1999 Spring NABC
Vancouver Appeals

Case 1 Subject: Claim   Board 5 9 8 7 5 Dealer: North A K Q 5 Vul: N/S 7 A 9 8 5 Q A J 6 J 10 9 2 7 6 4 A K Q J 9 3 6 5 4 2 6 3 K 10 2 K 10 4 3 2 8 3 10 8 Q J 7 4 Auction unavailable The Facts: South was declarer in a 4 contract. The play to the first nine tricks was as follows (underline indicates card led to the trick): West North East South A 7 4 8 6 5 K 4 3 A 2 7 Q 9 6 2 J A 4 3 2 K 6 8 3 7 A 3 9 8 10 Q J 5 J K leaving: 8 Q 5 --- 9 --- --- 10 9 7 K Q 6 5 2 --- --- 10 4 --- 10 J The declarer then in some way exposed the 10 and claimed by stating he would ruff a diamond with dummy's last trump. E/W stated that after playing the 10 there was no spade left in the dummy to ruff South's losing diamond. The Director was called and ruled that the 10 was a played card (Laws 45 and 85). Since declarer had already lost four tricks, the contract was changed to 4 down two, plus 200 for E/W. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South stated that he had just pulled the last trump with the K. He knew the diamond was not good and was trying to show his hand for an obvious claim of the last four tricks. South's first response to E/W's challenge to the claim was that he was trumping the diamond. E/W stated that declarer had faced the 10 and then made his claim. The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that South was making what he believed was an obvious claim that included ruffing the diamond. It was likely that he did something with the 10 that caused West to react to his claim. However, South's reaction led the Committee to the decision that South had clumsily stated the claim rather than having made an invalid claim. The Committee did not consider that under Law 70A this was a doubtful point that should be resolved against the claimer. The Committee relied on Law 70A to adjudicate the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides. The contract was changed to 4 down one, plus 100 for E/W. Table Director: Rick Beye Directors Consulted: Gary Zeiger (DIC) Committee: Ron Johnston (chair), Olin Hubert, Charlie MacCracken, Roger Putnam

Case 2 Subject: Tempo Event: Flight A Pairs, First Session   Board: 15 Dealer: South Vul: N/S David Stark 8 6 3 10 8 A K 5 4 2 8 7 4 Marilyn Maddox A J 7 4 A K J 9 4 J 10 8 Q Myles Maddox K Q 10 5 Q 7 6 5 Q A K J 6 Valerie Ross 9 2 3 2 9 7 6 3 10 9 5 3 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 Pass 4(1) Pass 4NT Pass 5 Pass 5(2) Pass 6 All Pass (1) Alerted; splinter (2) Break in tempo The Facts: 6 made six, plus 980 for E/W. E/W agreed that there was a break in tempo of six to seven seconds before the 5 bid was made. Their agreement was that 5 showed zero or three keycards and 5 showed one or four keycards. They have never in their long partnership played that 5 shows one or four keycards. East stated he noticed his misbid when the 5 bid was made. The Director ruled (Law 16A) that the 6 bid was demonstrably suggested by the slow 5 call and changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 480 for E/W. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. West stated that she was taken aback by the 5 bid, believing when she made the 4NT bid that partner had to have at least one ace to have enough points for a splinter bid. She agreed she took a few seconds to recount the points partner could hold before deciding he must have the K and bidding 5. East maintained that he realized after he bid 5 that he had made a bidding error, but couldn't show that he had made a mistake at that time. The ace he had mistakenly not shown and his total values opposite a partner interested after a splinter bid were his justification for the 6 bid. N/S had a prior commitment after the first session and could not meet with a Review Panel member. During the second session, when the decision was rendered, the only new information N/S wanted to add was that the East hand thought for a while before bidding 6. In fact, he had even had his hand on the Pass Card before he bid. The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that there was an unmistakable hesitation, and that partner could not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information (Law 16A). While East had stated that he had recognized his error independently, this type of statement was self-serving. The Committee then decided to seek expert opinion about whether the slow 5 bid constituted unauthorized information that would prohibit East from discovering his error and bidding 6. One consultant stated that any time that passes increases the likelihood that the mistake will be discovered. Partner's hesitation did not particularly suggest that East recheck his auction. Without doubt, East will bid six if he becomes aware of his error. He believed it was right to allow the 6 bid, but was not 100% convinced. The other consultant stated that he would allow a 6 bid because East had extra values; what was partner bidding Blackwood with? He would not allow the bid if E/W were playing 1430 Keycard Blackwood responses. The logic of both players was that usually in "hesitation Blackwood" problems, the