Venice Cup: Israel (N-S) vs.Canada (E-W). Round-robin I, Match 6.

Board 12 N/S Vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   9   J 8 3 2   K J 3 2   A J 6 2	EAST
A J 10 7 5 2   K Q 6   10   K Q 4	SOUTH	K 8 6   5 4   9 8 7 6 4   10 9 3
	Q 4 3   A 10 9 7   A Q 5   8 7 5

West	North	East	South
1	Pass	Pass	Dbl(1)
2	3	3	Pass
Pass	Dbl(2)	Pass	4
Pass	Pass	Pass

(1) Shows 10-12 HCP or 15+ HCP
(2) Agreed long hesitation; eventually alerted by North as takeout; not alerted by South

Facts: West called the Director at the conclusion of the auction. All agreed there had been a lengthy hesitation on the other side of the screen at North's double.

The director instructed that play proceed. 4 failed by one trick : EW +100.

EW requested an adjustment saying the hesitation might suggest bidding over passing, and since South thought this was a penalty double, passing was an alternative. South told the Director that she had thought this was a penalty double, but on the basis of her S Qxx, she decided it may have been meant as takeout. North said their partnership agreement was that in a competitive auction such as this one when the opponents bid and raised a suit, a double was never penalty.

Director's ruling: Contract returned to 3 Dbl; +530 awarded to EW.

Committee's ruling: The committee found that any information from the hesitation, although unauthorized, was available as well through the auction. South's 4 call and the bridge result of EW +100 were reinstated.

The committee then considered South's failure to alert and her indication to West that the double was for penalty. This misinformation removed the opportunity for West to chance making 4. The committee ruled that the IMP difference on this board was to be adjusted by adding 3IMPs for EW.

Committee Members: Jens Auken (Chair), Jean-Claude Beineix, Mazhar Jafri, Kathie Wei, Barbara Nudelman, Becky Rogers

Bermuda Bowl: Argentina (N-S) versus Indonesia (E-W).

Board 12 N/S Vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   8 2   7 5   A J 9 8 5 4 3   9 4	EAST
Q J 10 6   10 9 6 3   2   J 7 5 3	SOUTH	K 5 4   A Q J 8 4 2   Q 10   A 6
	A 9 7 3   K   K 7 6   K Q 10 8 2

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

(1) Precision.

Facts: The bidding tray remained on the North-East side of the screen for a lengthy time before being returned with North's 4 bid and East's Pass. The Director was called at that point.

Director's ruling: After determining that there was no evidence to apportion the time between North and East the Director ruled no unauthorized information. The result at the table stood (4 making four, +420 for E-W). This ruling was appealed by N-S.

Testimony: All players agreed to the facts as presented, and estimated the delay at something in excess of one minute. Neither South nor West claimed to have had any tangible clues as to who was responsible for the delay, but after some questioning East confirmed that the delay had been his. West claimed that he always intended to bid 4 if N-S competed to 4 and that the hesitation had no bearing on his action.

Committee's decision: The Committee discounted West's last statement as self-serving. It next considered whether it was possible to attribute the time in question to one or the other of the North or East players. North's 4 bid arguably showed no more than extra diamond length unsuitable for preempting at this vulnerability, given the strength already shown by East and South. North's 4 bid was thus not likely to have required long consideration after South's raise to 3.

On the other hand the combination of extra values, no opportunity to describe his hand more completely (possibly holding a sixth heart, or a secondary spade or club suit which would be awkward to show) before the auction reached the four-level, and the announced danger of the opponent behind him having most of the adversely held values, were all reasons why East was likely to have had a problem over 4.

Thus, it was agreed that East was likely to have taken the preponderance of the extra time, and West could have known this. Still, 4 on the West cards was an attractive bid which might very well have been taken by many players on the previous round of bidding, and there was strong sentiment for allowing the match to be determined by what happened at the table-especially if there was any uncertainty as to whether or not there had been unauthorized information.

