NEC WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA

Appeals report #30

Committee Chairman: Jeffrey Polisner.
Members present: Jens Auken
Scribe: Tommy Sandsmark

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

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

(1) Break in tempo.

THE FACTS
The 2 bid was Alerted as weak. The convention card stated that it was 5+ and 5-11, and had a decent suit if only five cards. The 2NT bid was not Alerted, North-South maintaining that they had no partnership agreement in this situation. It was explained, however, as "probably an escaping bid". 4 doubled made two overtricks.

THE DIRECTOR
Three or four minutes after the end of the play South summoned the TD complaining that after 3, East took some time (hesitation) before passing. East-West agree on the hesitation. The director ruled the score to stand.

THE PLAYERS
West argued that since East had passed 2 doubled he was almost certainly holding something more than "only spades". Since North wasn't likely to hold more than three hearts and South after his bid normally would have a maximum of two hearts, there was every reason to believe that East would hold at least three hearts..

THE COMMITTEE
The committee believed Wests bid of 3H to be a clear action, not influenced by the break in tempo.

COMMITEE DECISION
The result stands, and the money was refunded.

Appeals report #31

Committee Chairman: Jeffrey Polisner.
Members present: Jens Auken, Kathie Wei-Sender, Joan Gerard, Sabine Zenkel.
Scribe: Tommy Sandsmark

Board 18 N/S Vul Dealer East WEST	NORTH   9 5 4   J 10 9   10 4 3 2   9 8 3	EAST
K 10 8 6 3   Q 6 4 3   J 7 6   7	SOUTH	Q 2   A 8 2   K Q 9 8 5   Q J 4
	A J 7   K 7 5   A   A K 10 6 5 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	1NT	Dbl
Pass	Pass	Redbl	Pass
Pass	2	All Pass

THE FACTS
The double of 1NT was Alerted as majors (5-4 or could be strong 4-4). West's pass after the double asks his partner to redouble. The 2 bid by North was not Alerted. The result of the board was plus 90 for North-South.

THE DIRECTOR
In spite of a convention card showing double = majors, South did not agree that he had shown the majors, merely that he had a good hand, and did not care if his partner bid a major. East's 2 was by agreement for takeout to partner's betrter major, but was not Alerted. Ruling: The combination of no Alert to 2 and South's explanation that he did not show majors (misexplanation) led to average-plus for East-West and average-minus for North-South.

THE PLAYERS
North said that there was no partnership agreement as to the 2 bid, and that he intended it to be a try of S.O.S. If doubled, he would redouble, and this was likely to be the best way out of a possible disaster. South said that he deliberately doubled 1NT, well aware of the fact that he did not hold the major suits. He said that he was hoping for his partner to hold a five-card major suit, and that his holding could support that.

When questioned in detail by the committee members, South persisted that the double was not a "misbid", but a deliberate psych made after only two or three seconds of deliberation.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee did not believe South's explanation. The committee found North's action (2) to be justified, since he was equally long in the majors. There is also no fault in South's pass over 2, as this would almost surely be the best contract.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result at the table stands and the money was refunded. South was penalized one-quarter of a board as a disciplinary measure in accordance with law 91 for not giving the Appeals Committee full disclosure.

Appeals report #32

Committee Chairman: Jeffrey Polisner.
Members present: Jens Auken.
Scribe: Tommy Sandsmark.

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

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

THE FACTS
1 was Alerted as strong, 1 was Alerted as showing spades, and East's pass was Alerted as showing five or more diamonds. The result of the board after the 9 as the opening lead was plus 660 for North-South..

THE DIRECTOR
Declarer took the first-round diamond finesse through East, losing to the 9. East said the explanation of her pass was correct, but that she was afraid of bidding 1. Thus she chose to hope that South could not pass 1 doubled. The director ruled 690 in favor of North-South, as East-West could not supply evidence of their agreement, despite 12-15 pages of notes attached to their convention card.

THE PLAYERS
Both East and West stated that the pass should show five or more cards in the diamond suit according to their system, and they were sorry that they had forgotten to write this in their supplementary sheets. They had, however, made a considerable effort in order to disclose their full partnership agreements.

THE COMMITTEE
When asked, East-West were able to produce their entire system, and the committee could ascertain that the pair indeed had the agreement that the pass after the double of 1 showed five-plus diamonds. The committee therefore concluded that this was not a case of mistaken explanation but of wrong bidding.