slam bid is not supported by bridge logic. In this case, the 6 bid was supported by bridge logic, almost inescapably. Both players said it is hard to find cards in opener's hand that did not support a slam once she had asked for aces. Partner's willingness to stop in 5 itself suggests a review of the situation. Both players also said that East's statements about when he recognized the mistake were self-serving and must be disregarded. The Committee believed that the expert player statements were strong enough to allow the 6 bid. The bar for allowing further action in Blackwood hesitation cases is properly placed high; but it is not insurmountable. The Committee decided that the failure to bid slam itself, rather than the slowness of the call, would cause East to discover his error. The Committee changed the contract to 6 made six, plus 980 for E/W. Table Director: Paul Cullen Directors consulted: Roger Harbin (DIC), Brian Moran, Tom Quinlan Panel: Roger Putnam (Reviewer), Olin Hubert, Ron Johnston (scribe), Matt Smith Players consulted: Paul Soloway, Lew Stansby

Case 3 Subject: Misinformation Event: First Saturday Compact KO, 20 March 99, First Segment   Board: 18 K x x x x Dealer: East A x Vul: N/S K x A Q 10 x 9 Q 10 8 4 x x K x x 2 x x x x x A J x x x x x K J x A J 7 Q J 10 x x Q 10 x x x WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass Pass 1 Pass 2(1) Pass 3 Pass 4 All Pass (1) Two-way Reverse Drury, not Alerted The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S. The opening lead was the 2. The Director was called when dummy was displayed. 2 had not been Alerted or disclosed as a partnership agreement before the opening lead was made. The Director determined that no agreement existed as to whether or not they played Drury after a fourth-seat opener. East stated he would have led a spade if he had been in possession of the correct information. The Director ruled that unauthorized information had not affected the final contract because North would not have passed a 3 bid by South. The Director also ruled that in the event of a trump lead (unlikely) the 4 contract would still be made. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. They stated that they agreed that N/S would still bid 4, but that the defense would start with a small spade rather than the 2. N/S believed that 4 would have been made even with the lead of a small spade. The Committee Decision: The Reviewer acted independently to determine that N/S would surely have bid to 4 and that E/W did not challenge that action. The player consultant did not believe the proper information would have demonstrably suggested some lead other than a heart and certainly not a spade. He also briefly analyzed the play and offered that it appeared that 4 would be made after any lead. The Committee agreed with his analysis. The Committee also found that since the N/S convention card did not establish that Drury was not being used after a fourth-seat opener, South should have spoken up before the opening lead and disclosed the proper information. The Committee did not find a demonstrable connection between the misinformation and the choice of lead, particularly the lead of a spade from Q10xx. The Committee decided to allow the table result of 4 made four, plus 420 for N/S to stand. The possibility of a procedural penalty for South's not correcting North's failure to Alert before the opening lead was briefly considered and rejected in part because a somewhat rushed proceeding was necessitated by the format (Compact KO in which two matches must be completed in a single session). There was not adequate time to deliberate on this sensitive issue because the appeal arose between matches. Table Director: Gary Zeiger Director consulted: Patty Holmes Panel: Roger Putnam (Reviewer), Ron Johnston (scribe), Matt Smith Player consulted: Eddie Wold

Case 4 Subject: Tempo Event: Charity Pairs, 18 Mar 99, Only Session   Board: 10 Dealer: East Vul: Both -- A K Q J 8 4 3 A 2 Q 6 5 4 A K 6 4 3 6 2 5 4 A 8 7 3 Q 10 7 5 2 9 K J 10 9 8 7 10 J 9 8 10 7 5 Q 6 3 K J 9 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - Pass Pass 1 4 4 Pass (1) Pass 5 5 All Pass (1) Break in tempo The Facts: 5 went down one, plus 100 for N/S. North used the Stop Card before he bid 4 and East paused the appropriate ten seconds before he bid 4. There was an approximate six to seven second break in tempo before South passed, and after North bid 5 he suggested that the Director be called. The Director ruled that the 5 bid was not suggested by the break in tempo (Law 16A) and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players that met with the Reviewer. E/W noted that the 4 bid had been made in a tempo that had allowed South time to think. E/W believed that North had already bid his hand and that 5 was likely to be more successful after South's break in tempo. The Committee Decision: The Committee considered two points of law in arriving at its decision. First, was pass by North a logical alternative as mentioned in Law 16A and if so, was the 5 bid "demonstrably suggested" over another by the extraneous information? Since