This combination of factors, coupled with the time pressure the Committee was working under (the appeal had not been lodged at the end of the seventh match, and the event was being held up for the Committee's decision which was needed to form the rankings for the pairings in matches 8 through 14), led to a decision to assign a score of zero on the board at that table, to be IMPed against the result at the other table.

Error corrected: Unfortunately, when the Committee's decision was conveyed to the Directing staff a miscommunication occurred, for which the Committee assumes full responsibility. As soon as this was discovered, members of the Committee went before the Laws Commission and asked for the ruling to be voided.

Since part of the miscommunication involved characterizing the Committee's decision as "throwing the board out," an act which by Law is not within either a Director's or a Committee's purview, the Laws Commission properly vacated the first ruling. The case was then sent back to the Committee for a new result to be assigned. The Committee instated the result which had been their original intent, as described above. The team captains were immediately informed of this change, and apologies were extended for any inconvenience which might have been caused by the error.

Committee Members: Jens Aukem (Chair), Ernesto d'Orsi, George Retek, Jean-Louis Derivery, Richard Colker, Jean-Claude Beineix.

Bermuda Bowl: Colombia (E-W) vs. Sweden (N-S).

Board 5 N/S Vul. Dealer North WEST	NORTH   10 5 4   5 3   A K 10 9 8 6 5 3   -	EAST
A 9 8 6 3   10 4   -   K J 7 6 5 3	SOUTH	7   A K Q 8 7   5 4   A 10 9 4 2
	K Q J 2   J 9 6 2   Q 7 2   Q 8

West	North	East	South
-	3(1)	3	Pass
4	Dbl(2)	Pass	5
Dbl	All Pass

(1) Alerted as showing a good suit (headed by AK or AQ).
(2) Alerted by North as requesting a lead of an unusual suit (probably a void).

Facts: South explained North's double of 4 as takeout, to any suit.

Director's ruling: It was determined that N-S's discrepant explanations constituted an infraction of Law 75. In addition, West had been prepared to play 4, making no attempt at that stage to bid on, and then claimed he would have bid 6 (prepared to play 6 as well) had he known that North's double showed a side black-suit void.

However, he offered no convincing rationale as to how the correct knowledge would have justified his bidding on. Since no connection was demonstrated between the infraction and N-S's bad result, no score adjustment was made.

Testimony: West stated that had he known the correct meaning of North's double he would have bid 6 over 5, since East could then be placed with either club or extra heart length. (With side spade rather than club length East would have doubled the first time. With extra heart length he could simply correct 6 to 6-which would have good play because of East's long heart suit.)

Committee's decision: The Committee found no validity in the inferences West claimed could be drawn from the knowledge that North was void in one of the black suits, nor could it determine any connection between those inferences and his contention that the correct slam could therefore be bid and made. It was therefore decided that the result at the table should stand. The Committee could reach no consensus regarding the merits of N-S's appeal, so their deposit was returned.

Committee Members: Richard Colker (Chair); Jens Aukem, Jean-Louis Derivery, John Wignall, Jean-Claude Beineix.

Bermuda Bowl: Sweden (N-S) vs. China (E-W).

Board 16 E/W Vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   8 3   K J 8   J 8 6 3   K 10 7 2	EAST
A K Q 9 2   -   K 9 7 4 2   A Q 8	SOUTH	10 6   10 9 6 5 3 2   A Q 5   J 6
	J 7 5 4   A Q 7 4   10   9 5 4 3

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

(1) Forcing.

Facts: On the North-East side of the screen East's 3 bid was described as "5+ good" (E-W considered a 6-card suit the same as a good 5-card suit). The 5 was won with the ace, a diamond was led to the queen, and the 10 (not covered) overtaken with the ace. Another diamond was then led to the ace, followed by another spade to the king. The Q was then cashed (North discarding the 8), and a fourth spade led to South's jack (on which North pitched the J). The hand was now cold. North claimed he was damaged by the incomplete explanation of E-W's suit requirements for the 3 bid.

Director's ruling: The score stands. N-S appealed.

