1999 Fall NABC

APPEALS CASE 1

Subject (Tempo):

Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 19 Nov 99, Second Qualifying Session

Bd: 13	Rick Goldstein
Dlr: North	J
Vul: Both	8 3 2
	K 6 2
	K Q 10 7 5 4
Paul Nason		Bud Biswas
10 7 5		A K Q 8 3
J 10 7		A 9 6 5
J 9 8 7 3		A Q
8 2		J 6
	Laura Brill
	9 6 4 2
	K Q 4
	10 5 4
	A 9 3

West	North	East	South
	Pass	1	Pass
Pass	2	2	3
Pass	Pass	Dbl (1)	Pass
3	All Pass
(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 3 made three, plus 140 for E/W. The Director was called when it took East 10 seconds to double 3. All players agreed the pause had been 10 seconds. The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative to Wests 3 bid. The contract was changed to 3 doubled, made three, plus 670 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors ruling. East did not attend the hearing. West was in a hurry to catch a train. The facts not being in dispute, and the parties being amicable to it, an abbreviated fact finding session ensued with both sides stating their case. West then left. West stated that his own club length told him that Easts double was manifestly not a trump stack. His own length in both majors detracted from his partners tricks on defense while increasing the chance that 3 would make. He considered that bidding 3 was simply a bridge valuation and that the tempo of the double was irrelevent. E/W have played together twice in the last year --the length of the partnership. N/S believed that a slow double made removal to 3 by West more attractive. At the vulnerability the chance of plus 200 from 3 doubled and minus 200 from 3 were real.

The Committee Decision: The Committee was of the opinion that the correct bridge bid with the West cards was to remove the double of 3 to 3. While at any other vulnerability there would clearly be no logical alternative to this action because of the major-suit length, here it was worth further consideration to ensure that the same logic applied. How significant was the chance of turning plus 200 into plus 140 (or even minus 100 or worse)? The Committee decided that notwithstanding the vulnerability although passing might be an alternative it was not a logical alternative. The Committee changed the contract to 3 made three, plus 140 for E/W.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff

Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Phil Brady, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Jon Wittes

APPEALS CASE 2

Subject (Tempo):

Event: NABC Life Master Womens Pairs, 20 Nov 99, First Final Session

Board: 6	Margaret Klamp
Dealer: East	Q
Vul: E/W	9 7
	A K Q 10 6 5
	K J 10 6
Lynn Baker		Karen McCallum
J 7 6 5 4		9 8 2
A 10 8 3 2		Q J 6 5 4
7		9 3 2
Q 4		8 5
	Jeanette Michienzi
	A K 10 3
	K
	J 8 4
	A 9 7 3 2

West	North	East	South
		Pass	1
2(1)	3(2)	3	3(3)
Pass	4(4)	Pass	4
Pass	5(5)	Pass	6
All Pass
(1) Majors (2) Natural and forcing (3) Cuebid (4) Natural (5) Break in tempo

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 920 for N/S. All at the table agreed there had been a lengthy pause (about 30 seconds) before the 5 bid. The Director changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 420 for N/S (Laws 16A2 and 12C2).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling. South stated that she knew she had a heart control that might be the key to slam. North stated that her slow 5 was because she was trying to figure out how to ask partner about a heart control. Although N/S play Unusual vs Unusual they did not apply this to other two-suited situations.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that Norths slow 5 bid in a forcing auction clearly showed an interest in doing something else. Although the South hand might well bid 6 because of the unannounced heart control, it might well pass also. Since the Committe believed that the slow 5 bid carried an unmistakable implication of having stronger (and not weaker) alternatives and since passing 5 by South was a logical alternative, the contract was changed to 5 made six, plus 420 for N/S. The Committee decided that the appeal had no merit because the players both had substantial experience and should have understood the laws sufficiently to know that this appeal could not succeed. N/S were each assessed anAppeal Without Merit Penalty Point.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff

Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Robb Gordon, Doug Heron, Jim Linhart, Robert Schwartz

APPEALS CASE 3

Subject (Tempo):
Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 20 Nov 99, First Final Session

Bd: 6	David Levy
Dlr: East	Q
Vul: E/W	9 7
	A K Q 10 6 5
	K J 10 6
Jack Feagin			Claudia Feagin
J 7 6 5 4			9 8 2
A 10 8 3 2			Q J 6 5 4
7			9 3 2
Q 4			8 5
	Mike Goldsmith
	A K 10 3
	K
	J 8 4
	A 9 7 3 2