bridge judgment was relevant in making those determinations, two players were consulted. One player stated he could not imagine not bidding 5 with the North hand. The second believed that pass was a logical alternative and that the break in tempo did not "demonstrably suggest" a 5 bid. The Committee discussed the application of these comments to this case and concluded: (1) Pass was a logical alternative for North in light of the second consultant's remarks. The standard as set forth by the Laws Commission for judging a call a logical alternative is "a call that would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent players acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available" [Duplicate Decisions, page 14, Item #3] and (2) 5 was not demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo. The Committee did not believe that the break in tempo "suggested in an obvious, easily understood way it must be readily apparent rather than by a product of a subtle bridge argument" [Duplicate Decisions, page 13, last paragraph] that 5 was likely to be successful. The Committee agreed that under the phrasing of the pre-1997 Laws change where the word "reasonably" instead of "demonstrably"was used that the decision of the panel would have been to disallow the 5 bid. However, the Committee believed that the wording change in the Laws was intended to set the standard higher than this case achieved in connecting the information implicit in the tempo break with the subsequent selection of the winning action by partner. The Committee allowed the table result of 5 down one, plus 100 for E/W, to stand. Table Director: Paul Cullen Directors consulted: Tom Quinlan (DIC), Steve Bates Panel: Roger Putnam (Reviewer), Ron Johnston, Matt Smith (scribe) Players consulted: Bob Gookin, Ed Lazarus

Case 5 Subject: Played Card Event: NABC Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 Mar 99   Board: 4 Dealer: West Vul: Both Joanna Stansby Q 6 A 8 5 2 -- A K 8 6 5 3 2 Dan Morse K 7 2 J 10 6 4 3 A 8 5 4 3 Bobby Wolff J 9 5 3 7 Q 10 7 6 2 J 9 7 Michael Shuster A 10 8 4 K Q 9 K J 9 Q 10 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4 Pass 4 Pass 6 All Pass (1) Alerted; 13-15 The Facts: The contract was 6. The play went as follows: 7 to the king, 9 to the ace and ruffed, low club to dummy's queen. At this point North said "low spade" which dummy played. The K was played in tempo, at which point North appeared stunned, and said "oh shit." Play continued. East received his heart ruff; down one. At the end of the hand, dummy suggested that the Director be called, as North had meant to call low club, and there could be some restitution. The Director was called, and after consultation with the other Directors, ruled under law 45C4(b) that North misspoke (a slip of the tongue). Law 45C4(b) states in part: "A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought." As the law allows an inadvertent card called from dummy to be withdrawn even if the next player has played to the trick, the Director ruled that the (apparently) inadvertent call could be withdrawn and replaced by the call she had intended. The contract was changed to 6 made six, plus 1370. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W believed that the correction was not without pause for thought and that the Director had not been called until the hand had been completed. The Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the evidence as to whether the call had been an error in play or an inadvertent (slip of tongue) call. Two significant points of evidence favored the slip of the tongue interpretation. 1. At this stage of play there were 12 top tricks. Declarer had no apparent reason to be playing a low spade at this time, but was virtually certain to be planning on drawing trumps. 2. When the K was played, the declarer appeared stunned and said "oh shit." The Committee believed that those words would not be said by someone who had just found the K onside, but rather by someone who had just realized that the wrong suit had been played from dummy. The Committee therefore decided that the call of "low spade" was inadvertent. The Committee asked the Screening Director for the Laws Commission interpretation of Law 45C. He stated that "pause for thought" means "change of mind." No time frame for the change of call is specified, other than without significant time for thought. The key part of the interpretation is that the time for thought begins only AFTER the player realizes that an inadvertency has occurred. In this case the "oh shit" was after a short pause after the K was played. The Committee explored whether or not rights were forfeited by waiting until the hand was over before calling the Director. The Screening Director assured the Committee that failure to know the law in this case did not cause forfeiture of rights and therefore, although calling the Director earlier would have been better, it did not cause loss of rights. During the discussion, it was noted that the law is quite different with respect to a play from declarer's hand (Law 45C2). A declarer's card must