NEC WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA

Appeal Report #20

Chairman: Grattan Endicott
Committee: Ernesto d'Orsi, Sabine Zenkel, Kathie Wei-Sender, Joan Gerard, John Wignall
Scribe: Tony Sowter

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

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

(1) Alerted as it promised only three clubs
(2) Meant by South as an ordinary takeout double as West was slightly late in Alerting the 1 opening. Explained by North as showing any three-suited takout as N-S had an agreement to play their defense to a strong artificial club whenever 1 was Alerted.

THE FACTS
East was clearly confused by this. for during the play he referred to the N-S convention card which told him that a takeout double of 1 would normally show at least 10 points. With two spade tricks established for the defense, North switched to diamonds after winning the K By this time East knew that South could have 10 points unless he had the DA, so he ducked the diamond switch and failed in his contract.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that East might have been damaged by misinformation and so adjusted the result to 3NT making. North-South appealed on the basis that:
a. Players may depart from their understandings occasionally, and
b. Playing teams, giving up on game by ducking the diamond was an extreme view.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee upheld the appeal, reverting the score to 3NT down one but fines North-South 1 VP for not making it absolutely clear on their convention card that their defense to strong artificial openings applied whever 1C is Alerted.

Appeal report #21

Chairman: Bob Hamman
Committee: Mazhar Jafri, Jean-Louis Derivery, Kathie Wei-Sender, Jeff Polisner
Scribe: Tony Sowter

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	4
4NT(1)	Pass	5	Pass
6	All Pass

(1) Alerted and described as asking for a minor

THE FACTS
North-South asked for a ruling on the basis that it looked as if 4NT might have been meant as Blackwood and that West had profited from East's explanation.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that since 4NT for the minors was a normal interpretation of the bid, there was no unauthorized information. North-South appealed the ruling.

THE COMMITTEE
As the convention card did not support the statement that 4NT was for takeout and as the hand looked to be inconsistent with 4NT for minors, the decision was to adjust the score back to 5 making six. While 4NT for takeout is a normal interpretation of the bid, a significant number of players would regard 4NT as Blackwood. If West had intended his bid as Blackwood, then he was not entitled to the information that East preferred clubs to diamonds and he should have answered that East preferred clubs to diamonds and he should have assumed that West had no ace. On this basis, the committee not only adjusted the score but also imposed a 2-VP procedural penalty on East-West.

GENERAL NOTE
This ruling may seem harsh. However, it illustrates the importance of ensuring that all partnership agreements are mentioned on the convention card, especially when playing without screens.

Appeal report #22

Chairman: Grattan Endicott
Committee: Ernesto d'Orsi, Sabine Zenkel, Kathie Wei-Sender, Joan Gerard, Jens Auken, John Wignall
Scribe: Tony Sowter

Board 21 N/S Vul Dealer North WEST	NORTH   Q 9 5   A 8   K 3   A Q J 7 4 2	EAST
A 7   K J 4 3   A J 10 8 6 5   3	SOUTH	K 8 3   Q 10 5   Q 9 7 4 2   10 5
	J 10 6 4 2   9 7 6 2   - -   K 9 8 6

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

(1) Stayman
(2) Not Alerted
(3) After asking about the double which was explqined as being for penalty

THE FACTS
The director was called after the bidding was over. After the play (4 made 10 tricks), the director ascertained from North that the double was meant to mean that North would have responded 2 to the Stayman inquiry.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that, as this was not the explanation proferred by South, East-West might have been damaged and so adjusted the score to North-South plus 170. South appealed on the basis 99% of players in the world would regard North's double as showing a good diamond holding and that North-South should not be penalized simply because North took an eccentric view. South's 2 bid showed a weak hand with spades but when North jumped to 3NT he removed on the basis that his partner was unlikely to make 3NT but he might have a chance in 4.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee upheld the appeal and chjanged the score back to North-South plus 620 on the basis that there was no damage to East-West. This especially the case as East's diamond holding was suffidiently good for him to know that North had not made a penalty double. Obviously East passed hoping that South too would pass, but when South had good reason to remove the double he had no grounds for complaint.

Appeal report #23

Committee chairman: Edgar Kaplan

Board 22 E/W Vul Dealer East WEST	NORTH   A 9 8 7   10 7 6 4 3   9 5 2   2	EAST
10 5 3   Q 9   Q 4   A J 9 6 4 3	SOUTH	Q 6 2   J 8 2   A J 8 7 6   Q 7
	K J 4   A K 5   K 10 3   K 10 8 5

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

*Bids were Alerted but explanations were not included in the record from the hearing.

