NEC WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA

Appeal Report #9

Committee Chairman: Bob Hamman

Board 1 Love All Dealer North WEST	NORTH   K 9 8 6 4   8 6 3   A Q 10 7   3	EAST
A Q J 5   9 5 4   8 2   A 8 6 4	SOUTH	7 2   A K 7   J 6 3   K Q J 5 2
	10 3   Q J 10 2   K 9 5 4   10 9 7

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

THE FACTS
North led a heart, won in dummy. Declarer played a spade to the queen. North won the king and continued hearts. Declarer had nine tricks.

THE DIRECTOR'S RULING
The 1D bid was Alerted and, when asked, East described it as either (1) four spades with no four-card red suit, (2) an intermediate club raise or (3) a weak balanced hand. While North was considering his opening lead, East volunteered that this auction tended to show doubt about spades and therefore West was likely to have four or more diamonds. Since this did not describe West's hand and no notes exist to confirm the agreement, we ruled misinformation ( Law 12.C.2 ). The score was adjusted to minus 400 for North-South, minus 50 for East-West. The results were to be converted to IMPs and averaged to produce a Victory Point result of the match.

APPELLANT'S REASON FOR REQUESTING REVIEW
"Our notes contain no reference to the cuebid followed by 3NT showing doubt. However, Note 9 discusses 1-1 and Note 6 discusses fourth-suit forcing auctions. On the front page of the convention card guide, it states that we are responsible for volunteering information about our agreements. It seems strange that we should be penalized for doing so. Is the fact that the agreements were not strictly adhered to relevant?"

COMMITTEE'S DECISION
he result at the table stands because bridge logic dictates a diamond shift. The explanation was accurate in that the possibility of four spades without the red suits was mentioned. Interference often creates uncertainty and causes a player to change his course of action.

COMMENT ON THE DIRECTOR'S RULING
Law 86 provides for the average of the two scores to be assigned to both contestants in knockout play. This does not apply in round-robin play: each contestant takes his own score and scores need not balance ( Law 12C2 ).

FURTHER OPINION
Bobby Wolff expresses his view that where a pair play a convention which can have various meanings, there is a strong onus upon them to make all the nuances clear to opponents; a pair should always be subject to penalty where they fail to do this, Wolff says.

Appeals Report #10

Chairman: Edgar Kaplan

Board 14 Love All Dealer East WEST	NORTH   K   A 7 6   A K 10 4   A K Q 8 2	EAST
9 8 7 3   K J 9 8 5 3 2   Q   6	SOUTH	Q J 10 2   - -   9 5 3 2   J 10 9 5 3
	A 6 5 4   Q 10 4   J 8 7 6   7 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
Pass	1	Pass	1
Dbl	Pass	1	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
Pass	4NT	Pass	6
All Pass

APPELLANTS' REASON FOR REQUESTING REVIEW
West's double was explained to South as shows hearts" while it was not Alerted to North. North asked the meaning of double, and East answered "takeout". (It was asked twice). The bid of 1H was Alerted on both sides. If North had known that the distribution could be unbalanced, she surely would have passed 3NT. From the other side South declarer 6 thinking North had had the same explanation she had had.

COMMITTEE DECISION
No adjustment. North and East failed to communicate adequately using only verbal means. North should probably understand this since a double of an artificial bid is rarely for takeout. North's contention that she would pass and play 3NT if she knew the double showed hearts is not convincing. Result stands.

Appeals report #11

Committee chairman -- Edgar Kaplan
Members present -- Billy Eisenberg, Clare Tornay
Scribe -- Tony Sowter

Board 11 Love All Dealer South WEST	NORTH   10 9 8   9   Q J 10   A K J 9 8 6	EAST
K Q 6 5 2   J 6 5 3 2   6 3 2   - -	SOUTH	A J 7   A 8 7   9 8 5 4   10 5 2
	7 4   K Q 10 4   A K 7   Q 7 4 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1NT
2(1)	3NT	Dbl	Pass
Pass(2)	5	All Pass

(1) Transfer showing spades
(2) After question about 3NT, explained as showing a spade stopper

THE FACTS
Against 5, East underled his A, hoping to put West in to lead through North's putative K. When North turned out not to have a spade stopper, E-W asked for a ruling on the basis that North's hand did not totally correspond to the description.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that, as there might have been damage, the result should be adjusted to 3NT doubled down two. North-South appealed.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee established that South's description of the 3NT bid was correct, and there was no evidence to suggest that North did not know his system when he bid 3NT, and it was quite reasonable for North to remove himself from 3NT when it was doubled. There was no good reason to protect East from his own iomaginative defense, so the score was set by the committee as 5 making.