be detached from his hand and ". . . held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" to be judged played in spite of his intent to the contrary. Note that declarer cannot change a card played from hand even though it was played inadvertently. Dissenting Opinion (Ed Lazarus): Law 45C4(b), correction of an inadvertent designation, states in the relevant part: " . . . a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought . . ." The law is made to protect people from an inadvertent card designation, but not a change of mind. It is not made to protect people when their brains disconnect or from losing their minds, but is only to protect them specifically from a mechanical error. Here, a low spade was played, the K was played by East, then, after a short pause, declarer realized that she should have played a club instead of a spade. This seemed to represent a change of mind rather than a correction of an inadvertent error made without pause for thought. I would have decided that the play at the table stood and changed the contract to 6 down one, plus 100 for E/W. Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): The majority view in this case was that no competent player would play a low spade once 12 tricks were clearly established. They further determined that when declarer "mispoke" by calling for a low spade, RHO played the king, and declarer paused and then said, "oh shit" that declarer had still not "paused for thought." Further, declarer then conceded down one. Mistakes do happen at all levels of bridge. If declarer had inadvertently played the low spade from her hand instead of dummy, end of story. Again, at this level, if declarer had immediately said, "No, I mean a low club" or, if immediately upon seeing RHO play the K had said the same type of thing, I would not have dissented. This was not the case. The events as agreed by all the participants were that there was elapsed time between each step. Mistakes happen and they must be lived with. Table Director: Stan Tench Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Steve Bates, Olin Hubert Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Lowell Andrews, Nell Cahn, Bob Gookin, Robb Gordon, Ed Lazarus, Robert Schwartz

Case 6 Subject: Misinformation Event: Flight A Pairs, 20 Mar 99, Second Session   Dealer: North Q 6 3 Vul: Both K Q 9 8 A Q 5 4 3 9 Ed Word Jr. Paul Baldwin K 10 7 5 4 A J 9 10 7 2 A J 4 K J 7 6 2 10 9 K Q J 5 3 G. Sekhar 8 2 6 5 3 8 A 10 8 7 6 4 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1 1NT 2 2(1) Pass 3 Pass 3 Pass 3NT All Pass (1) Alerted; transfer to clubs showing a minor The Facts: 3NT made three, plus 600 for N/S. The opening lead was the 6. The Director was called when the dummy was displayed. After the 3 bid North had asked what the Alert of 2 was and was told that it was a transfer to clubs, showing a minor. The Director believed that although there was misinformation and unauthorized information to West, and that E/W had no agreement about the 2 bid, there was no consequent damage (Law 73C and Law 40C). Since the only obvious infraction was that West did not warn N/S before the opening lead that he had thought their agreement was that 2 was natural, and since South had led a heart (North's opening bid), the table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. N/S stated that they frequently open four-card majors. North decided to open this awkward hand pattern with 1. N/S expressed concern that East should not have bid 3NT if West's sequence showed a weak hand. Furthermore, North maintained that he thought they should have been defending a 2 contract. He further argued that the table Director should have canceled the board when he arrived at the table, that inexperienced players should not be allowed in Flight A events, and that the ACBL should insist on better compliance with the Alert procedure. When asked to specify how they were damaged by unauthorized information or misinformation, N/S again focused on East's bidding. Late in the review process North stated that he might have doubled 3 had he been given correct information. He maintained that this would have led to a more favorable contract for their side. The first time this contention was made was late in the review process. It apparently was not mentioned to the table director. E/W stated that in other auctions (opening bid - 1NT - Pass - ?) 