West	North	East	South
		Pass	1(1)
Pass	2(2)	Pass	2NT(3)
Pass	3	Pass	3(4)
Dbl	4	Pass	4(5)
Pass	4(5)	Pass	5(6)
Pass	5(7)	Pass	6
All Pass
(1) Alerted; 4+ spades, could have longer minor (2) Game forcing (3) Natural, wide range, too weak or too strong for 1NT (4) Cuebid or needs help for notrump (5) Control (slow) (6) Could be passed (slow) (7) Ongoing, break in tempo

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 920 for N/S. The Director was called after a review and explanations but before dummy was tabled. E/W reported long hesitations before the 5 and 5 bids. N/S said that there were other long hesitations. The Director changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 420 for N/S (Law16).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling and were the only players present for the hearing. They stated they had a progressively slower auction as the bidding got higher. 5 was a suggestion of a contract, 5 confirmed good diamonds, thus 6. The Committee explored the N/S agreements in some depth. South could not rebid 3 because his hand was not strong enough; 4 over 3 would have been a splinter but South did not want to bypass 3NT.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that there was no unusual break in tempo for a complex slam-possible auction. Therefore, there was no unauthorized information present. The table result of 6 made six, plus 920 for N/S, was restored.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff

Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Robb Gordon, Doug Heron, Jim Linhart, Robert Schwartz

APPEALS CASE 4

Subject (Tempo):

Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 19 Nov 99, First Qualifying Session

Bd: 9	Dan Jacob
Dlr: North	6 4
Vul: E/W	A Q J 5 3
	J 4
	Q J 9 7
Dennis Kasle			Garey Hayden
A 5 2			K J 10 8 7 3
K 8 6 4 2			7
K 6 5			10 9 2
K 2			6 5 4
	Bryan Maksymetz
	Q 9
	10 9
	A Q 8 7 3
	A 10 8 3

West	North	East	South
	1NT(1)	Pass	Pass
Dbl(2)	2(3)	2	Pass(4)
Pass	3	All Pass
(1) 10-12 HCP (2) Alerted (see the Facts) (3) Alerted (see the Facts) (4) Alleged Break in tempo

The Facts: 3 made four, plus 130 for N/S. North asked East for an explanation of the double. Before East could finish the explanation, North requested that he stop the explanation. After 2 was Alerted, East stated that he asked for no explanation of the bid; after which South volunteered that the bid showed hearts and spades. After East bid 2, E/W alleged that there was a break in tempo before South passed. The Director was called when the dummy was put down. N/S contended that there had been no hesitation but that South did state, "I had a problem." The Director ruled there had been a break in tempo and that pass was a logical alternative for North. The contract was changed to 2 madethree, plus 140 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling. N/S stated that they did not notice any break in tempo. There was a discussion between East and South concerning the meaning of 2 which interrupted the auction. North did not think South had much in the majors when he didnt double 2 or bid 3 so he was likely to have a club fit. South said he was considering whether to double 2 (which he clearly would have if 2 had showed hearts and spades) so it must have been noticeable to North. When asked, North said that Souths pass was slightly slower than his other passes but that the situation was difficult to assess because the flow of the tempo changed with the table action after 2. E/W estimated that Souths total hesitation after 2 and the discussion that followed 2 (about the meaning of 2) was "5-6 seconds, maybe less, maybe more, but it was a definite break in tempo."

The Committee Decision: The Committee found that it was likely that South had committed an unmistakeable hesitation over 2. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee focused more on the agreed upon statement by South ("I was considering doubling 2") and the nature of the South hand (rendering some thought virtually certain) than on the length of the hesitation, as to which there was no clear agreement. Having found that an unmistakeable hesitation occurred, the Committee held that pass was a logical alternative to 3, that bidding was demonstrably suggested and that Norths 3 bid was therefore disallowed. While South might have been considering action on a hand on which no eight-card fit was available (i.e. 3-2-5-3), the indication of extra values beyond a minimum suggested that Norths three-level contract would be well placed. The Committee believed that while Norths first two bids were marked given the decision to open 1NT, taking further action was not. The contract was changed to 2 made three, plus 140 for E/W.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff

Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Harvey Brody, Abby Heitner, Barbara Nudelman, Riggs Thayer

APPEALS CASE 5

Subject (Revoke):
Event: Life Master Pairs, 20 Nov 99, First Final Session

Bd: 3	Anita Heitler
Dlr: South	K J 3
Vul: E/W	10 7 3 2
	J 5
	J 9 6 3
Win Allegaert			Mark Gordon
A 9 6			Q 8 2
A K Q J 6			9 8
Q 7 4 3			10 9 8 2
5			A Q 8 7
	Don Heitler
	10 7 5 4
	5 4
	A K 6
	K 10 4 2

West	North	East	South
			Pass
1	Pass	1NT	Dbl
2	Pass	3	Pass
3	Dbl	3NT	All Pass

The Facts: Against 3NT South led the4 (fourth best) to Norths king followed by theJ won by Easts queen. When declarer next played the10 South rose with the king and cleared the spades on which North revoked, playing the6. East next ran dummys hearts, South pitching a diamond and two clubs while North pitched her third spade. East then played a club to the ace expecting Souths king to fall (assuming South began with five spades). This was the first board of the round and the revoke was not noticed until after the second board was finished. North remarked at some point, "I guess you didnt see my spade discard." The Director was called. The Director determined that the equity provisions of Law 64C applied since the penalty provisions for the revoke (Law 64B4) did not apply due to when the revoke was noticed. The Director ruled that East had not been damaged by the failure to make the endplay on South -- Norths third spade had appeared before he made his key decision. The table result was llowed to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors ruling. East (declarer) stated that he had figured South for 5-2-3-3 after North discarded on the third spade so he played South to have blanked the markedK. He was perplexed when the king didnt drop under theA, but he didnt say anything after the hand. It wasnt until the next hand that he asked about the distribution. He wasnt sure that North had discarded a spade on the fifth heart but thought perhaps it had been a club. He thought it unfair that he should go down when he likely would have made three without the revoke. North stated that she had definitely thrown her spade on the fifth heart and that if she had been trying to conceal the revoke she wouldnt have pitched it on a red card. She said she had to keep theJ and three clubs and that East had clearly not seen her spade discard.

The Decision: The Committee found that both East and West had been careless and forfeited their right to any equitable adjustment under Law 64B4, East by not noticing the spade discard and failing to call attention to the revoke and West by not calling attention to the revoke after the conclusion of play (as is dummys right). Had either player drawn attention to the revoke, a one-trick penalty would have ensued. Since the failure to survive the grace period for calling attention to the revoke was entirely due to E/Ws carelessness (North not being obligated to call attention to her own revoke), no equity adjustment was appropriate. There was some sentiment that E/Ws appeal was without merit since it was questionable whether East could reasonably have believed that he was entitled to an adjustment. The majority of the Committee believed that the appeal had merit, especially since it was not clear how detailed the Directors explanation of the reason for the ruling was. Even if East knew that his own carelessness caused the denial of his appeal, the particular law is an obscure one and the standards for applying it are not well publicized. The Committee therefore did not treat the appeal in the same light that it might have had the subject matter been more familiar.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff

Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), David Berkowitz, Marlene Passell, Lou Reich, Peggy Sutherlin

APPEALS CASE 6

Bd: 2	Alberto Calvo
Dlr: East	A J 10 5 4 3
Vul: N/S	---
	A Q J 10 6
	9 4
Walter Schafer			Tom Fox
9 7			K Q 6 2
9 8 7 4			A 6 2
8 7 3			4
A 8 6 5			K Q J 7 3
	Claudio Varela
	8
	K Q J 10 5 3
	K 9 5 2
	10 2

West	North	East	South
		2(1)	Pass
3	3	4	4
Dbl	Pass(2)	Pass	5
Pass	Pass	Dbl	All Pass
(1) Alerted; three-suited, short diamonds

The Facts: 5 doubled made five, plus 750 for N/S. The Director was called after the 5 bid. N/S told the Director that 2 had been explained as at least 4-4-1-4. E/W said the 2 bid had been explained as a three-suiter with short diamonds. The Director ruled that there was unauthorized information (Law 16), that pass was a logical alternative, and that 5 was suggested by the hesitation. The contract was changed to 4 doubled down one, plus 200 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. The 2 bid was alerted as a three-suiter with short diamonds, usually 4-4-1-4, with normal opening bid strength.

