 9 8 6   K 10 9 5 EAST   - -   J 10 8 7 2   A J 10 5 3   J 6 3 SOUTH   K Q 8 6 5   4   K 7 4   Q 7 4 2   A J 9 7 2   A K 6 5 3   2   A 8 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - Pass 2(1) Pass 2(2) Pass 3NT(3) All Pass   (1) Semiforcing. (2) Relay. (3) Explained from N to E: "For play!";     from S to W: "5-5 in the majors". Table result: 3 NT +1: 630 N/S The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table after the play.The play went: J to the queen, 10 to the queen and ace, 3 to the queen, 3 to the king. Then East played a small diamond to the 10, and another small diamond came back to the king, and then a small spade from East. There was nothing on the convention card that could support South's explanation of 5-5 in the majors.The TD, as instructed by law 75, accepted North's explanation as the correct one and ruled that the table result would stand. The players: E/W: East was told that South had a balanced, strong hand with at least two diamonds and held back the K because she assumed that South held the A. She maintained that if she had known that South had 5-5 in the majors and an intermediate hand, she would have gone up with the K either on the first or the second round of diamonds and defeated the contract. N/S: South maintained that in France, this sequence is often played to show 5-5 in the majors. She believed that North knew this. North, who was somewhat less experienced than South, did not know. The Committee: The Committee found that the footnotes under law 75 2 forced the TD to rule any discrepancy in statements as a misexplanation and not a misbid unless one of the statements could be proved to be true. Furthermore, the Committee believed that if South's statement were true, East would have put up the K the first or the second time if she had known. On the other hand, if North's statement were true,West might have found a better lead (e.g. the J) if he had known the facts. In either case the contract was likely to have gone one down. Thus, the Committee adjusted the score to 3NT by South, 8 tricks: - 100 for N/S; +100 for E/W.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møeller (Denmark, Chairman), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Board 4 All Vulnerable Dealer West WEST NORTH   9 2   K 9 2   A J 9 8 3   9 7 2 EAST   A Q 10 6 4   A 10 7 6 5   6 2   A SOUTH   K J 3   Q J 4 3   Q 7   K J 4 3   8 7 5   8   K 10 5 4   Q 10 8 6 5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1 Pass 2(A) Pass 2 Pass 2NT(A) Pass 3(A) Pass 4 Pass 5(A) Pass 5 All Pass (A) = Alerted Facts: 2 = relay 2NT = relay ( fit) 3 = 5, 4, minimum 5 = odd number of keycards cuebid in C. 5 = was apparently not correctly explained by East to North. Lead: 7 Result at table: 5 making. TD's decision: 5 down one. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North stated that, when asked, East only explained the 5 as maximum. East claims he also said it was a cuebid. North claims she could have led a diamond with a correct explanation, causing the contract to go down. East agreed on the meaning of 5 and admits he had not explained the bit about an odd number of aces. The Committee: The Committee felt that there had indeed been misinformation. Even if the "cuebid" had been mentioned, the important information about the three Aces was still lacking. The Committee felt, however, that even with the correct explanation, the diamond lead was not absolutely certain to have been found. It is clear that one must take three quick tricks but the third can also come from the K. The Committee estimated the chance of finding the diamond lead at more than 50%, but less than 100%, and settled upon 75%. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Law 12C3: 75% of +100, 25% of -650, to both sides. Since the result at the other table was also -650, this translates to 75% of +13 IMPs, or +10 IMPs to NS. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), Chris Compton (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), Barbara Nudelman (USA), David Stevenson (England, GB). Board 12 N/S Vulnerable Dealer West WEST NORTH   J 10 7 6   K 7 3   K 6 3   K J 9 EAST   8 5   J 10 6 5 2   Q J 10 9 8   A SOUTH   A K 9 4 3   Q 9 8 4   5   Q 7 2   Q 2   A   A 7 4 2   10 8 6 5 4 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1(1) Pass Pass 1NT Pass 2(2) 2 All Pass Result at table: 2 minus one. Facts: The TD was called by East at the end of play. The 1(1) bid showed 11-15 HCPS with at least five spades, saying nothing about hearts. After the bid of 2(2), North alerted East, although South did not alert West. When North was asked, he described the 2 as "Stayman, maybe Stayman". There was no description of the meaning of West's pass of 1 on the convention card, nor was it alerted. 1 - 1 would be a puppet to 1NT, and 2 after that would be signoff, so the actual sequence suggested some other place to play apart from 2. TD's decision: Table result stands. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East said that a pass over 1 was similar to a pass over a natural 1 that was limited to 11-15 HCPS. He said he did not realise that West could have hearts once he was told that 2 was Stayman. West said he passed 1 because he did not think there was a game. He did not double 2 because he and his partner had not discussed the meaning of this double. North was surprised that the pass of 1 did not show hearts. He would have expected 2 to be natural if he had known this. The Committee: The Committee said that there is a special obligation on people who play unusual systems to disclose their methods fully (Law 75A). East/West did not do so and the resulting confusion over the effect of West's pass led to the problem. There was a majority view to retain the deposit but the minority view prevailed. The Committee was surprised that East/West did not know the meaning of double over 2. Given the meaning of pass over 1 (and similarly over 1) this must appear on the convention card and must be alerted. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Table score stands - 2 minus one. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), David Stevenson (England, GB). Board 13 All Vulnerable Dealer North WEST NORTH   Q 7 3   9 6   A 10 8   K Q 10 6 5 EAST   10 8   Q J 10 8   9 5 4 3 2   7 2 SOUTH   A K J 9 4   A 4   K 6   A J 9 4   6 5 2   K 7 5 3 2   Q J 7   8 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - 1NT(1) Dbl(2) Rdbl(3) All Pass (1) 12-14 HCPS (2) Explained: E to N as 4M 5+m or strong; W to S as 14+ HCPS (3) Runout: forces 2 Result at table: 1NT redoubled minus two. Facts: North lost 1000 in 1NT redoubled and then South called the TD. The double of 1NT was described, by East to North, as four cards in a major and five cards in a minor, or strong. The double of 1NT was described, by West to South, as 14+ HCPS. West's description was correct. N/S played that if the double of 1NT is for penalties, then redouble asks North to bid 2 prior to signing off in his longest suit; if the double of 1NT is two-suited then redouble is for business, asking North to pass. TD's decision: 2 doubled minus three, N/S -800. Laws 75A and 12C2. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North/South said that if they were not misinformed, North would have bid 2, East would have doubled to show clubs (not necessarily extra values), and with only 3 HCPS West would be unlikely to find a double. Thus the final contract would probably have been 2 by East, or 2 undoubled by South. They suggested that in deciding the adjustment they believed the TD had given the benefit of the doubt to the wrong side. East said he gave the wrong explanation because in his country any 1NT opening that is not 15-17 has to be alerted. In the absence of an alert, he assumed it was a 15-17 1NT and acted accordingly. West said that a double of 2 would show extra values (not necessarily long clubs) and a willingness to defend. He said it would be the same if the 1NT opening had been strong: after a double, redouble, taken out to 2 by opener, double would show extra values (not necessarily long clubs). The Committee: The Committee decided that, had North bid 2 and East doubled, West would double South's 2 a majority of the time. So in order to achieve equity under Law 12C3 they decided to assign a weighted score. The Committee pointed out that with screens it is desirable to write down the range of a 1NT opening if there is any possibility at all that it would be misunderstood otherwise. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: North/South would get -800 in 2 doubled two-thirds of the time. North/South would get -110 in 2 one-third of the time. Deposit returned. Appeals - Law 12C3 By David Stevenson (England, GB) According to Law 12C3, an Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score to achieve equity. This may lead to more than one score being assigned, as in the following example case. Suppose North/South are misinformed and double 4 as a result, which makes. The Appeals Committee decide that if they were not misinformed they would not have doubled 4, but would have bid 4, which makes two overtricks. But would they have bid a slam? If they probably would have, then the Appeals Committee will assume it, and assign a score of slam making. Now consider: if they would probably not have reached slam, but it was just possible, what is fair? To give them the slam, which they would probably not have reached, so is a gift? Or to assign them a score in game, which means they have never had the chance to reach slam, which they might have done? According to Law 12C3, there is a compromise: the Appeals Committee could assign them a percentage of the slam making, and a percentage of the game with overtricks. For example, they might give them 35% of +980, 65% of +480. Many people will feel this is fair, and players on both sides usually find such rulings acceptable. The reason you may not have seen this Law in action is that it is a Zonal option. In the ACBL, for example, Law 12C3 does not apply, so Appeals Committees may not give this kind of assigned scores in North America. The WBF acts as a Zone, and so Law 12C3 is in use at these championships, as it is also in Europe (for example). These are called "weighted scores". The IMPs are calculated for each of the scores, and then the percentages ("weightings") applied. In our example, if +500 was the North/South score in the other room, then North/South would calculate the IMPs for 480 against 500 (-1), and for 980 against 500 (+10), and they would get 65% of -1 plus 35% of +10, which is +3, which seems a fair result.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møeller (Chairman, Denmark), Nissan Rand (Israel), Herman De Wael (Belgium), David Stevenson (England, GB). Board 14 None vulnerable Dealer East WEST NORTH   7   K 9 4   10 8 7 3   10 9 5 4 2 EAST   10 9 8 6   A J 7   A   A K Q 8 7 SOUTH   K Q J 5 4   10 8 2   K Q J 6   3   A 3 2   Q 6 5 3   9 5 4 2   J 6 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - 1 Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3(2) Pass 3(3) Pass 4(4) Pass 4(5) Pass 4(6) Pass 4NT(7) Pass 5(8) Pass 5(9) Pass 6 All Pass (1) GF, fit in S (2) Minimum (3) Asks for shortage (4) Shortage in C (5) Cuebid (6) No H control (7) RKCB (8) 0 or 3 out of 4 aces + K (9) After hesitation Result at table: 6 making, N/S -980. Facts: The Director was called at the end of play. The hesitation before bidding 5 was agreed by West, South and North, while East was not really aware one way or another. East had misbid when she bid 5, since she had the K. TD's decision: 5 plus one, N/S -480. Laws 16A2 and 12C2. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East said that when she was asked the meaning of 5, she immediately realised she had made the wrong bid. She made this clear to North. She was not influenced by the hesitation - in fact she was barely aware of it. She agreed that the question was asked, answered and she realised that she had gone wrong. She indicated this between sending the tray across after her 5 bid and the time it came back. She would not expect partner to have fewer than three aces to bid 4NT. She had played RKCB for many years. North said it was a long hesitation: there was a question, an answer, and expressions of surprise while the tray was away. Whatever the likelihood of three aces, it became completely clear after the hesitation. The Committee: The Committee believed that the hesitation made it easier to get the final decision correct, though different members of the Committee saw different reasons for this. One view of it was: Even if the players can prove that within the system, the bid is the only rational alternative, Law 16 talks of logical alternatives. The Committee felt that if the tray had returned promptly, it might well have happened that the player might go wrong a second time. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: 5 plus one, N/S -480. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), Claire Tornay (USA), Sabine Auken (Denmark), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy). Board 14 None vulnerable Dealer East WEST NORTH   J 10 9 6   - -   K Q 10 8 7 3   K J 8 EAST   A 7 5 4   A Q 9 6 5 3   J   4 3 SOUTH   Q 8 2   K J 10 8 4 2   5 4   10 5   K 3   7   A 9 6 2   A Q 9 7 6 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - Pass 1 1 Dbl 4 4NT Pass 5 Pass Pass 5 6 All Pass Result at table: 6 making, N/S +920. Facts: The Director was called at the point where the tray was on the S/W side of the screen after the final pass. 4NT was described as for the minors on the S/W side of the screen, but on the N/E side it was described as Roman Key Card Blackwood, and 5 as a response thereto. As North bid 6 he corrected his earlier explanation and told East that 4NT was for the minors. TD's decision: Table result stands. Laws 75D and 40C. It is felt that East was not damaged, and would not have acted in front of partner. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East said that if he had been correctly informed as to the meaning of 4NT he might have taken another action over 5. The Committee: Although somewhat confused by different information on both sides of the screen, there is an obligation to continue to play bridge and not rely on the Committee. For this reason the deposit was forfeited. Players should not use Appeals Committees as a "Rescue Squad"! The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Table result 6 making, N/S +920 stands. Laws 75D and 40C. Deposit forfeited.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman), Grattan Endicott, England, Virgil Anderson, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: France E/W: South Africa Board 5 N/S Dealer North WEST NORTH   K 10 7   K J 5   A 10 2   A J 5 4 EAST   J 3   A 9 3 2   K Q 6 4 3   K 6 SOUTH   A 5 2   Q 10 8 7 4   J 9 7   9 7   Q 9 8 6 4   6   8 5   Q 10 8 3 2 West North East South - 1NT Pass 2(1) Pass 2 Pass Pass Dble Pass 3 Pass(2) Pass 3 All Pass (1) Transfer. (2) Alleged slow pass. Table result: 3 by North, 11 tricks: +200 N/S. The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table after the bidding. The tray was at the W/S side of the table and West explained that it took South about 6-8 seconds before she passed over 3. South denied having hesitated at all. After the play the TD was called to the table and asked for a ruling. The TD agreed with North's bid of 3. Furthermore, he did not believe that a hesitation of 6-8 seconds with screens was enough to bar North anyway. Had it been 15-20 seconds, it would have been another story, and especially if the hesitation could be pinpointed to one particular hand.The TD therefore let the score stand. E/W appealed. The players: E/W: East maintained that the hesitation was more than 6-8 seconds, more like 10-12 seconds. In a demonstration of the felt length of the pause, West demonstrated a pause of about 20 seconds. N/S: South categorically denied having paused at all. She stated that she did not even think about bidding on that hand. The Committee: East did the right thing when he called the TD when he believed North to have acted on South's change in tempo. The Committee believed South's hand to be the classic hand for a deliberation in this bidding sequence.The Committee believed there may have been a hesitation, but since this was not substantiated in any way, the Commitee allowed the score to stand.