2 is a weak relay to 3 for the purposes of playing 3 or 3. West said he did not think it applied in this auction. When asked why he had bid 3NT when partner had shown a weak hand, East said he thought N/S were operating. E/W are relatively inexperienced -- East in particular has about 100 masterpoints. The Committee Decision: Three potential law problems existed: (1) West's failure to inform the opponents of misinformation before the opening lead (Law 75D2); (2) misinformation and possible damage to N/S (Laws 21B3 and 40C); and (3) unauthorized information to West from the Alert and the answer to the question (Law 16A). Two players were consulted on points two and three. Both could not identify any link between the misinformation and any damage to N/S up to the point the misinformation was corrected. Both were also asked to comment on whether West chose from among logical alternatives any call(s) that could have been demonstrably suggested over another by the unauthorized information he had from the Alert and the response to the question. One saw no alternatives to either 3 or the pass to 3NT; the other agreed about 3 but thought that action over 3NT was possible and contra-indicated by the unauthorized information. However, he believed such action would likely lead to a better N/S result than that achieved at the table. The Committee then concluded that (1) N/S were not damaged by any illegal choice by West based on unauthorized information and (2) N/S were not damaged by misinformation. The table result of 3NT made three, plus 600 for E/W was allowed to stand. The Committee did not penalize West for violating Law 75D2 but did educate him about his responsibilities to disclose. The appeal was found to have no substantial merit. The Committee did not believe that N/S presented any plausible argument for a score adjustment either on the basis of unauthorized information of misinformation and they are both very experienced players. Table Director: Mike Carroad Directors consulted: Roger Harbin (DIC) Panel: Matt Smith (reviewer), Olin Hubert, Ron Johnston Players consulted: John Solodar, Eddie Wold

Case 7 Subject: Tempo Event: 0-2000 KO, 22 Mar 99, First Round   Board: 20 J 7 4 Dealer: West A 7 2 Vul: Both J 7 3 10 7 3 2 A 9 8 6 5 3 2 K Q 10 5 10 6 4 K Q 4 9 6 5 A J 9 8 6 5 K Q J 9 8 3 A 10 8 2 K Q 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1 Pass 1NT(1) 2 4 Pass(2) Pass 5 All Pass (1) Announced; forcing (2) Break in tempo The Facts: 5 went down two, plus 200 for E/W. The Stop Card was properly used by West. North agreed that he had broken tempo before he passed. The Director was called after the 5 bid. When he was called back to the table, the Director ruled that North was allowed some time to consider over the 4 bid and that the South hand merited further action. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East said that he had started to call the Director after the pass over 4 because of the length of the break in tempo. E/W believed that 20 to 25 seconds had elapsed before North bid. E/W did not believe that the South hand supported the 5 bid independent of the pause by North. South stated that at the moment 4 was bid he knew he was bidding 5. He justified this with the solid (five of the top seven) hearts and the fact that he was maximum for his 2 bid. He stated that North often took much longer to bid than he did in this case and in those circumstances South had considered himself unable to bid. North thought his pass over 4 was only slightly out of tempo and had estimated the elapsed time at ten to fifteen seconds. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there had been an unmistakable hesitation that put South at risk under Law 16A and that he could not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could have been demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information. The Committee sought expert advice and was told that the expert field would be divided between double and pass. Bidding was suggested by tempo, action over inaction. In an expert field, pass would not be a logical alternative, but in a 0-2000 field, pass, double, and 5 would all be logical alternatives. Based on expert advice that there were logical alternatives, the Committee decided that it had no choice but to apply Law 16A. The 5 bid was canceled and a result for 4 was determined. Using Law 12C2 (the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred) the Committee changed the contract to 4 made four, plus 620 for E/W. Table Director: John Gram Directors consulted: Patti Holmes (DIC), Mike Flader Panel: Ron Johnston (reviewer), Olin Hubert, Charlie MacCracken, Matt Smith Players consulted: Henry Bethe, Barry Rigal

Case 8 Subject: Tempo Event: Morning KO, 23 Mar 99 Board: 21 K 9 Dealer: North A Q 2 Vul: N/S K 10 7 4 A 9 8 5 Q 3 2 A J 10 6 5 6 5 K 9 8 7 3 8 6 5 2 9 2 Q 10 7 4 J 8 7 4 J 10 4 A Q J K 6 3 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT 2(1) Dbl 2 Pass Pass Dbl(2) Pass 3NT All Pass (1) Alerted; explained as hearts and spades (2) Break in tempo The Facts: 3NT made three, plus 600 for N/S. When the Director was called, N/S agreed that South's second double had been slow. The Director was also told that South had touched more than one bid card before she selected her double. The Director changed the contract to 2 doubled down one, plus 100 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that South's double of 2 committed N/S to game or a doubled contract by E/W. South claimed there was no such specific agreement in a sequence of that sort. In any case, the double had not been Alerted. N/S agreed the hesitation had been unmistakable. North stated that his major suit values were misplaced for defending 2 doubled versus playing 3NT, especially at this vulnerability. North estimated his partner's second double as 80% penalty and