When West doubled 4, North broke tempo for perhaps one minute before passing. South argued that bidding 4 was a matchpoint decision, and that his partner was known to hold very short hearts, likely a void after the double by West. South also poited out that the free bid of 3 likely showed at least six diamonds and that after the double the defense could get at least one diamond ruff in against 4. If North indeed held a void, more likely with the double, then bidding 5 was indicated by both the 3 bid and the double and not by the hesitation, as South already knew about the short hearts and long diamonds in Norths hand. E/W did not lead clubs and North was able to discard a losing club when he took the ruffing heart finesse.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that there had been a considerable break in tempo. However, the test after a tempo break is whether or not the break in tempo suggests a successful call over another losing logical alternative. The Committee agreed that after the double, the South hand itself and not the hesitation strongly suggested the successful bid. Pass was not deemed to be a logical alternative. Therefore, the Committee allowed the table result to stand.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Barbara Nudelman, Brian Trent, Jon Wittes.

APPEALS CASE 7

Subject (Tempo):
Event: Flight A Pairs, 20 Nov 99, First Session

Bd: 16	Collis Jackson
Dlr: West	---
Vul: None	6 3
	A Q J 8 6
	A Q 10 7 6 5
Florine Garber			Abby Heitner
K 4 2			A Q 10 9 8 6 3
10 9 8 7 5			J 2
2			K 5 4
J 9 3 2			4
	Craig Zastera
	J 7 5
	A K Q 4
	10 9 7 3
	K 8

West	North	East	South
Pass	1	3	Dbl
Pass	4	Pass	5(1)
Pass	6	All Pass
(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 920 for N/S. South had taken about 15 seconds to decide to raise 4 to 5 (he was considering passing). The Director was called when North bid 6. East believed the 6 bid was suggested by the slow 5 bid. The Director ruled that the break in tempo demonstrably suggested extra values (Law 73F1) and changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 420 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. South stated that his hand was absolutely minimum for his negative double of 3. He would not have doubled without one of the kings, because he would be forcing his partnership to game with less than an opening bid.

The Panel Decision: The experts consulted all believed that pass was not a logical alternative to 6. One believed a 5 bid might have been warranted. None believed the slow 5 bid demonstrably suggested bidding on. North made the 4 underbid because he did not know which suit to pla in. Once his partner showed diamond support, Norths hand demanded a slam bid. There was no violaiton of Law 16 so the table result of 6 made six, plus 920 for N/S, was allowed to stand.

Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Olin Hubert, Matt Smith
Players consulted: Henry Bethe, Hugh Ross, Lew Stansby, Steve Weinstein

APPEALS CASE 8

Bd: 7	Linda Wiener
Dlr: South	A J 9 8 5
Vul: Both	A Q 6 3
	J 10
	4 3
Larry Hanerfeld			Anita Taylor
K Q 10			7 6 3
5 4			K 8 2
A 8 5 2			K 7 6 3
Q J 10 2			A K 5
	Joel Datloff
	4 2
	J 10 9 7
	Q 9 4
	9 8 7 6

West	North	East	South
			Pass
1	1	3(1)	Pass
Pass	3	Dbl	All Pass
(1) Alerted

The Facts: 3 doubled went down three, plus 800 for E/W. The opening lead was theK. The Director was called when East played theK at trick two. North had asked the meaning of 3 before she bid 3 and was told the bid was weak. Both E/W convention cards were marked that the bid was weak. The Director ruled that since both cards were marked that way, that East had forgotten and misbid. The table result was allowed to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling. Only South attended the hearing. E/W had gone home. South said he did not know the law, but it seemed very unjust that his partner had made a bid based on what the opponents had told her and then was set 800 when East had a lot more than she was supposed to. He also thought East had taken advantage of the unauthorized information from her partners Alert and explanation. Both pairs were eligible for the B or C Flight, so they were less experienced than one would expect, given the event. East, who plays one or two times per year could not remembe how to bid the hand.

The Panel Decision: The Panel decided that there had been no violation of law or regulation and allowed the table result to stand.

Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Olin Hubert, Ron Johnston, Matt Smith
Players consulted: none reported

APPEALS CASE 9

Subject (Unauthorized Information):
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First Session

Bd: 15	A Q J 7 6
Dlr: South	Q J 4
Vul: N/S	A 7 2
	A 10
9 3 2			4
8 6 3			A 5 2
K Q J 9 8			6 5 3
8 4			K J 7 6 5 2
	K 10 8 5
	K 10 9 7
	10 4
	Q 9 3

West	North	East	South
			Pass
Pass	1	Pass	2(1)
Pass	2NT	Pass	3
Pass	4	Dbl	Pass
Pass	4	Pass	4
Pass	5	Pass	5
All Pass
(1) Intended as Drury; not Alerted

The Facts: 5 made five, plus 650 for N/S. The Director was called before the opening lead was faced when South disclosed that there had been a failure to Alert. North said that he believed the 2 bid to be a two-over-one game force. West told the Director that he thought South had used the failure to Alert as unauthorized information and had failed to bid the hand as if the 2 bid had been Alerted. He also stated that he might have taken action over an artificial 2 bid. The Director ruled that there was no violation of Law 16 and that South had not bid inappropriately. The Director allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors ruling and West did not attend the hearing. E/W believed that if South had bid 5 over 5, North would have bid 6 (and gone down) because he thought 2 was natural and game-forcing. North stated that he had not noticed Souths original pass until she disclosed the failure to Alert. He said he thought South had overbid her hand and was trying to sign off wth 5. North said his 2NT bid showed "12 to 19, no, 12+." When asked if he would have opened 2NT with 21 HCP he replied that he would open 1, not 2NT. He also said that if South had bid 5 over 5 he would have bid 6 and that a 5 bid by South would not have denied theK.

The Panel Decision: All three experts believed that 5 was a logical alternative to Souths 5 bid because of Norths statement that his 1 bid could have shown up to 21 HCP. Since North said he thought South had a two-over-one forcing to game hand and he would have bid 6 had South bid 5, the Panel had to change the contract to 6 down one, plus 100 for E/W (Laws 16A and 73F1).

DIC of Event: Chris Patrias
Panel: Charlie MacCracken (reviewer), Ron Johnston, Olin Hubert
Players consulted: Henry Bethe, John Mohan, Dave Treadwell

APPEALS CASE 10

Subject (Misinformation):
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First Session

Bd: 21	10 7
Dlr: North	K Q
Vul: N/S	7 2
	A Q J 10 8 4 2
K Q 9 8 4			A 6 5 3 2
J 8 7			10 6 5 2
Q 10 6			9 5
6 5			9 3
	J
	A 9 4 3
	A K J 8 4 3
	K 7

West	North	East	South
Pass	1	1	2
2	3	4	Dbl
Pass	5	Pass	6
All Pass

The Facts: 6 made seven, plus 1390 for N/S. The Director was called at the end of the hand. Norths 3 bid was questioned. South said he had no idea what it was. North had intended it as asking for a spade stopper and did not so volunteer this information before the opening lead. North claimed that she had been told at this tournament by a Director that she could not correct misinformation by partner. East said he would have led theA if he had been properly informed. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation and awarded one trick to the defenders. The contract was changed to 6 made six, plus 1370 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling. North said she intended 3 as a request for further information about Souths hand. South reiterated that he had no idea what the bid was. N/S play together about three times per month but South has only 130 masterpoints. He had never heard of a cuebid asking for a stopper in the opponents suit. East said he would have led theA had he known North was asking for a spade stopper.

The Panel Decision: One expert consulted said there was no differenc in the information if North had volunteered the correct explanation. The cuebid was uninformative. The other expert consulted said that theA was the standout lead as South was known to have a diamond suit that would provide discards for North. The Panel therefore allowed the table result to stand.