THE RESULT
North made 10 tricks for plus 420.

THE FACTS
The problem arose because East chose a spade as his opening lead. While South had explained to West (behind the screen) that the bidding sequence typically showed a spade suit (five hearts, four spades), North in his explanations had concentrated on the diamond suit possibilities, said nothing about spades and had not Alerted the 2 bid which conveyed meaning about spades as well as about hearts.

There were language difficulties. The players had foolishly disregarded the requirement to write their explanations. The official language of the tournament is English.

THE PLAYERS
East contended he would have led a minor if he had known about the spade implications.

THE DIRECTOR
The director refused to change the the score because the request for a ruling came after the score comparison.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee felt that the East player at this level should have a nose for the implications of the sequence and did not do enough to obtain a full explanation. The committee also determined that North had failed to volunteer a full explanation when asked about bidding matters before the opening lead was selected. He did not offer a full explanation of the auction (as required by Law 20F2 ).

DECISION
The score of plus 420 to stand. North-South were penalized 2 IMPs for an infraction of correct procedure.

COMMENT
Players who have little command of English should have well-written and detailed convention cards so that they can indicate the relevant statements when giving explanations. They will be helped also if they obey the rules and write answers behind screens, using symbols, etc. We should perhaps devise handy-sized flip charts with potential answers to questions in multi-language situations.

Appeal report #24

Committee chairman: Bobby Wolff
Committe members present: Edgar Kaplan, Grattan Endicott, Tony Sowter

Board 24 Love All Dealer West WEST	NORTH   J   K 8 4 3   Q 10 9 4 3   10 8 6	EAST
A 3 2   A J 7 5 2   J 2   Q J 2	SOUTH	10 9 8 7 5   9   8 7   A 9 5 4 3
	K Q 6 4   Q 10 6   A K 6 5   K 7

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
1	Pass	1	1NT
Dbl*	Redbl*	2	Pass
Pass	2	Pass	3
All Pass

*Alerted.

THE RESULT
North went down one in 3.

THE FACTS
The teams were using screens. West explained to South that her double was a support double. East explained to North, "We usually play support doubles but we have no agreement after 1NT."

The redouble was explained thusly: if the double was a support double, the redouble shows invitations values (high-card points). If the double was natural, the redouble forces partner to bid 2.

At the end of the play, South summoned the tournament director, complaining that, having the explanation that double was "support" and that therefore the redouble showed invitational values, she decided to raise 2D to 3D. North was told, however, that there was no agreement about the double.

THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that the score of 3, down one, was to stand.

THE COMMITTEE
Changed the result to 2, making two, plus 90 to North-South (East-West minus 90).

COMMENTS
Both South and West agreed they would pass if South had received an explanation fitting with the one North had received.

Appeals report #25

Chairman: Bobby Wolff
Members present: Jeffrey Polisner, Grattan Endicott, Tommy Sandsmark, Jean-Claude Beineix
Scribe: John Blubaugh

Board 21 N/S Vul Dealer North WEST	NORTH   A J   A K J 9 3   A   K Q 6 4 3	EAST
-   6 2   Q 10 9 8 6 4 3 2   10 8 5	SOUTH	Q 10 9 7 6 5 4   10 8 4   -   A 9 7
	K 8 3 2   Q 7 5   K J 7 5   J 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	1	2	3
5	6	Pass	Pass
Dbl(1)	All Pass

(1) No Alert.

THE RESULT
West led the 9 and 6 went down three tricks. Plus 800 for East-West.

THE FACTS
North-South maintained that the Lightner double was Alertable and if the double had been Alerted, they would have bid 6NT.

DIRECTOR'S RULING
The director believed that all bridge players used this double so it was not necessary to Alert it. The result was allowed to stand.

COMMITTEE'S DECISION
The committee felt North-South should have recognized the meaning of the double (don't lead a diamond) and they could possibly have been taking a two-way shot to get a good result. If East had made the wrong lead, they would score the slam. If East made the correct lead, they could always maintain to a committee that the double was not Alerted and they would have gone to 6NT if they had been Alerted. Wolff believed that the Lightner double was not an alertable bid and should not be Alerted. The committee agreed and the result was allowed to stand. The committee also agreed that the appeal was substantially without merit and North-South's deposit was forfeited.

POSTSCRIPT After the committee had ended, Director-in-charge Bill Schoder told the committee that in the past some rulings have required Alerts of the Lightner Double. The committee felt that Alerting a slam double as a conventional action is both unnecessary and harmful. Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament Committee and moved that the Lightner double specifically should be added to the list of un-Alertable conventions. The committee agreed and the conditions of contest were so amended.