COMMITEE DECISION
The result at the table stands (plus 660 for North-South), and the deposit was refunded. East-West, however, were directed to disclose to their opponents that they now had an additional partnership understanding whenever they would be in the same situation.

Appeals report #33

Committee Chairman: Bobby Wolff.
Committee members: Ernesto d'Orsi & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

Board 30 Love All Dealer East WEST	NORTH   K J 2   A 10   A 10 8 6 4   Q 6 2	EAST
7 5 4   9 7 5   K Q J 9 7 5 3   -	SOUTH	Q 9   K Q J 8 6 4   2   J 7 5 4
	A 10 8 4 3   3 2   -   A K 10 9 8 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	2	2
3	Dbl	3	4
4	5	Pass	6
Pass	6	All Pass

THE FACTS
The J was led to the Ace. South played a to the Ace and another spade. Before he said what card should be led from dummy, he claims to have seen East holding a heart in his hand. He therefore finessed, whereupon East put the heart back in his hand and took out the Q. East absolutely denies having done any such thing, and West and North have seen nothing. Result at the table: 1 down, +100 for E/W.

THE DIRECTOR

The director was called after the third trick. The parties involved agreed that the card could not have been seen by West. After the Q East gave West a club ruff for down one. The ruling: The score stands. THE PLAYERS
South claimed that he called the TD immediately after it had happened. Why else would he call the director at this point of time? He claimed that if he hadn't seen the heart in East's hand, he would surely have topped the spade suit and the contract would have been cold. E/W maintained that declarer just made a bad play. If the hearts broke 4-1 with West, declarer couldn't finesse the queen anyway. It would always be best to play the king and another spade.

THE COMMITTEE
In this case, the facts were disputed. Had East shown a heart or not? The committee's decision was that this would be impossible to know, as East absolutely denies holding a heart in his hand. However, declarer cannot gain anything bridgewise by finessing. Declarer may have been hypnotized by East, but that is no excuse for bad play. East may have been unethical in this case, but it is word against word, and the committee found nothing to substantiate any of the parties.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result stands, and the money was refunded.

Appeals report #34

Committee Chairman: Bobby Wolff.
Committee members: Ernesto d'Orsi & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

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

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

THE FACTS
2 was alerted as showing hearts, and the 2 bid was "slow", inducing West to take out in 3, and that was N/S's complaint. Result: +50 for E/W.

THE DIRECTOR
The TD was called after 3 was bid. N/S claim that 3 was bid because East, due to his hesitation, could not have a strong heart suit. The parties agreed on the hesitation. Decision: Result stands. TD did not find West's action to be related to the slow heart bid.

THE PLAYERS
East denies any hesitation, while N/S claim the hesitation to have been 2-3 minutes. N/S feel that if 2 is not obvious, the 3 bid is far from obvious.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee agreed that N/S had ample possibilities of a good score, both in 3 doubled and in 3NT, depending on the defense. It was a unanimous decision that nothing wrong had been going on here. It is unclear even if there was a hesitation that it would necessarily mean "Rescue me!".

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result stands and the money was refunded.

Appeals report #35

Committee Chairman: Jens Auken.
Committee members: Sabine Zenkel & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

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

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

THE FACTS
After the 5 bid and the two passes, East hesitated before doubling, and there was agreement as to the huddle. Result: 300 to N/S.

THE DIRECTOR
TD ruled that West had unauthorized information. The 5 bid was canceled and the board was scored as 5 doubled making 5 = 750 to N/S.

THE PLAYERS
East had two defensive tricks, and he expected his partner to pass with one defensive trick. West escaped because he didn't regard his CK as a defensive value.

THE COMMITTEE
Applying the Kaplan 75% rule, the committee unanimously decided that West did not have a clear-cut bid, and that TD had made the only ruling possible on this hand.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The committee ruled that the final result was 5 doubled, making 5 for 750 to North-South. The appeal was found to be frivolous, and the deposit was forfeited.

Appeals report #36

Committee Chairman: Jens Auken.
Committee members: Sabine Zenkel & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

Board 25 E/W Vul Dealer North WEST	NORTH   Q 10 7 3 2   K 10 3 2   10 7   10 6	EAST
4   9 8 6 4   K 6 4   A K 8 4 3	SOUTH	K J 9 8 6 5   J 7 5   A 9 8   7
	A   A Q   Q J 5 3 2   Q J 9 5 2

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

THE FACTS
2 was Alerted and explained as "Multi".
The 2 bid was Alerted and explained as wanting to play 2 if 2 meant a weak 2.
The 2NT bid was not Alerted.
A small club was led, and the contract gave 120 for N/S.