Testimony: North said that he understood East's explanation of his 3 bid to mean that the suit had to be at least 5- cards in length, but must always be a good one. He therefore decided that East must hold at least H QT9xx, and decided to discard his hearts to make as many tricks in the off suits on defense as possible, rather than playing for an "impossible" set.

Committee's decision: The Committee felt that, although East's explanation did fall short of full-disclosure, North should have asked and/or worked out for himself how to defend the hand correctly. The hand could always be beaten if South held either the J or H ATxx(x) by pitching a diamond on the fourth spade. The score at the table was allowed to stand, and the N-S players were cautioned to be more precise in their explanations of their agreements in the future. After some discussion, E-W's deposit was returned.

Committee Members: Jos Damiani (Chair), Richard Colker, Jens Auken, Rebecca Rogers, John Wignall.

Bermuda Bowl: Netherlands (N-S) vs. Sweden (E-W).

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

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

(1) Strong, 17+HCPs.
(2) Negative.
(3) After a hesitation. Described by West (to South) as takeout.

Facts: The Director was called after the completion of the hand. N-S complained that West had hesitated unduly before doubling, and because of this East had bid only 3.

Director's ruling: Applied to the present case Law 16A2 authorizes the Director to assign an adjusted score whenever it is determined that, following West's (alleged) hesitation, East selected from among logical alternatives an action which could have been suggested by the hesitation. The Directors did not feel that 3 met this criterion, so the result at the table was allowed to stand. N-S appealed this ruling.

Testimony: N-S stated that West's double took approximately one minute. They also stated that E-W were normally a very aggressive pair, and that stopping short of game on the East cards opposite a West hand good enough to balance (East's pass of 3 was not absolutely forcing) was unusual. They also cited evidence suggesting that people in the Vugraph room were surprised that East bid only 3, and that 4 was the final contract at nearly all the other tables.

Finally, they pointed out that West's description of his double as "takeout" was not correct. (West confirmed that it could have been based on a balanced hand in the 5-7 HCPs range, and should more accurately have been described as "value showing.")

East stated that he considered three alternative bids after West's double: 3, 4 and 4. 3 was selected because of its flexibility, including allowing for a possible 3NT contract. 4 was considered a better bridge bid than 4 because it allowed for a possible diamond contract. Finally, East felt that 3 also carried the implication of being a 5-card suit, since red suits of equal or longer length would be bid at the 3-level before a 4-card spade suit. (West seemed unaware of this inference.)

Committee's decision: This case was quite complex, the final decision resting on several delicate issues.

First, the testimony, together with East's club holding, suggested that East had good reason to attribute the hesitation on the other side of the screen to West.

Second, E-W were normally (and undisputedly) a very aggressive pair, and the 4 game was bid by most E-W pairs in the event.

Third, East's hand was strong enough (even though minimum in high cards) to produce a good play for 4, even opposite many West hands containing only three spades and values too modest to raise 3 to four (e.g., J8x Qxxxx Qxx xx).

And finally, West's (presumed) huddle suggested that caution by East was more likely to be successful than aggression. It was therefore decided that East should be forced to take the more aggressive action of bidding 4 over West's double, which would land E-W in a 4 contract. The most likely result would be down one, so the score for 4 by E-W down one was assigned to both pairs (N-S +100, E-W -100).

Committee Members: Richard Colker (Chair), Rebecca Rogers, John Wignall, Barbara Nudelman, Mazhar Jafri.

Bermuda Bowl: Indonesia (E-W) vs. USA II (N-S).

Board 13 All cul. Dealer North WEST	NORTH   9 8   6   8 6 2   A Q 9 8 7 5 4	EAST
Q 10 7 6   A Q J 3   A Q 3   J 6	SOUTH	A J 4 2   8 4 2   J 10 7 5   K 2
	K 5 3   K 10 9 7 5   K 9 4   10 3

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

(1) Alerted. (2) After a delay.

Facts: There was a delay before the tray was returned to the South-West side of the screen following West's double. N-S felt this could have influenced West's 4 bid.

Director's ruling: After the (alleged) hesitation on the North-East side of the screen it was determined that West had unauthorized information available to him, and an alternative action (pass) available. Based on Laws 16 and 12C2 the score was adjusted to -200 for N-S and +200 for E-W. This ruling was appealed by E-W.