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman),Virgil Anderson, USAJean-Paul Meyer, France, Chris Compton, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: J. Dhondy - I. Pagan, UK E/W: Vega - Hernandez, Panama Board 24 Love All Dealer West WEST NORTH   A K 9 7   K 3 2   J 6   K J 7 2 EAST   10 4   J 10 6 4   9 5 4 3   5 4 3 SOUTH   Q 5 2   7 5   A K Q 7 2   Q 9 8   J 8 6 3   A Q 9 8   10 8   A 10 6 West North East South Pass 1NT(1) 2(2) Dble(3) 2 2 Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass   (1) 14-16. (2) Explained by West to South: "Majors". By East to North: "Natural". (3) Explained by South to West: "General values". By North to East: "T/O". Table result: 3NT by North, 7 tricks; 100 to E/W. The Tournament Director: E/W's convention card reads: "Against weak 1 NT: 2 is natural.Against strong 1 NT: 2 shows the majors. East considered 14-16 as a weak NT, while West considered it as a strong NT. Thus North took the double for T/O and bid 2. South doubled for values, and bid 3 NT on North's 2 bid, assuming that the H/S would behave badly. North did not correct to 4 without a D stopper. The TD considered 14-16 to be a strong NT opening, and consequently, South had had the right information from West. He therefore allowed the table result to stand. N/S appealed. The players: There was no dispute as to the facts. E/W had now agreed upon which range 14 would be. The Committee: The committee considered it impossible to reach 4 when South knew that East had the majors. Although the play in 4 was not entirely clear, it was strongly felt that N/S had been deprived of their opportunity to guess the C and win 420. Under the guidance of law 12 C 3, the Committee was allowed to restore equity to the tournament and to this board, a right not given to the TD. The Committee thus ruled that the score be changed to 4 N/S with 10 tricks; 420 to N/S.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Virgil Anderson, USA; Jean-Paul Meyer, France; Chris Compton, USA; and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: Frederic Wrang -Gunnar Hallberg, UK E/W: Marc Smith -Czerniewski, UK Board 24 Love All Dealer West WEST NORTH   7 5 3 2   5   A Q 7 5   K Q 7 6 EAST   10   Q 9 7 6 4 3 2   K J 9 3   5 SOUTH   A Q J 8   A   4 2   A J 9 8 4 3   K 9 6 4   K J 10 8   10 8 6   10 2 West North East South 3 Dble (1) Pass Pass Pass   (1) Explained from North to East: T/O. Explained from South to West: "I think we play optional doubles, but I have a classic penalty pass". Table result: 3 x by West, 6 tricks; 500 to N/S. The Tournament Director: The first tricks went: K to the Ace, J to the Queen and 2 from North.West decided to finesse, for if North had an optional double, he should hold a lot of values, such as AQ, KQ and the K. The TD decided that according to the explanation West received from South, the K could very well be in South's hand even if the double was meant as optional. Therefore the TD let the table result stand. The players: There was no dispute as to the facts. However, West felt that if he had been given the correct information about the double, he could have settled for a safe 1 down instead of trying to win his contract (by taking the A and running the Q from dummy). The Committee: The Committee decided that even if South's explanation to West had been wrong, South had volunteered information about his hand which was more than adequate for West to make a correct decision on how to play the board. If you have all the information necessary and misplay your hand, you should not expect the Appeals Committee to replay the hand for you. For this reason, the TD's decision was upheld, the table result stood and the deposit was forfeited.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Virgil Anderson, USA; George Retek, Canada; Jean-Louis Derivery; and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway N/S: B.K. Mohota - S.Kagarwaca, India E/W: Kowalski - Romanski, Poland Board 25 E/W Dealer North WEST NORTH   6 5   A K 5   J   A Q 10 8 6 5 3 EAST   K 10 9 7 2   Q J   K Q 9 7 6 3   – SOUTH   A 8   9 7 6 4 3 2   A 5 4 2   J   Q J 4 3   10 8   10 8   K 9 7 4 2 West North East South - 2 Pass 2 Dble 3 3 4 Pass Pass 4 5 5 Dble Pass 6 Dble All Pass Table result: 6 x by North, 10 tricks: +300 E/W. The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table after 6 was bid. East stated that first there had been a long hesitation by North, after which he asked about West's double of 2 before he doubled. West agreed with his partner. South denied any extraordinary hesitation at the other side of the screen. In their bidding system (Precision Club) his partner had showed at least 6 clubs and control in only one suit besides clubs. Therefore the double was a penalty double, and the decision to bid on was South's alone. The TD found no proved infraction and let the table result stand. The players: E/W: E/W stated that after the considerable hesitation by North, South should have passed on his weak hand. N/S: South did not notice any hesitation, but after what he considered to be a penalty double from his partner, he knew that they probably had no defensive values in clubs, and with only one outside stopper in North, it was difficult to see how 5 could be defeated. The Committee: The Committee found that it did not matter very much that the tempo may not have been perfect. North's bid shows at least 6 clubs and only one outside stopper. The facts therefore support the TD's decision. The table result therefore stands and the money was returned.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Virgil Anderson, USA; George Retek, Canada; Jean-Louis Derivery; and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: Buratti -Lanzarotti, Italy E/W: Fawcett -Liggins, England Board 6 E/W Dealer East WEST NORTH   9 7 5   8   A Q 10 5 4   8 5 4 2 EAST   K 10 6 2   A K Q J 10   8   K 10 9 SOUTH   3   7 6 5 4 3   9 7 2   A Q 7 6   A Q J 8 4   9 2   K J 6 3   J 3 West North East South - - Pass 1 2 2 4 Pass(1) Pass 4 Pass Pass Dble All Pass   (1) Alleged slow pass. Table result: 4 by South, 8 tricks: +300 E/W. The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table before the double regarding a slow pass by South.The TD found the pass to be slow, but not out of tempo because of the preemptive nature of the auction. In addition, 1) It is not clear within the laws that a hesitation has occurred. 2) It is not totally clear that the delay in passing over the tray was caused by South. 3) The 4 action was not that hazardous in the eyes of the TD. For these reasons, the TD let the table result stand. E/W appealed. The players: N/S: North stated that a 5-3-3-2 distribution on South's hand was excluded, for that hand would be opened 1NT. Thus, South had to hold an unbalanced hand. South maintained that owing to the fact that his partner would know that he held an unbalanced minimum opening hand, he had passed. North therefore bid 4. South did not agree to any hesitation and North stated that he would always bid 4 with this hand, regardless of any hesitation. E/W: West claimed that the hesitation was at least 20 seconds, and West passed immediately, believing that 4 would be the contract. He had planned to double 4 while South was contemplating. He absolutely denied the TD's statement that there might have been some doubt as to whom the pause could be referred back to. The Committee: The Committee did find a significant break in tempo to have occurred, and since North clearly had a logical alternative for his 4 bid, the score was changed to 4 by West making 11 tricks; +650 E/W.

Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard, USA; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Chris Compton, USA; George Retek, Canada; and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. N/S: Caspensen - Nørgaard, Denmark E/W: Carcassone - Labaere, Belgium Board 11 Love All Dealer South WEST NORTH   K 9 8 7 3   A 3   A Q 2   A 5 4 EAST   10 6 5 4   J 10 7 2   J 10 6 3   10 SOUTH   A Q J   K Q 8 5 4   9 7   K Q 3   2   9 6   K 8 5 4   J 9 8 7 6 2 West North East South - - - 3 Pass Pass 3NT Pass Pass Dble AllPass The Tournament Director: The TD was called to the table by East after the play of the hand. The play had gone: 9 was to the K. East played the K and South followed with the 2, but corrected it to the 6. The Tournament Director was not called to the table at this moment. South had a penalty card, and East started asking about the 3 opening bid. North explained it as described in the convention card as "Loose". When asked "How loose?", North replied something like "We are not crazy!". As to the play of the 2, North informed her that it was "encouraging". This was also written in N/S's convention card. East then tried to take advantage of the penalty card by playing the Q, believing that the A would be in South's hand since they "were not crazy". This coup failed, and the contract went five down -1100 to N/S. The TD found that North had given the correct information to East, and that the play of Q was at her own risk.Therefore, the rul- ing was that the table result was to stand. E/W appealed. The players: N/S confirmed the facts, and North assured that the statement "not crazy" was not made to deceive his opponents. South had called with the 2 because he believed that, at this point, if they were to beat the contract, it would have to be in clubs. East thought that "loose but not crazy" would imply that the A had to be in South's hand, which was why she filed the appeal. The Committee: The Committee found that East had all the necessary information present. She tried to take advantage of a penalty card, but unfortunately for her, it backfired. The Appeals Committee is not the right place to try to replay your misplayed hands, and for this reason the Appeals Committee upheld the TD's decision and forfeited the money. The Appeals Committee also warned North that he should never offer gratuitous information at the table, but stick to replying to the questions asked.

Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), Dan Morse (USA), Becky Rogers (USA), John Wignall (New Zealand), Jaime Ortiz-Patino (observer) Tournament Director: Chris Diment Board 1 None vul. Dealer North WEST NORTH   7 6   Q J 10 7 3   A   K 10 7 6 2 EAST   A 5   K 4   K Q 7 6 5 3 2   A 3 SOUTH   Q J 4 2   A 9 2   10 9   J 9 8 5   K 10 9 8 3   8 6 5   J 8 4   Q 4 West North East South - Pass Pass Pass 1 2NT(1) Dble(2) Pass Pass 3 Dble(3) 3 All Pass   (1) Clubs and hearts (2) Penalties of one or both suits (3) Penalty Result at table: 3 made three, plus 140 for North/South. Facts: North's 2NT bid was explained by North to East as clubs and hearts, their agreement, but by South to West as clubs and spades. (South thought he had written down clubs and hearts and hence did not later correct his error.) The TD was called and told by West that he would have bid 4 over 3 if he had been correctly informed. TD's decision: The TD ruled that, whichever major North held, West's holdings and defensive potential were the same. Since West failed to bid 4 when he thought North's major was spades, there was no evidence to suggest he would have acted any differently had he been told North's major was hearts. The table result was therefore allowed to stand. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: West reiterated that he would have bid 4 had he been told that North's major was hearts. He said that, since hearts was an "unbid" suit, he thought East might have long hearts with South. In any event he thought that East would have to bid over 3. East, who knew that North had clubs and hearts, said he had no fit for West, modest values and only three hearts. So when 3 came around to him he passed. South said he had been thinking about his own spade holding when he wrote his explanation of North's 2NT bid and he simply wrote spades inadvertently instead of hearts as North's second suit. He never realized that he had not written hearts. In the defense of 3 West said he led the K, won perforce in dummy. When declarer then played a club to the queen, West won his ace and panicked, playing ace and another spade. Declarer then (somehow) managed to escape with only four losers. When the Committee asked West to explain why he had not bid 3 directly over the double of 2NT or later over 3, given the similarity in his defensive prospects against any of the other suits, he could give no reason. East/West also confirmed that East's pass of 3] was against their system and that it, rather than the misinformation, might have been responsible for their poor result. The Committee: The Committee saw no reason for West to believe that East had better defense against hearts (sitting, as he was, in front of the presumed heart bidder) than against spades (sitting, as he was, behind the presumed spade bidder). By passing 2NT doubled as well as 3, West had indicated his willingness to defend. Thus, the Committee found no evidence that West would have acted any differently (by bidding 4) had he known that North's second suit was hearts rather than spades. The Committee also believed that the misinformation given by South was entirely inadvertent, due to the fact that he had just been thinking about his own spade holding. Nonetheless, South's error was careless and caused much difficulty. The Committee's decision: The Committee allowed the table result to stand for both pairs (3 made three, plus 140 for North/South). A 5% of a top procedural penalty was assessed against North/South (not to accrue to East/West) for South's carelessness in describing North's 2NT bid. East/West's deposit was returned.

Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Sabine Auken (DEN), Chris Compton (USA), Claire Tornay (USA) Tournament Director: Bertrand Gignoux Board 13 E/W Dealer North WEST NORTH   6 5 3   K 8 7 5   J 7 2   8 7 2 EAST   Q 7 3   A 3   K 8 4   K 6 5 4 3 SOUTH   A K J 9 4   6   A Q 10 5   Q J 10   10 8   Q J 10 9 4 2   9 6 3   A 9 West North East South - Pass 1(1) Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3(3) Pass 4(4) Pass 5(5) Pass 5(6) Dble 5 Pass 6NT All Pass   (1) 5+ spades or balanced weak notrump with 2-3 spades (2) Balanced game force without four hearts (3) Natural (5+ spades, 4+ diamonds), not showing extras (4) Minimum with three spades (5) Cuebid, denying a club control (6) Cuebid, first-or second-round heart control Facts: East bid 5 after a long hesitation. His 5 bid, although somewhat faster, was still slow. At that time North told East that he was reserving his right to call the TD, which he did immediately after West's 6NT bid. East's 5 bid was not forward-going and indicated a lack of interest in hearing whether West's 5 cuebid was based on first-or second-round control. (He could have passed, allowing West to redouble with first-round control.) East and South both agreed with North's description of the tempo of the 5 and 5 bids. The TD determined that North/South had no agreement about what a double of 6NT by South would have meant in this situation. TD's decision: The TD ruled that unauthorized information was available which made West's 6NT bid more attractive and that passing 5 was a logical alternative. The directing staff also believed that the break in tempo (at the point where North doubled 5 and East bid 5) was far more likely to have been due to East than North. The contract was adjusted for both sides to 5 making six, plus 680 for E/W, according to Laws 16 and 12. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East agreed that his 5 bid was quite slow but stated that his 5 bid, while a bit slow, had taken at most 10-15 seconds – not unreasonable for a call in the middle of a slam-investigative auction. West stated that he knew his side could make a slam once East cuebid 5, but he did not jump to 6 immediately because seven was still a possibility. He also pointed out that his inference that East was concerned about a heart lead (and would thus hold at least a doubleton) and his choice to bid 6NT to protect his K were errors and could have worked out poorly – but they were not predicated on East's hesitation. East also indicated that his partnership had no way to systemically show a distributional (say, six-five) slam try. In response to a Committee member's question, North stated that, while in theory he agreed that the decision of whether to make a high-level lead-directing double could require some lengthy consideration, the double of 5 bid here was not in that category. With a near worthless hand he had no trouble doubling the one suit in which he could stand a lead, and thus, in his opinion the hesitation was entirely attributable to East. The Committee: The Committee believed that East's 5 bid was a clear signoff, especially since East could have indicated further interest by passing the double of 5 and then bidding 5 over West's redouble. Since East/West stated that, by their own agreement 5 had denied a club control, West's 5 must have shown a club control. Thus, West had already shown much of his hand. East's slam try might be such that he needs West to hold three of the four features which include the two round-suit aces, the Q and the K (doubleton) to continue. While West is admittedly near maximum for his 4 bid, holds three key cards (SQ, A, K), and could hardly be expect-ed to hold more after his 4 bid,West still lacks two of the four critical features (CA and doubleton diamond). Also, since many players would pass 5 holding the West hand, West should not be permitted to continue. The Committee's decision: The Committee cancelled the 6NT bid and adjusted the contract for both sides to 5 by East making six, plus 680 for E/W. The deposit was returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Jens Auken (Denmark), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), David Stevenson (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium). North/South: Maas/Ramondt East/West: Moss/Shenken Board 2 N/S Dealer East WEST NORTH   A 10 5   A K Q 9 4 3   7 4   10 8 EAST   6   J 10 8 7   A Q 9 6 5   J 7 5 SOUTH   Q 9 7 3 2   6 5 2   10 3 2   9 6   K J 8 4   –   K J 8   A K Q 4 3 2 West North East South - - Pass 1 Pass 1 Pass 1 Pass 2(1) Pass 4(2) Pass 4(3) Pass(4) 4 Pass 5(5) Pass(6) Pass Pass   (1) very slow (2) very slow (3) very fast (4) deliberately adjusted tempo (5) disputably fast (6) deliberately adjusted tempo Result at table: 5 making six, N/S +620. Facts: East, having judged the bids of 4 and 5 to have been made in too fast a tempo, took out his Pass card immediately but held it over the tray before deposing it. South, when faced with the decision to bid 6, claims he decided not to push on because of the perceived hesitation by partner. TD's decision: 6 made, N/S +1370. Law 73D, 73F2 and General Conditions 16.3. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East said he counted to eight seconds after 4 before placing his pass card on the tray, and to six seconds before placing his pass over 5. He did so, in his opinion, to restore the normal tempo. A French spectator was in the Appeals Committee meeting to confirm these timings. He said both passes were in about the same tempo. North agreed that he had bid 2 after a long pause for thought, and that he may have been very quick in bidding 4, but that his bid of 5 was in normal tempo. South stated that he had noticed the slow return of the tray on both occasions, and that this influenced him in not bidding the slam. The US Captain stated that he believed East had acted in good faith. The Committee: The Committee read the pertinent Laws and Regulations. Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play, or by the manner in which the call or play is made." Law 73F2: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reaon for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)" WBF Conditions of Contest - 16.3: "During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own call or by waiting before passing the tray." The Committee stresses that the word "normal" in this regulation does not mean the average tempo of that one auction but the normal tempo that would not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: The Director's ruling was absolutely justified. The call of 5 was on the evidence of the neutral spectator in normal tempo. Whilst the East player no doubt acted in good faith, he did overcompensate since the requirement is to return the tempo to normal and not to a tempo consistent with any prior slow bid. It is important that this principle is understood and players are not advised to act in the manner described in condition 16.3, unless the position clearly requires it. The Committee applied Law 12C3, and not being satisfied that 6 would inevitably be bid, ruled that the score be adjusted to 50% of +1370 and 50% of +620. The deposit was refunded. Lesson learned Submitted by Hugh Ross. My friend and teammate Brad Moss, playing in the Rosenblum recently, was watching his opponents struggling through a potential slam auction. Some of the opponents' bids were made very quickly. Brad twice rectified the tempo by holding up his Pass card for 8 to 12 seconds before allowing the tray to go under the screen. The opponents claimed that the distortion of the tempo caused them to miss a laydown slam, and they protested Brad's actions. Brad is a totally ethical player. His motives in holding the tray were sincere and honest. His action is not only allowed by the Laws, but it is encouraged by the Proprieties. Nevertheless it earned him a severe score correction from the director, later halved by a committee. I am aware that Brad (and the rest of us) has learned a lesson - but not the one intend-ed by the committee. Next time, when faced with a too-fast bid, a sadder, wiser and more cynical Brad (and I as well) will ask the opponent a question about his bid whether or not we care about the answer. This action is always legal and will achieve the desired result of restoring the tempo. What a sad state of affairs this is when the current rulings require dishonest actions by players for their own self-protection. Note from Steen Møller, chairman of the committee dealing with this appeal: The members of the committee felt that Brad Moss overdid the rectification of the tempo by a couple of seconds at least when he executed his lawful right to delay the return of the tray. We, however, gave him back half of the score correction, and it must be noted that we warned the opposing player who made all his bids of that hand in different tempos to try to avoid this for the future. Hugh Ross' advice concerning how to avoid committee decisions like this is not a good one as he himself clearly is aware, so, please, do not think that you have learned a lesson. Grattan Endicott comments: The WBF Laws Committee holds that restoring the tempo of tray movement to "normal" means to the normal tempo of play generally and not to the tempo of play at that particular table nor to the (slow) tempo of a prior movement of the tray on that hand. Players who deliberately retard the return of the tray beyond the norm may be in breach of Law 73D2 and Law 73F2 may apply. A thought from Kojak: "Adjust the tempo" can often result in hiding improper and/or unethical actions on the part of your screenmate. I feel that in the long run bridge might be better served by bringing the variations in tempo to the directing staff's attention for resolution, score adjustment, penalty, etc. We can't educate and improve the individual players' propriety by sending the message that at worst my screenmate will cover my violation of Law 73D1.