THE DIRECTOR
TD was called to the table when the bidding was over. N/S claimed that they had no agreement as to the 2NT bid. North passed because he believed that there would be a misfit in spades. Decision: Result stands, as E/W and N/S had the same information from the 2NT bid.

THE PLAYERS
E/W claimed that there would be a partnership agreement as to the 2NT bid. South meant 2NT for the minors, and North obviously saw it was for the minors and failed to Alert. West claims that with a proper Alert, he would not lead a club, but a major, upon which the declarer was bound to go down. They would take 4 minor tricks and play ball with North for the rest.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee believed that N/S did not have any agreement as to the 2NT, and that the normal interpretation of the bid would be "natural, with a tendency towards the minor suits". But this was bridge judgment of the bidding situation, equally open to both parties. Therefore, no damage was found.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result at the table stands, and the deposit was retained.

Appeals report #37

Committee Chairman: Jens Auken.
Committee members: Sabine Zenkel & Tommy Sandsmark (Scribe).

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

THE FACTS
The bidding here was irrelevant. The contract was 4 by North. East led 9, and declarer played quickly a small from the table. The allegation is now that West took a considerable pause (10 seconds) before putting in the Q (declarer discarded the J).

Later the declarer played 3 rounds of spades, took the second heart finesse and went two down = 100 to E/W as he had cut himself out from dummy.

THE DIRECTOR
The TD took the view that the hesitation was deceptive. He ruled an adjustment to one down = 50 to E/W.

THE PLAYERS
E/W felt that declarer could have protected himself by leaving the Q in dummy before taking the second heart finesse. If the declarer had asked for explanations or looked at the convention card, he would know that the lead of 9 could not have been from K9.

THE COMMITTEE
The huddle came at trick 1. It is the opinion of the committee that you are allowed to think about your defensive strategy at trick 1, and that no inference can be drawn from this. It is not ethically correct to play quickly from dummy and then accuse thethird-in-hand of hesitating. Any i nference you draw from your opponent's accidental change of tempo is at your own risk. The committee believed it to be ethically correct for West to state that he was not thinking about this trick, but the committee do not believe it to be any breach of propriety not to do so in the first trick. North's play was found to be careless.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The result at the table stands (+100 for E/W), and the deposit was refunded.

Appeals report #38

Committee Chairman: Bobby Wolff.

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

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

THE FACTS
South hesitated before passing 3NT. This was agreed.

THE DIRECTOR
The director rules unauthorized information ( Law 20 ) and adjusted the score to EW +430 in 3NT+1.

THE PLAYERS
The bid of 2 by South guarantees 5-5 in the majors. North stated he was preparing to defend 5 by seeking a diamond lead. South said he had taken a little time to diagnose what 3 meant opposite his major two-suiter, concluded it had to be natural. E-W thought that the slow pass assisted North to bid 4.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee considered North s bidding intelligent and logical. It was clear South was thinking about the 3 bid and this hesitation had not helped North s judgement in any way. North could not expect to beat 3NT opposite short diamonds with partner, had prepared to defend 5 if it was bid over 4, and had a 4 bid that was quite evident.

Although it had not helped North, the slow pass by South was regretted by the Committee; it is desirable that partnerships should be familiar with their methods so that they can pass smoothly in situations where they have no action to consider -- if South's mind was misted over here he could have wondered for a moment whether North's bid related in some way to the convention they were using, but hopefully he will not need to think about such a bid again.

COMMITTEE DECISION
Score of NS-300 EW+300 was restored and the money was refunded.

FURTHER COMMENT
One committee member pointed out that if South had passed and North had passed it was not impossible for declarer to judge the 3 bid to be based on a 6-card suit and to get the club suit wrong.

OPINION FROM GRATTAN ENDICOTT
While it may be true that no one actually did anything wrong, West was skating on thin ice. Failure to disclose all special information converyed to him (through partnership agreement or partnership experience) is a breach of Law 75C , and one can be surprised that East is prepared to speculate a bid like 4NT when he cannot rely on West's understanding. Anyway, from now this partnership will have sorted out their understandings at the level of four upwards in a sequence like this.