DIC of Event: Chris Patrias
Panel: Charlie MacCracken (reviewer), Ron Johnston, Matt Smith
Players consulted: Mike Passell, Paul Soloway

APPEALS CASE 11

Subject (Incorrect card played from dummy):
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First Session

Bd: 9	A 10 6 4 3
Dlr: North	Q 7 4
Vul: E/W	6 4 2
	6 2
K J 5			8
A J 2			K 10 9 8 5
A J 10 8			K 3
A Q 4			J 9 8 7 5
	Q 9 7 2
	6 3
	Q 9 7 5
	K 10 3

West	North	East	South
	Pass	Pass	Pass
2NT	Pass	3(1)	Pass
3	Pass	3NT	All Pass
(1) Announced; transfer

The Facts: 3NT made seven, plus 720 for E/W. The opening lead was the4 to the 8, 9 and jack. West then led theJ to the 4, 10 (declarer had called for the king), and 3. The9, 10, and queen were played to the next trick when North asked declarer how she had gotten to dummy. West said with theK, but of course, theK was still in the dummy. The Director ruled that since both sides had played to the next trick, trick two stood as played.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors ruling and said that since West had called for theK, dummy must play it. East said he was not paying attention and merely grabbed the wrong card.

The Panel Decision: Law 45D says a misplay by dummy must be corrected if attention is drawn to the error before a member of each side has played to the next trick. Law 53A states, "Any lead faced out of turn . . . becomes a correct lead . . . if the player next in rotation plays to the irregular lead." Since at least three players (and maybe all four) had played to trick three, dummys misplay to trick two could no longer be corrected. Since South accepted dclarers lead from the wrong hand, trick three stood as played. The Panel allowed the table result to stand. Since this appeal was a matter of law, and that had been explained to N/S, the Panel decided that the appeal lacked merit. The Panel did not assess an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point because it seemed N/S had suffered an injustice.

DIC of Event: Chris Patrias
Panel: Charlie MacCracken (reviewer), Ron Johnston, Matt Smith
Players consulted: none reported

APPEALS CASE 12

Subject (Unauthorized Information):
Event: NABC Life Master Open Pairs, 22 Nov 99, First Final Session

Bd: 16	Peter Weichsel
Dlr: West	A 10 9 8 5
Vul: E/W	7 6 4 3
	9
	10 6 4
Betty Parker			Freerk Polling
---			K Q J 6 4 3 2
A K 9 8 5			J 10
A K 10 8 5			6
Q 7 5			A K J
	Alan Sontag
	7
	Q 2
	Q J 7 4 3 2
	9 8 3 2

West	North	East	South
1	Pass	1	3
Dbl(1)	Pass	4NT	Pass
6NT
(1) Alerted; three-card support

The Facts: 6NT made six, plus 1440 for E/W. As dummy was tabled West stated that his double of 3 had been misalerted. N/S stated that they wished to reserve their rights and play continued. The Director was called at the end of the hand and ruled that the 6NT bid was made more attractive by the unauthorized information from Easts Alert. The 6NT bid was disallowed and because of difficulties in determining the final contract the Directors assigned Average Plus to N/S and Average Minus to E/W. In screening, the score was changed for both sides to 6 down two, plus 200 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors ruling. North did not attend the hearing. E/W stated that they played support doubles only through two of responders major and that this was marked on their convention card. West stated that she always intended to convert 6 to 6NT so she just bid it directly "to save time." South stated that he believed the unauthorized information from the Alert clearly suggested the 6NT bid to avod any further problems. South said he would have been more inclined to accept Wests actions had she simply answered aces and then converted 6 to 6NT. In response to an inquiry by the Committee, E/W said that an initial 2 response to 1 would have been an artificial heart raise. They had no forcing spade bid available to set up a Keycard auction for spades nor had they discussed what a bid of 4NT would have meant at responders second turn after an initial 1 response. On further questioning they were firm that it would not have been Keycard for spades but it might have been interpreted as "regular" Keycard.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed it was clear that the unauthorized information conveyed by the Alert had been a factor in the 6NT bid, to clear up the ambiguity of the auction. Although the Committee might have contemplated 4NT being natural and quantitative, E/W were never on this wavelength - they clearly believed it to be some form of RKCB. While the Committee might have considered allowing West to answer aces and then convert 6 to 6NT, they were agreed that the route she followed was clearly based on unauthorized information and should not be allowed (Law 16). Accordingly, the Committee considered for the offenders the most unfavorable result that was at all probable with both small and grand slams in hearts, spades and notrump being possible. Of these six slams, the most unfavorable to which any appreciable likelihood could be attached was 6, as this would permit declarer to establish various menaces, ruff out a red suit, or execute a trump coup. In the final analysis, 6 would almost certainly end up down two. The Committee therefore adjusted the contract for both sides to 6 down two, plus 200 for N/S.