Appeals report #26

Chairman: Bobby Wolff
Members present: Grattan Endicott, Jeffrey Polisner, Tommy Sandsmark, Jean-Claude Beineix.

Board 22 E/W Vul Dealer East WEST	NORTH   3 2   K 10 3 2   A K 4 3   7 4 3	EAST
Q 9 7   A 9 6   9 8   A Q 10 9 8	SOUTH	J 8 5 4   Q 7 5   7 6 5   K J 6
	A K 10 6   J 8 9   Q J 10 2   5 2

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

THE RESULT
4 doubled down three tricks. Plus 800 for North-South.

THE FACTS
North did not Alert 2 as a good diamond raise. West's double was understood by East as takeout with short (two) clubs. East maintained he would not have bid 3 if he had known what South's 2 bid meant.

DIRECTOR'S RULING
The director was called after the 3 bid was doubled. The director ruled that there had been a failure to Alert and reverted the contract to 3 making three, plus 110 for North-South.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The committee discovered that the 2 bid was not Alerted and when East asked for an explanation, North was not clear (partly due to language problems). The committee felt after questioning that North-South had no clear understanding about 2 in this auction and the explanation of the bid was not sufficient. The result was changed to 3 making three, plus 110 for North-South. The deposit was refunded. After the Committee Chairman explained the final decision, North-South pointed out (for the first time) that East-West were playing a Polish Club and North did not know if 2%C; was a club suit or a good diamond raise. North now maintained that if West had passed, he would have raised clubs to see which hand South held. North also maintained that West's double of 2 should have been a takeout for the major suits. The committee did not agree. They felt the double showed a good club suit.

Appeal report #27

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

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

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

(1) Alerted as showing both major suits (five-five)
(2) Explanation of 2 was changed to showing weak spades and another suit (diamonds)

THE RESULT
4D made four. Plus 130 for North-South.

THE FACTS
Facts: The 2 bid was Alerted and misexplained as showing both major suits. The correct explanation, weak spades and another suit (diamonds), was given after the 3 bid. East-West brought the case because they felt there was unauthorised information available to South and the North-South convention card was inadequately filled out.

DIRECTOR'S RULING
The director ruled that there was initial misinformation which was corrected and did not affect the result. The score was allowed to stand according to Law 75 .

COMMITTEE DECISION
The committee found that the convention card was not complete and that misinformation had been given and unauthorised information was available to South. The committee felt that the Alert procedure woke the offenders to their agreements. Some of the committee members felt that if the 2 bid had been explained as weak spades and another suit, South might have passed 3 or even raised to game in hearts. The committee voted three to two to let the score, plus 130 for North-South, to stand. North-South were assessed a 2-Victory Point penalty for convention disruption and were instructed to clean up their convention card and get their understandings straight.

DISSENTING OPINION
Polisner: Even if North-South could prove that 3 is "pass or correct," I believe the Alert provided unauthorized information. I wanted to adjust the result to 3 down four tricks, minus 400 for North-South.

Appeal report #29

Chairman: Jaime Ortiz-Patino
Members present: Edgar Kaplan, Mazhar Jafri, Tommy Sandsmark
Scribe: Grattan Endicott

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	1	1NT	3NT
4	5	All Pass

THE RESULT
East led the A. North went down one in 5.

THE DIRECTOR
The director's attention was drawn to the fact that the East-West pair were playing a convention (the 1NT overcall) not shown on the convention card and against which opponents had no opportunity to prepare a defense. On the board which caused the director to be called, he canceled the result and awarded a 3-IMP swing in favor of North-South.

An earlier board against a different pair was identified on which the same unregistered convention was used. Again, the board was canceled and 3 IMPs awarded. The director asked the Appeals Committee to review the facts.

THE PLAYERS
The players assured that that careful explanations were given and were referring to a different convention card for that purpose. They explained the circumstances in which a convention card had been lodged which did not show their methods correctly -- the card had been made out in a hurry by a third party when they found on arrival at the tournament that the card understood to have been sent by their national bridge organization had not been received.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee noted that the pair are extremely experienced and can be expected to know their responsibilities. They cannot be excused the grave breach of the conditions of contest.

COMMITTEE'S DECISION
This pair must play the methods on the convention card officially registered. They are barred from playing in the final segment of the semifinal of the Rosenblum Cup Teams. The score of 3 IMPs to North-South on each of the two boards is confirmed.