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Virgil Anderson (USA), Rich Colker (USA), John Lenart (New Zealand), Dan Morse (USA) N/S: M. Smith/P. Czerniewski E/W: Stela Sagiv/Lilo Poplilov Board 3 E/W Dealer South WEST NORTH   K 5   A Q J 7 2   6   K J 10 8 5 EAST   A 9 8 4 3 2   K 9   Q 7 5 4   7 SOUTH   10 7 6   6   A K 10 9 8   Q 4 3 2   Q J   10 8 5 4 3   J 3 2   A 9 6 West North East South - - - Pass 2(1) 3(2) 4 AllPass   (1) Alerted and explained on both sides as "strong" (2) Some sort of two-suiter; undiscussed Table Result: 4 made five, +650 for E/W. Facts: The TD was called at the end of the play. N/S contended that they were damaged because they were not given the proper explanation of E/W's methods. In the post-mortem West indicated that he had misbid when he opened 2, intending it as weak. When he realized his mistake (almost as soon as he began describing his bid as weak to South) he changed his explanation in mid sentence to reflect E/W's agreement (strong/ACOL). East also explained the 2 bid as strong to North. The E/W convention cards had 2/2S marked as ACOL on page 2. (The section of the front page of E/W's convention card marked "SPECIAL BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENSE" listed 2 and 2 openings as showing five-five two-suiters, 6-10 points, including the major opened and a lower suit. However, N/S agreed that neither North nor South ever looked at these cards.) East expressed surprise at the mismarked front page of their card, reconfirmed that they WERE playing strong major-suit opening two-bids, and suggested that the error must have been due to their "doing the card through the computer." TD's decision: The TD determined that the mismarked section on the front of E/W's convention card was a computer error which could not have affected the table result, since neither opponent looked at E/W's convention cards. Since East and West both explained 2 as strong, and since the second page of the E/W cards were both consistent with this explanation (marked as ACOL), the TD ruled that N/S had been properly informed of the meaning of 2 as per E/W's agreements. The fact that this did not correspond with West's hand was true, but irrelevant. West was obligated to explain the meaning in his partnership of his bid and was not obligated to disclose the contents of his hand. The TD allowed the table result to stand. Appellant: N/S appealed. The players: N/S contended that both West and East's hands were consistent with a weak 2 bid, and that this was consistent with the way the front of their card was marked ("2S = 5 + 5 any, 6-10"). If North had known that 2 was weak he would have bid a systemic 4, showing clubs and hearts, and South would then have bid 5.They also stated that if West had chosen this moment to psych his strong 2 opening, East appeared to have underbid. In response to questions from the Committee, E/W indicated that they were not a practiced partnership. They had filled out their convention card by starting with one used by their spouses and modifying it using the WBF Convention Card Editor, deleting parts they weren't playing and adding their own variations. They believed they had failed to delete the two-suited major-suit openings played by their spouses from the front of the card and then simply not noticed their oversight. West explained that when he opened 2 he had done so reflexively, as he played weak two-bids with most of his other partners. When he (almost immediately) realized his error he began to explain his bid as weak, but then remembered his obligation to disclose his partnership agreement, and not his hand, to his opponent. He did this. East explained that she described West's bid as strong and, after North bid 3, she decided that with only 9 points and little bidding room she would just bid game rather than show her diamonds. The Committee: Two Committee members (Lenart, Morse) left the hearing at the end of the testimony due to other commitments (this was the third appeal heard by this Committee during the current sitting) and did not participate in the discussion or the final decision. One indicated before he left that he favored assigning N/S Average Plus and E/W Average Minus. The Committee noted that West correctly explained the systemic meaning of his 2 bid to his screenmate, as required by law, but behind screens also might have volunteered that, "My partner will explain it as strong, but I have a weak two-bid," as suggested by Active Ethics. Players using new (for them), complex or unfamiliar (to others) methods have a special responsibility to know what they are playing, alert their bids properly, and explain them accurately and completely on both sides of the screen. In this case West failed to live up to that standard. In addition, while it is clear that E/W systemically played ACOL two-bids in the majors and accurately informed their screenmates of this, East's "oddly" conservative 4 bid was troubling to some Committee members in light of West's "misbid." As for N/S, while they would have had a better chance to compete for the contract had the problems created by the opponents not occurred, they themselves had not adequately discussed the meanings of their conventional methods over what should not have been a totally unexpected ACOL 2 opening. Thus, they bore responsibility for their problems. The Committee's decision: The Committee (Chairman) adjusted the score for E/W to average minus based on the following: West forgot his methods; West did not disclose the intended meaning of his 2 bid on his side of the screen, as per Active Ethics; E/W's convention card was not filled out properly; and East chose a conservative 4 bid with a hand that warranted a slam try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with East's (conservative) action. The Chairman also adjusted N/S's score to the better of the table result or average minus, in recognition of N/S's responsibility in not having adequately discussed their conventional defenses to the opponents' strong, natural opening bids. Dissenting Opinions (Colker, Anderson): We disagree with the Committee's decision. While it is disruptive and generally not good for our game when players forget their methods, these things do happen. Under the present laws, as long as the opponents are properly informed of the systemic meaning of a player's bid (not necessarily his actual hand) there has been no infraction — unless the partnership is found to have an undisclosed understanding, which was clearly not the case here. We also find it likely that West's initial few words to South, his halting speech pattern and sudden change in explanation conveyed to his screenmate the idea that his hand did not match his bid.We would have preferred it had West simply and completely volunteered his error to his screenmate, but the laws do not require players to do this, and Active Ethics is not yet the law. Similarly, we find East's conservative 4 bid not to be an egregious action; rather, we would characterize it as a non-aggressive (perhaps less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. We believe that the problem with the E/W convention cards stemmed from the pair's failure to notice and remove a reference on the front of the card to the two-suited majorsuit openings played by their spouses when modifying the computer file from the spouses' card. The methods were not part of E/W's system, nor did the presence of the error have any bearing on the present situation (except for the inquiries needed to determine this). Finally, we believe N/S's problems stemmed solely from their failure to have adequately discussed their conventional defenses to strong opening bids. We regret that we cannot find any basis in the laws for adjusting either side's score from that which occurred at the table. We believe that the TDs got this one exactly right. We, too, would have allowed the table result to stand for both pairs and then strongly advised E/W to be more careful with their bidding in the future and to immediately correct the deficiencies with their convention cards.

Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Naki Bruni (ITA), Joan Gerard (USA) N/S: Michael Seamon/Sheila Ekeblad E/W: Adam Wildalsky/Dan Morse Board 19 E/W Dealer South WEST NORTH   Q 7 6 5 3   Q 7 6 2   Q 9 2   K EAST   A J 8 2   K 4   8 5 3   10 9 5 3 SOUTH   10   A J 9 8 5   10 7 6   A Q J 8   K 9 4   10 3   A K J 4   7 6 4 2 West North East South - - - 1NT(1) Pass 2 3 3 Dble(2) All Pass   (1) 10-12 HCP (2) No alert by West; alerted by East and explained as "Cards" when North inquired Facts: East led the 10 and the play continued: West North East South A 3 10 K K 2 5 3 3 K A 2 4 6 A 10 8 4 . . . The contract eventually went down two, -300 for N/S. North summoned the TD at the end of play. He complained that East's pass with a singleton trump and West's four-card trump holding suggested that West's double was penalties. Had he been informed of that he would have made the better play of ruffing the third heart with dummy's 9. TD's decision: The TD decided that East's explanation of the double as "Cards" was inadequate and constituted an infraction (Law 75). However, the TD further ruled that this infraction did not result in any damage to North. Therefore, the table result was allowed to stand. Appellant: N/S appealed. The players: South did not attend the hearing. North stated to the Committee that had he been told that West's double was for penalties, as East's pass suggested, he would have ruffed the third heart with dummy's 9. Later he might have guessed to finesse West for the 8, although he might still have played for spades to have been three-two originally — given East's pass of the double. E/W said they had played together a couple of times on OKbridge, but this was their first time playing together at the bridge table. This was also the first time they had filled out a WBF convention card together. Their card was marked "competitive" doubles in competition when the opponents have bid and raised a suit. West said that he had too much to pass 3. He believed he had two-way values and that his double asked East to decide whether to bid or defend. He believed his spade holding was good should East decide to defend, while he had club support if East chose to bid that suit. Otherwise, he could prefer hearts. When asked, West indicated that he would have doubled with a variety of hands, including some with shorter spades but more high cards. East indicated that he fully expected West to hold shorter spades – perhaps as few as two. He said that he knew that passing 3 doubled was risky, but the Law of Total Tricks guided him in his decision. If N/S had a nine-card spade fit and E/W an eight-card club fit, then if his side could make 4 they would likely collect 300 defending 3 doubled, while if they would be down one in 4 they would be plus 100 defending. E/W said that, beyond their agreement to play these doubles as card showing ("Cards rather than trumps" was marked on their ACBL convention card —, which they had never used but had filled out in anticipation of playing together) they had not discussed the requirements for the bids. East indicated that he personally would readily have doubled with as few as two trumps in West's position, while West was less convinced that he would have doubled with only two trumps without significant extra high-card strength. East requested guidance from the Committee on how he should explain these doubles in the future, so as not to run into this sort of problem again. The Committee: The Committee agreed with the TD that East's explanation of West's double as "Cards" was inadequate. E/W had an obligation to discuss the requirements of such doubles and not simply label them as "competitive." East should at least have explained the double as not promising any particular trump length, denying primary heart support, not being strictly for penalties or for takeout, but showing sufficient high cards to not allow N/S to play in 3 unmolested. West would be expecting East to make a decision. The Committee agreed that West's hand was too good to pass. In situations such as this, double is often the only reasonable course of action and must include a wide range of hands — including some number (say two to four) of the opponents' trumps. E/W will have to pay off by passing hands that are strictly penalty or strictly takeout-oriented, but in exchange they will gain on those hands containing flexibility. The Committee believed that East had a difficult decision to make over West's double, and that many players might have bid the good four-card club suit without deep analysis. (East told the Committee at one point that, in retrospect, he thought that 4 might well be the right bid with his hand.) However, East had the right to make the decision he made. As one Committee member put it, "East can light a candle in the church and then pass." However, the Committee was quick to add that he cannot continue to light such candles. The Committee stressed that players are warned to make certain that they have discussed their competitive doubles adequately and disclose them fully and accurately to their opponents ¾ particularly the number of trumps they are expected to hold for their actions. Pairs with experience playing together will be held especially accountable for having firm agreements and disclosing them properly. The Committee also noted that N/S were themselves playing aggressive methods (10-12 notrumps) designed to confuse the opponents and force them to make difficult decisions in unfamiliar bidding situations. Players using such methods have an obligation to be tolerant of the opponents' uncertainty in such auctions, and to exhaust all reasonable avenues of inquiry about the opponents' methods (and be skeptical of the answers they receive). The present situation was indeed unfortunate for North, but in the final analysis it was East's decision to pass rather than the explanation of the double which was the source of his misfortune. (The merits of North's failure to ruff the third heart with dummy's 9 may also be debatable). The Committee's decision: The Committee allowed the table result to stand for both sides. The Directing staff was commended for their difficult decision in this case. The deposit was returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), David Stevenson (Great Britain). N/S: Hampson/Greco E/W: Ramer/Paulissen Board 1 None vul. Dealer North WEST NORTH   8 7 2   A 10 6   Q J 10 8   J 9 6 EAST   K Q 5   K J 7 5 3 2   K 5   7 5 SOUTH   A 9 6 4   Q 9 8   A 7 6 4 2   10   J 10 3   4   9 3   A K Q 8 4 3 2 West North East South - Pass Pass 1NT(1) Dble(2) Rdble(3) 2(4) Pass 2 Pass 3 AllPass   (1) 14 -17 HCP (2) One-suiter (3) Strong (4) Asks for suit Table Result: 3 plus two, N/S -200. Facts: The Director was called by East/West at the end of the play. It was suggested that North's actions "fielded" South's strange 1NT opening. TD's decision: Table score stands. Law 75A. There was no evidence of undisclosed partnership agreements. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East suggested that it was possible that North/South were known in their home country for agreements over psyches, in which case an alert would be required for the 1NT opening. He agreed that he had stronger methods of trying for game, but decided against using them because he felt with all the points shown around the table his partner must be weak. West said the double could be made with as little as K Q J 10 x with nothing outside. North said that he could never remember South psyching an opening bid before, and that they had been playing together for four years. He did not really believe that his opponents produced overcalls that asked to go for 1100, and believed they were merely appealing because they had got a bad board through their bidding. His methods allowed him to bid 3NT direct, and he probably would have if he had a fifth diamond. South said that he decided to try something because they were not doing very well, and their opponents appeared to be getting all decisions right. He said that if his partner had doubled 3 he would not have passed. The Committee: The Committee asked the Chief Director whether North/South were known for a history of psyching in the ACBL. He said he had no knowledge of such a history. Law 40A says: "A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call -such as a psychic bid -or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding." The Committee reminded players that psyches are perfectly legal if not protected by a partnership understanding. There was no evidence of such an understanding here and it appeared that East/West had not bid their hands to the full. Since there was no understanding, there was no reason for any alert of the 1NT bid nor any case for any adjustment. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Director's ruling confirmed - table score stands. Deposit forfeited.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), David Stevenson (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium). George Retek (Canada) attended but excused himself. N/S: Poleschi/Alujas E/W: Wildavsky/Morse Board 19 N/S Dealer North WEST NORTH   Q J 6   K 10   A K 10 7 6 4   J 10 EAST   A 10 9 5 4   7 5 2   J 5   7 3 2 SOUTH   K 8 7 3   Q 4 3   8 3   K 9 8 5   2   A J 9 8 6   Q 9 2   A Q 6 4 West North East South - - - 1 Pass 1(1) Pass 2(2) Pass 3NT All Pass   (1) Relay (nothing about spades) (2) N/E: 5+4C/D OR 5 3 3 2 S/W: 5+4C/D OR 5 3 3 2 Table Result: 3NT+4, N/S +520 Facts: The explanation that East received about the bid of 2 did not conform to the true meaning of the call, which was the one explained by South to East. East claims he might have led spades in stead of clubs with the correct information. TD's decision: Misinformation, No Damage, Score Stands. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North/South did not attend the Committee meeting, and neither did West, as the only problem was with East's lead. East stated that had he received the correct information, his chances of finding the more successful spade lead were greater. The Committee: The Committee decided that the explanation that East received was consistent with nine possible distributions in South: 3541, 2542, 1543, 3514, 2524, 1534, 2533, 3523, 3532. In five of these, there are more clubs than spades in dummy. In two, the number of spades and clubs is equal, and in two, there are more spades than clubs. In any case four spades is impossible, while four clubs is. With the correct explanation, seven distributions remain: 5 with more clubs, 1 equal, and 1 with more spades. Although the relative frequency of each of these distributions is not absolutely equal, the Committee felt that the spade lead stood out nevertheless. The Committee felt the player had tried to play the board three times, once at the table, once before the Director, and a third time before the Committee. While it is perfectly normal for him to call upon the Director if he feels damaged, a higher standard is needed before the Committee. The Director had given a well thought through ruling. By appealing, the player had proved only a lack of faith in the Director. The Appeals Committee at World Championships does not act as a safety net for incompetent Directors, especially when these Directors prove time and again their quality. For this reason the Committee felt the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's decision: The Committee ruled: Decision upheld, Score stands. The deposit was forfeited.

Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Virgil Anderson (USA), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), John Lenart (New Zealand), Dan Morse (USA) Tournament Director: O. Beauvillain N/S: O'Neill/Meehan E/W: D'Elbee/Roth Board 10 Both vul. Dealer East WEST NORTH   K 6 3   10 8 5 2   J 10 4   10 6 2 EAST   A 7   6   Q 9 8 6 3   J 9 8 5 4 SOUTH   J 10 9 8 5 2   A J 4   7   A K Q   Q 4   K Q 9 7 3   A K 5 2   7 3 West North East South - - 1 2(1) Dble(2) 3 Dble 4 4NT Pass(3) 5 AllPass   (1) Alerted by North to East; explained as a weak-two overcall (2) Negative double (3) Explanation in (1) corrected by North: "2 was normal" Table Result: 5 went down one, plus 100 for N/S. Facts: North alerted South's 2 bid and explained it as a "weak-two" because she believed at the time that East had opened 1. She realized her mistake after West's 4NT bid and corrected her previous explanation, saying that 2 was a "normal" overcall. The TD was called by East at that point because, after the original explanation, her system forced her to double to show a "good" hand (3 would have just been competitive). She said that had she been given the correct explanation she would have bid 3, which in this case is a good hand. TD's decision: The TD ruled that, had East been properly alerted she would have bid 3, and West would have competed to 4 over South's 4. It was then likely that N/S might have allowed the contract to make either by South leading the K or leading a top diamond but then not finding the low trump switch. (In point of fact, 4 making by East/West was a normal score in the event.) Thus, according to Laws 75C, 40C and 12C2 the TD adjusted the score for both sides to 4 by East, plus 620 for E/W. Appellant: N/S appealed. The players: Only N/S attended the hearing. South stated that she would have led a high diamond (after all, why else was she dealt the AK?) and then would have made the obvious shift to a low trump.Thus, 4 would have been defeated. North added that East should have realized from the original description of 2 that something was wrong: no one plays a non-jump two-level overcall as specifically weak. When asked by the Committee, N/S could not remember how West had gone down in 5. South led the A and shifted to the K. East then played a spade to dummy's ace and a second spade as North rose with the king, felling South's queen. North thought that she then led a second heart, but somehow declarer had managed to lose another trick and neither North nor South could explain how. The Committee: The Committee believed that East would have bid 3 over 3 had she not been misinformed and that E/W would most likely have played 4. Based in part on results which were typical of the board and in part on N/S's defense of 5, the Committee decided that it was “probable” that 4 would be made. However, the Committee was not convinced that E/W deserved full protection to 4 making. The Committee's decision: The Committee decided to adjust the score for N/S (the offending pair) to 4 making, -620. Since it was not clear that E/W would have made 4 100% of the time, the Committee decided to protect E/W to Average Plus or +620, whichever was less. The deposit was returned.