Appeal Report #12

Committee Chairman: Bob Hamman
Committee members present: George Retek, Mazhar Jafri
Scribe: Tony Sowter

Board 11 Love All Dealer South WEST	NORTH   J 10 3   J   Q J 8 7 6   K Q 10 7	EAST
7 2   A Q 9 3   A 10 3   J 8 4 3	SOUTH	K Q 9 6 4   10 7 6 4   4 2   5 2
	A 8 5   K 8 5 2   K 9 5   A 9 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	Pass	1
Pass	1	1	Pass
Pass	2	Pass	2
Dbl(1)	Pass	2	All Pass

(1) Penalty with diamonds and points.

THE FACTS
East-West played in 2 making for plus 110. North asked for a ruling as to East's explanation of West's double since "penalty" inhibited him from bidding 3.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that there was no infraction -- that East gave a good explanation.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee took the view that while they would have sympathy with East's removing a "penalty" double, it was wrong for East to describe West's bid as being for penalty. A card-showing double with short spades and length in the other three suits would have been a fair description.

THE DECISION
The committee ruled that North had been damaged by the explanation and adjusted the score to North playing 3, making nine tricks for plus 110 to North-South.

Appeals report #13

Committee Chairman: Tony Forrester.
Committee: Jens Auken, Bobby Goldman & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

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

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

THE FACTS
South's 2 was a Michaels Cuebid for the majors, and West asked about the meaning of this direct cuebid before deciding to pass.There was no hesitation involved. The fact that West asked instead of looking at the convention card led N/S to maintain that East's bid 2 NT may have been influenced by West's question. E/W scored 600 for 9 tricks.

THE DIRECTOR
The director was called after the end of the board, ruling that the score stands.

THE PLAYERS
North/South felt that East's bid of 2 NT was not routine, and was possibly influenced by partner's question. At the other table their teammates were in the same position and chose to double instead of bidding 2 NT, because the latter would be too dangerous. In England a player cannot ask a question when not intending to bid without compromising partner.In this event, with such strict requirements regarding convention cards, he could pass and then look at the convention card.

THE COMMITTEE
There was no hesitation, and it is in fact allowed to ask when it is your turn to bid. It is the opinion of the committee that you should always ask, for then nobody can find any pattern in asking. E/W were playing natural with 5-cards majors, and the natural development with no interruption would be for East to jump to 2NT in the second round to show a balanced 18-19 count. The 2NT bid is therefore considered routine.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result stands, and the deposit is forfeited.

Appeal Report #14

Committee Chairman: Edgar Kaplan
Committee members present: Billy Eisenberg, Clare Tornay
Scribe: Tony Sowter

Board 14 Love All Dealer East WEST	NORTH   K   A 7 6   A K 10 4   A K Q 8 2	EAST
9 8 7 3   K J 9 8 5 3 2   Q   7 4	SOUTH	Q J 10 2   - -   9 5 3 2   J 8 7 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
Pass	1(1)	Pass	1(2)
Dbl	Pass	1	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
Pass	4NT	Pass	6
All Pass

(1) Strong
(2) 7-plus high-card points, fewer than three controls.

THE FACTS
North had described South's 1 bid to East as 7-plus points with fewer than three controls without specifying that it was artificial. East thought that South's bid was natural and so described West's double as being for takeout. In practice, North failed to make 6 when East was able to ruff the A, but North felt that with the correct explanation of West's double, North-South might not have bid to 6.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled no adjustment to the score because he was not convinced by North's contention that she would pass and play 3NT if she knew that the double showed hearts.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee allowed the result to stand because 6 was a good contract that failed only because the hearts were 7-0. In other words, if West had only held six hearts, the committee felt that North would still have wished to be in 6. She was just unlucky to go down.

COMMENT
Largely due to the language difficulties at the table, the committee returned the deposit, although they stressed that in describing the 1 response to East, North should have emphasized the fact that the bid was artificial and had nothing to do with the heart suit.

Appeals report #15

Game all Dealer West WEST	NORTH   J 7 5 3   -   A Q 9   K Q J 10 8 5	EAST
Q 8 2   A J 10 8 4 5   J 10   6 2	SOUTH	A 10 6   9 7 6   K 8 7 6 4 2   9
	K 9 4   K Q 3 2   5 3   A 7 4 3

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

(1) Alleged quick double.

THE RESULT
4 doubled failed one trick. Plus 200 for North-South.