Chairmans note: Had West converted 6 to 6NT after answering aces the Committee would have been harder pressed to decide on the unauthorized information issue. Here it was the blatant nature of Wests action (jump to 6NT) which helped to decide the score adjustment.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Harvey Brody, Dick Budd, Ellen Siebert, Riggs Thayer

APPEALS CASE 13

Subject (Tempo):
Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 21 Nov 99, Second Qualifying Session

Bd: 4	David Siebert
Dlr: West	J 6 5 4 3
Vul: Both	Q 6 5
	9 6 2
	Q 4
Henry Unglik			Dick Wagman
10			9 8 7
A K 9 7 4 3			10 8
J 7			A 10 8 5
A J 9 6			K 5 3 2
	Peter Friedland
	A K Q 2
	J 2
	K Q 4 3
	10 8 7

West	North	East	South
1	Pass	1NT(1)	Dbl
2	2	Pass(2)	Pass
3	Pass	Pass	3
All Pass

(1) Forcing one round
(2) Break in tempo

The Facts: 3 was down one, plus 100 for E/W. The Director was called when East broke tempo over 2. All four players agreed a break had occurred. The Director decided that a pass of 2 was not a logical alternative with the West hand and ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S believed that pass by West was a logical alternative over 2. They also added that their own teammates on the same auction with no break in tempo did not balance. E/W did not believe that East's break in tempo suggested that bidding would be more successful than doubling since East might have been considering a penalty double himself.

The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that pass was a logical alternative to 3 with the West hand, especially vulnerable. The contract was changed to 2 by North made two, plus 110 for N/S.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Committee: Martin Caley (chair), Gail Greenberg, Simon Kantor, Corinne Kirkham, Richard Popper, Michael White (scribe)

APPEALS CASE 14

Subject (Misinformation):
Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 21 Nov 99, Second Qualifying Session

Bd: 29	Cameron Doner
Dlr: North	A K 8 5 3 2
Vul: Both	---
	8 3
	K 9 7 4 2
Carlos Munoz			Harold Feldheim
10			J 7 6
A J 9 7 4 2			Q 8 3
K J 7 5			A 10 9 2
5 3			A 10 6
	Keith Garber
	Q 9 4
	K 10 6 5
	Q 6 4
	Q J 8

West	North	East	South
	1	Pass	2
3	4	5	Dbl(1)
All Pass
(1) Alerted; see the Facts

The Facts: 5 doubled went down three, plus 800 for N/S. The double of 5 was Alerted and explained as, "Not for penalty but forward going, but my partner hasn't gotten it right yet this week." Spades were led and continued. Declarer ruffed and crossed to theA to lead a heart to his jack. He next misguessed diamonds and got tapped again with a third spade. The Director determined that there was no evidence of an understanding as to the meaning of the double and that North could have known that any comment he made would be likely to mislead declarer. The Director ruled that declarer would make at least one more trick if there had been no Alert or comment. The contract was changed to 5 doubled down two, plus 500 for N/S (which for comparison purposes was the same as plus 200 or minus 850 for N/S).

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that his partner's double was conventionally supposed to show a hand that wanted to go on to 5, but was doubling in case his partner wanted to convert for penalties. North said that South had been forgetting this convention all week and from his heart void he thought his partner had forgotten again. Had North been playing with the inventor of this type of double, he would have trusted his partner and pulled to 5. With this "forgetful" partner he left the double in. When asked, South said that he sort of thought his double was meant to show an offensive hand, but he figured that he had to double with this hand anyway because he expected his partner would sit and "somebody had to double." West stated that he thought that if anyone had a heart stack it would have been North. Accordingly, it never occurred to him to lead theQ from dummy. When asked why he didn't start hearts with the ace from his hand, he said that he thought it was possible that South hadKx.