possibly based on a "stack of spades." North also pointed out that after a spade lead against 3NT, West failed to play low to obviate the later endplay that allowed 3NT to make; and he believed E/W should not have their score protected after such an error. E/W stated the hesitation had been 45 seconds. They also stated that South had reached into the bid box and then retracted her hand before she doubled. The Committee Decision: The Committee sought expert opinion regarding whether North "chose from logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" from the break in tempo (Law 16). Three expert players all agreed strongly that pass was clearly a logical alternative and that the hesitation demonstrably suggested an action other than pass. The Committee thus disallowed the 3NT bid and restored 2 doubled as the final contract. Law 12C2 directs that for a non-offending side an assigned score should be "the most favorable result that was likely" and for an offending side it should be "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." The Committee therefore changed the contract to 2 doubled made two, plus 470 for E/W. The Committee also decided that pass was so clearly a logical alternative and that the slow double so clearly demonstrably suggested NOT passing that a player of North's experience (over 2,000 masterpoints) should have known that his call would be ruled illegal. Since Law 73C states ". . . carefully avoid taking any advantage . . ." the Committee assessed a 3-IMP procedural penalty against this pair for North's violation of this law. Table Director: Jeff Alexander Panel: Matt Smith (reviewer), Ron Johnston, Roger Putnam Players consulted: Brian Glubok, Chip Martel, Hugh Ross

Case 9 Subject: Tempo Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 23 Mar 99, First Qualifying Session Board: 3 Don Mamula Dealer: South 8 4 Vul: E/W K 5 2 K 8 6 4 3 K 9 2 Brenda Montague George Bessinger A K Q 10 9 7 5 3 2 10 9 8 6 A Q 4 3 A Q 7 J 5 A Q 8 7 Linda Mamula J 6 J 7 10 9 2 J 10 6 5 4 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 4(1) Pass 4(2) Pass 5(3) Pass 6 All Pass (1) Alerted; Splinter (2) Break in tempo (3) Break in tempo (very short -- agreed to be three or four seconds) The Facts: 6 made six, plus 1430 for E/W. The Director was called after the 5 bid. The players all agreed that the hesitation before 4 was considerable (between one and two minutes). E/W had not played together much for several years. The Director ruled that the slow 4 bid did not make pass a logical alternative and the slow tempo did not demonstrably suggest bidding on (Law 16A). The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North did not attend the hearing. N/S agreed to the facts and stated they believed this was a straightforward break-in-tempo case. E/W believed the West hand was good enough to make a further try regardless of the tempo. Furthermore, the choice of strains at the four-level was a significant consideration at matchpoints and the hesitation did not suggest further action. In fact, East stated that choice of strain was the consideration occupying him and not the thought of proceeding further. East's reason for choosing hearts at the four level was based on the idea that the four-four fit might play better, but the reason for preferring spades in slam was based on East's fear of a diamond lead. The Committee Decision: The Committee was able to construct hands where bidding on with West's cards was not safe, but found them to be small in number -- so small that venturing forward with West's cards was clearly warranted. It would be cowardly for West, holding a source of tricks, four-card trump support, and first-round controls in all side suits, not to bid further. The Committee did not dispute the Director's finding that the hesitation did not demonstrably suggest further action, but thought the clarity of West's continuation made all other issues superfluous. The Committee allowed the table result of 6 made six, plus 1430 for E/W to stand. Table Director: Paul Cullen Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC), Ron Johnston, Jay Magid Committee: Michael White (chair), Sid Brownstein, Martin Caley, Doug Doub, Simon Kantor, Corinne Kirkham, Judy Randel, Becky Rogers, Brian Trent Scribe: Michael Huston

Case 10 Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 23 Nov 99, Second Qualifying Session Board: 24 Beverly Rosenberg Dealer: West 8 Vul: None K 10 9 7 6 5 3 A 9 5 J 8 Lon Sunshine Ivanie Yeo K J 9 10 6 5 Q 8 2 A J 4 K Q 7 8 6 3 2 Q 9 5 4 A K 7 Steve Onderwyzer A Q 7 4 3 2 J 10 4 10 6 3 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 2 Pass Pass Dbl Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3 Pass 3NT All Pass (1) Alerted; transfer to clubs The Facts: 3NT made four, plus 430 for E/W. 3 was not Alerted. North asked about the Alert of 2NT and was told it was a transfer to 3. The Director was called about two tricks into the play of the hand. N/S stated that East had squirmed and stared at West after the Alert. East said she was trying to find out if West had made an off-shape takeout double with her 2NT bid. The Director used the Alert of 2NT, East's failure to Alert 3, and East's lack of clarity about the use of Lebensohl to justify finding that East may have intended 2NT to be natural. If so, 3 could have been passed. The Director changed the contract to 3 down three, plus 150 for N/S. Declarer would lose one spade, two spade ruffs, two heart ruffs, and two diamonds for down three. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East said she bid 2NT expecting her partner to bid 3. Then she would make up her mind whether to bid 3 or 3NT. However, if her partner bid something other than 3, she would use the information to decide on other possibilities. East also said that while she failed to Alert 3, she knew it was a transfer acceptance and she thought the Alert was unnecessary after North inquired of the meaning of the 2NT bid and it was explained correctly as a transfer to clubs. E/W said that they had discussed Lebensohl in balancing seat but had never discussed it in balancing seat by a passed hand. They also explained that they play Roth-Stonish openings and there are many 13-point hands that they don't open (their convention card confirmed this). E/W each had about 300 masterpoints. N/S said they observed considerable "body language" (discomfort) from East when her partner explained 2NT. They thought this lent even greater credibility to the Director's ruling. Responding to a Committee member's question, North said the reason she asked about the 3 bid was that she was "just curious." She said it made no difference to her bid but explained she had never heard of Lebensohl used in this situation (by a passed hand). The Committee Decision: The Committee fully appreciated the self-serving nature of East's statements. However, her overall candor in front of the Committee and her relative inexperience helped make believable her statement that she bid 2NT intending to decide what to do on the next round. Some Committee members had sympathy for the idea that the extraneous information available to East greatly enhanced the choice to bid 3NT. However, the Committee also broadly believed that East's hand warranted an automatic conversion of 3 to 3NT even if this had occurred behind screens. The Committee briefly discussed the impropriety of the just-out-of-curiosity query about the meaning of the auction by North, but decided not to let it influence their decision. Table Director: Charles MacCracken Directors consulted: Henry Cukoff (DIC) Committee: Michael White (chair), Larry Cohen, Corinne Kirkham, Jeff Meckstroth, Becky Rogers, Dave Treadwell, Brian Trent (scribe: Michael Huston)

Case 11 Subject: Misinformation Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 23 Mar 99, First Session Board: 15 -- Dealer: South Q 8 3 2 Vul: N/S J 6 A K Q J 9 7 5 J 3 2 Q 10 9 7 6 5 K J 10 7 6 -- A K 4 Q 10 9 5 3 6 4 10 2 A K 8 4 A 9 5 4 8 7 2 8 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 3 Pass 3NT Pass Pass 4 Pass 4 Dbl 4 Dbl All Pass The Facts: 4 doubled went down one, plus 100 for N/S. 3 was not Alerted and the partnership agreement was that it showed an intermediate jump overcall. The Director ruled that E/W were not damaged and allowed the table result to stand (Law 21C2). The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East believed that they were placed in the unfair position of having to guess whether or not to compete opposite a passed hand and a supposed preemptive bid. The hand might even belong to them if a fit was found. Opposite an intermediate bid, the expectation of extra points in partner's hand would diminish and he would have passed. South stated he was unaware that intermediate jump overcalls required an Alert. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was misinformation, but that it was not probable that the 4 bid by East was made as the result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (Law 21B1). It would seem that after either a preemptive or intermediate 3 overcall, South has rolled the dice. Perhaps the intermediate bid offers a little more protection of a game bid to cover any negative score from a four-level contract. It may not take much for E/W to go positive in 4 or 4. Two players were consulted and neither saw a huge difference based on the meaning of North's call, but did think it more likely that East would bid after a preemptive bid. A third would not have bid after either call, saying that he believed South was gambling and he wasn't going to gamble right back with this hand. He did not think that the two meanings changed the situation. A fourth player who was asked said he would probably bid with this hand but the meaning of the 3 call by North would not help him make the decision. He said that only the fact that partner held an AKx of one of our long suits prevented the decision to bid from being right against the intermediate bid. The Committee therefore allowed the table result of 4 doubled down one, plus 100 for N/S to stand. Table Director: Sue Doe Panel: Roger Putnam (reviewer), Olin Hubert, Ron Johnston, Matt Smith Players consulted: Michael Becker, Mike Kamil, Peter Nagy