THE FACTS
East-West alleged that the double was made very quickly and they believed that many players would pull the double if it had been made in the proper tempo.

DIRECTOR'S RULING
The director ruled that there was no logical alternative to doubling 4. The result was allowed to stand in accord with Law 73-C .

COMMITTEE'S DECISION
The committee listened to testimony from North-South that they did not see the "Stop" card. They claimed that the "Stop" card was not placed in an area of the table where it could easily be seen. This was disputed by East-West, who maintained that the "Stop" card was placed on the open table and the double was made in two seconds or less of the "Stop" card's being picked up. This was disputed by North-South, who maintained that the elapsed time was closer to four or five seconds.

The committee asked for demonstrations from both sides to show the placing of the "Stop" card and the tempo of the double. The committee chairman also inquired if North-South would be willing to sign a statement as to the placement of the "Stop" card. The pair never answered the chairman's inquiry.

In deliberation, the committee doubted North-South's story and felt that the double was made quickly to prevent North from pulling. The committee was impressed that East-West had brought the case and had not asked for an adjusted score. The committee allowed the result for both sides, plus 200 for North-South, to stand. North-South were given a two Victory-Point penalty and a strong reprimand for making the quick bid. East-West's deposit was returned.

Appeals report #16

Chairman: Bobby Wolff.
Members: Rebecca Rogers, Jens Auken, Jeffrey Polisner, George Retek.
Scribe: John Blubaugh.

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
1	Pass	1	1
3	Pass	3(1)	Pass
3NT(2)	Pass	4(3)	Pass
4	Pass	4(5)	Pass
5(6)	Pass	5(7)	Pass
6(8)	Pass	6NT(9)	Pass
7	All Pass

(1) Alerted as showing values in spades and denying diamonds.
(2) Diamond stopper.
(3) Showed a fit and was forcing.
(4) Cuebid.
(5) Roman Key Card Blackwood.
(6) Three key cards.
(7) Asking for the Q.
(8) Alerted as showing the Q and the K.
(9) Break in tempo.

RESULT
7 made seven., Plus 1440 for East-West.

THE FACTS
All of the players agreed that East took at least five minutes to bid 6NT and West quickly bid 7.

DIRECTOR'S RULING
The director was called before the dummy came down. The players were instructed to play the hand. After the play, the director ruled that pass was a logical alternative for West in light of the break in tempo and the result was changed to 6NT making six. Plus 990 for East-West.

COMMITTEE'S DECISION
The committee listened to testimony from West that he always intended to bid 7. He stated he would have bid 7 instead of 6 but he was concerned his partner might misunderstand his bid and move to 7NT.

The committee asked West what he thought his partner was considering before bidding 6NT. West maintained his partner was thinking of nothing and it didn't matter since he had always intended to bid 7 after his partner had announced that they held all of the keycards.

The committee felt that West was privy to unauthorized information since East could only have been considering a 6NT or 7 bid. The committee informed West that he had lost the opportunity to make an aggressive, expert decision when his partner balked and was admonished not to do this in the future. The result was changed to 6NT making six, plus 990 for East-West.

The committee spent a great deal more time on deciding if the deposit should be refunded. While most of the committee members felt that the appeal was substantially without merit, they also felt, after questioning the director who was at the table, that the law and the possibility of forfeit of the deposit was not adequately explained. The deposit was returned.

Appeals Report #17

Committee Chairman: Jose Damiani
Members Present: Jeff Polisner, George Retek, Jean-Claude Beneix, John Wignall
Scribe: Eric Kokish

WEST	NORTH   J 8 7 4   Q 7 6   J 2   9 7 6 3	EAST
K 6 2   4 3   A 9 8   K Q 8 5 2	SOUTH	A 9 5   A J 5   K Q 10 5   J 10 4
	Q 10 3   K 10 9 8 2   7 6 4 3   A

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

THE FACTS
After North doubled 3NT, apparently for a heart lead, South led the heart ten. East, the declarer, queried North about this lead and was told that it showed either none higher, or specifically the jack and either the king or ace, i.e. zero or two higher. When North produced the queen, declarer deduced that her explanation was either correct (North would have the king and queen) or incorrect (North would hold the queen, South the king). Declarer tried to protect himself against an incorrect explanation by ducking two rounds of hearts since if the honors were split, North was likely to hold the ace of clubs for her double (there were very few high cards outstanding and a double with one heart honor and no ace of clubs seemed unlikely). In other words (said North), if South had the heart king and North the club ace, it was essential not to win the heart ace immediately. And if North held the king-queen of hearts (as suggested by North's explanation), it could not hurt to duck the heart queen.