The Decision: Some Committee members thought that N/S had correctly explained their agreement and that South just happened to screw it up, North fielding the error based on his hand. North tried to warn declarer by saying "partner hasn't gotten it right all week" and really hadn't done anything wrong. It was just E/W's bad luck. The other members were not happy with N/S's actions. It seemed they had to do a better job with this complex convention and that this combination of one player forgetting and the other fielding it was unacceptable. Given that South doubled with a heart stack, and North left it in with a heart void, the majority decided that in effect N/S weren't really playing this convention (which is what the table Director had ruled). The minority still thought that technically the agreement had been explained properly, South forgot and North fielded it, but they decided to go along with the majority opinion. The Committee did not need to look further into what score to assign (minus 500, minus 200, or plus 850) since the other table (BAM) was plus 620 N/S, so any of those results of more than nine tricks were equivalent. Declarer might not have given 5 doubled the best play, but he didn't do anything outrageously bad; the "misinformation" clearly contributed to his downfall. Without an Alert the Committee decided that declarer would have never gone down three. The contract was changed to 5 doubled down two, plus 500 for N/S.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Committee: Larry Cohen (chair), Doug Doub, Michael Huston, Becky Rogers, Steve Weinstein

APPEALS CASE 15

Subject (Claim/Concession):
Event: NABC Life Master Pairs, 20 Nov 99, First Final Session

Bd: 14	Sangarapil Mohan
Dlr: East	K Q 8
Vul: None	J 8 7 6 4
	A Q 10 7
	8
Robert Stolinski			Rabiega Leszek
A			J 10 3
K Q 9 5 3 2			A
J 5 4			K 8 2
9 5 2			A Q J 10 6 3
	Das Salil
	9 7 6 5 4 2
	10
	9 6 3
	K 7 4

West	North	East	South
		1(1)	Pass
1	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	4	Pass
Pass	Dbl	Pass	Pass
5	Dbl	All Pass
(1) Alerted; strong or 12-14 balanced

The Facts: 5 doubled made five, plus 550 for E/W. North scored the result as minus 550 but later re-counted the tricks andspoke to a Director. The opening lead had been the10 which was won with the ace. Declarer played a spade to the ace and led the 4 from the dummy to North's ace. North played a club to South's king and returned a diamond to declarer's king. Declarer played the3 to dummy's 5, ruffed a small heart, and led a club to dummy's 9.

According to E/W, North pitched a heart on the second club and South left the table when the9 was played. N/S maintain that a diamond was discarded on the second club and that declarer had claimed by calling for theKQ from the dummy and folding and returning his hand.

The Director ruled that it was unlikely that North has discarded a heart from his holding and changed the contract to 5 doubled down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Appeal:E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W and a translator for East attended the hearing. East stated that North definitely pitched a heart on the second trump because otherwise he would not have known that the hearts were all good after one ruff. Instead of "claiming" he would have taken two discards, ruffed himself in and played the last trump, hoping that the defense went wrong in the one-card end position. He normally does not claim as a matter of habit because of language difficulties.

Furthermore, E/W were extremely upset that they were made to appeal after the result had been scored as plus 550 at the table. They could not understand how the score could be overturned without their agreement. They also mentioned an incident the day before in which they believed they had been unfairly treated when they had done nothing wrong. E/W said that South definitely left the table, making completion of the play impossible.

The Screening Director reiterated South's statement made during screening that he had not left the table and that East had claimed. The Directors had extensive conversation with both sides and judged the N/S contention as to the absence of a heart discard to be believable.

The Committee Decision: The Committee strongly believed that a serious injustice had been done to E/W and to the concept of due process. The members believed that there could be no dispute as to the facts, given the absence both of N/S and the table Director. Judging East to be a top-flight player, the Committee thought that his contentions were more likely to be accurate than that North had not made a careless error. In particular, his statement about how he would have played if a heart had not been discarded lent credibility to his case. But the fact that neither N/S nor the table Director were present to offer a different version of the facts left the Committee with no choice but to decide in E/W's favor.

The contract was changed to 5 doubled made five, plus 550 for E/W. The Committee conceded N/S's legal right not to appear at the hearing, but did not approve of that decision. The Committee was unanimously of the opinion that the Directing staff had badly mishandled this case. It should routinely have ruled in favor of E/W, both because they were "nonoffenders" in a way and to preserve the table result. That would have forced N/S to appeal, with possible consequences if the appeal were judged to lack merit.

Overturning the agreed-upon result without the concurrence of E/W violated correct procedure, to say nothing of the questionable judgment it exhibited as to the believability of the two sides if that were at all relevant. The Committee indicated that mistakes can occur just as easily in 5 as in 6, and that basing a ruling on the egregiousness of a card play error sets a dangerous precedent. The Committee made these ideas known both to the presenting Director and to E/W.

DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), David Berkowitz, Marlene Passell, Lou Reich, Peggy Sutherlin