Testimony: North testified that while the tray was still on the South-West side of the screen following East's pass of 3, he wrote an explanation of his Alert to East, who ignored it until the tray was returned. At that point East began asking questions and was told that 2 would have shown either a diamond preempt or a bad 3 bid, so 3 showed a "good" preempt (either a good suit or a poorer suit with compensating outside values).

East thought for a while and then inadvertently pulled the 3NT card out of his bidding box, noticed his mistake, and then corrected his call to 3. N-S estimated that the tray remained on the North-East side of the screen for at least 15-20 seconds, while E-W denied that it remained there that long.

Committee's decision: Although it had been largely accidental (due to the bidding box error), the Committee determined that there had been a delay by East before his 3 bid. In light of the possible unauthorized information from this delay, a pass by West was deemed to be a logical alternative to bidding 4. However, it was also felt that West might still have bid 4 some percentage of the time even without the hesitation.

Both pairs were therefore assigned 50 percent of the score for E-W bidding 4 and making five (+320 to E-W, -320 to N-S). An additional 1 IMP penalty was also assessed against E-W for East not attending to North's explanation of his 3 bid when it was offered while the tray was still on the South-West side of the screen, which might have averted the problem entirely.

Committee Members: Jose Damiani (Chair), Jean-Claude Beineix, Jens Auken, Mazhar Jafri, John Wignall.

Venice Cup: USA I (E/W) vs. China (N/S).

Board 44 N/S Vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   K 8 5 4   Q J 10 3   9 7   A J 9	EAST
J 9 6   4   A K 10 6 3 2   10 8 2	SOUTH	A 3 2   8 5   Q J 8 4   Q 7 5 3
	Q 10 7   A K 9 7 6 2   9   K 6 4

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

(1) Alerted. (Trump asking-not asked.)
(2) Alerted. (AK of trump-not asked.)
(3) Alerted by North and explained to East as forcing. Not Alerted by South.

Facts: The Director, who was at the table monitoring for slow play, observed South's pass over 6 Alerted by North but not by South. At the conclusion of the play East asked West whether the pass in question had been Alerted to her as forcing. When she replied "no" East claimed damage, stating that with the proper Alerts either she would have doubled 6 or West would have passed (depending on whether the Alert had or had not been correct).

Director's ruling: The Director determined that E/W's bad result was not the result of any infraction by N/S, and ruled the result stood. This was appealed by E/W.

Testimony: E/W's testimony was quite complex, but (to summarize it briefly) it was that East had tried to create a problem for N/S, who were likely cold for a vul. game or slam, by making a strong-sounding trump ask (4C). This told East what West's defensive potential might be so she could better judge what to do later if N/S competed, but also left West uncertain as to whose hand it was (East could have been strong and looking for game/slam herself).

If South's pass of 6 had been forcing (as East was told), East's pass of 6 suggested saving in 7 with some defense against 6 (what East actually intended). If South's pass was nonforcing (as West believed), East's pass of 6 invited West to bid 7 to make (what she actually did).

If East had been told that South's pass had been nonforcing she would have doubled 6 for several reasons including: (a) North bid 6 uninvited after previously bidding only 5, (b) she knew E/W had good defense against 6, (c) a pass would be interpreted by West as a strong hand (as actually happened), (d) to prevent any possible misunderstanding, and (e) because she suspected a save would be too expensive.

If West had been told that South's pass had been forcing she would have passed out 6 knowing East held some defense (given her defensively oriented hand).

Committee's decision: If there had been trouble on the hand it came from E/W, who had tried to bluff N/S (and succeeded). However, this success came at the cost of creating a very complex situation which also confused N/S. Since this confusion was of E/W's own making, and since, in the Committee's opinion, the different Alerts had no bearing on E/W's bridge decisions, the result at the table was allowed to stand. E/W's deposit was forfeited.

Committee Members: Jens Auken (Chair), Jean-Claude Beineix, John Wignall, George Retek.