As we can see, this was not the winning line of play.

THE DIRECTOR'S RULING
East alleged that he had been given improper information, which had resulted in damage. The Director's investigation revealed that North's explanation concurred with the partnership agreement as listed on the convention card. Thus there was no infraction, and he ruled that the score of three notrump minus one would stand. East/West lodged an appeal.

THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
East alleged that he was in a "Catch 22" situation, that without this explanation from North, he would simply have taken the heart queen with the ace and knocked out the ace of clubs, thereby making five.

The Committee sympathized with declarer's hard luck. It was determined to the Committee's satisfaction that South was under the impression that North's double created a special situation. He stated that after the double, he simply made the "natural" rather than the conventional lead because he knew that North would have a heart honor and he wanted to avoid any misunderstandings. He was not trying do anything fancy or paint a false picture.

THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION
The case turned on a point of Law, namely Proprieties Section 4, Partnership Agreements, whereby it is not improper to violate an announced partnership agreement as long as partner is unaware that you are doing so. In effect, this situation amounted to such a violation of an announced agreement. And so, the Committee ruled (unanimously) that the score would stand, the East/West appeal being denied. The pertinent section continues however that ... habitual violations may create an implicit agreement. North/South were cautioned to firm up their agreements. The failure to do so would result in their losing the right to play this particular lead treatment.

Appeals report #18

Chairman -- Grattan Endicott
Committee -- Kathie Wei-Sender, Sabine Zenkel, Tommy Sandsmark, Jens Auken

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

With a club suit of A4 opposite Q9872 in a 3NT contract, declarer played the ace and this dropped the king on his right. The 4 was led toward the Q987, LHO followed with the 5, and the following now occurred in sequence:
1. Declarer nominated the queen.
2. Declarer changed the nomination to the 7.
3. Dummy produced some kind of reaction, described by the opponents as "Huh", which was either surprise or indicated a failure to hear the card named, depending on the versions of the players.

Declarer said her change of call was in the same breath and simultaneous with dummy's request to know what card had been named. Opponents said that dummy's reaction was between the two card nominations and West had time to hear this before nominating the 7.

THE DIRECTOR
Under Law 45C4 (b) the director ruled that with the facts in dispute he deemed this a correction of an inadvertent designation of a card, including in his reasons that suc a ruling went into the real bridge result on the hand. (Law 85B would also apply.) THE COMMITTEE In some circumstances dummy's reaction could be a matter of some significance; playing as here behind screens it is especially important for declarer to assist dummy by calling the card clearly and for dummy to remain closely attentive since one wishes to avoid actions that are capable of being misinterpreted.

In this case the Committee decided that regardless of dummy's action or the timing of the sequence of events, declarer had actually thought Q when calling that card, then realized immediately that it was a non-bridge play and corrected to 7. But no matter how quickly this change is made, the fact is that the first designation cannot be termed inadvertent; it is only an inadvertent call -- a slip of the tongue -- that can be changed "without pause for thought". However quickly the change was made, in this case it did reflect a change of mind.

DECISION OF COMMITTEE
The contract of 3NT is to be scored as one down, the Q being deemed to have been played. Score N-S plus 50.

Appeals report #19

Committee Chairman: Grattan Endicott.
Committee: Jens Auken, Kathie Wei-Sender, Sabine Zenkel & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

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

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

THE FACTS
This is a case of wrong explanation. The bid in question is West's double over 2. East explained the double to North as "Penalties", while West to South maintained that it was "Showing support". At the table, the contract went 500 down.

THE DIRECTOR
The director was called after the end of the board, and there was a claim of different explanation at either side of the screen. When questioned, both East and West kept to their statements, and no guidance as to agreement was found. The Director ruled according to Law 40C , that N/S were damaged by the wrong explanation, and he adjusted the score to 2x = 180 to N/S.

THE PLAYERS
North stated that she thought that East's 1 was a psyche. With a similar explanation as South had got, she would have happily passed.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee was able to find substanciating evidence in E/W's convention card which supported the explanation given by West. Thus, North had been misinformed. Still, the committee found the 2 bid by North to be misjudged, even though she had been misinformed.

COMMITTEE DECISION
N/S's score was set to the original score of -500. However, East has given misinformation and should not be allowed to retain her score. For E/W the score will be -180 in 2x. Furthermore, the Committee gave E/W 1 VP as a procedural penalty for the breach in procedure.