Game All
Dealer West
WEST
K 6 3 2
10 2
K Q 7 6 5
K 7EAST
J 10 8 Q 8 6 3 J 10 9 8 6 4SOUTH
A Q 9 A 9 5 4 3 A J 8 2 2 7 5 4 K J 7 10 9 4 A Q 6 3Committee Chairman: Edgar Kaplan
Committee Members: Santana Ghose,
Patrick Chow, Bobby Goldman
Scribe: Tony Sowter
|
Board 20 Game All Dealer West WEST |
NORTH K 6 3 2 10 2 K Q 7 6 5 K 7 |
EAST |
| J 10 8 Q 8 6 3 J 10 9 8 6 4 |
SOUTH |
A Q 9 A 9 5 4 3 A J 8 2 2 |
|
7 5 4 K J 7 10 9 4 A Q 6 3 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| Pass | 1 | 1 | Pass |
| 2 | Pass | 4 | Dbl |
| All Pass |
THE FACTS
South led the 9 which according to the
N/S convention card should be either top
of a doubleton or third best from a
holding such as KJ9. As a result, after
ruffing one diamond, East took all three
of his spades lest South discard a spade
on the third round of diamonds. As a
result, East finished down two in a
contract he could have made by
continuing to ruff diamonds.
THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that South's lead was
antisystemic but there was no damage as
the system was correct and South had
simply forgotten.
THE PLAYERS
E/W duly appealed.
THE COMMITTEE
In committee, South was honest
enough to say that very simply he had
not read the card since North filled it,
and so had forgotten the arrangement.
The partnership play in reasonably
standard competition three or four times
a year, but they also both play with
many other partners. The committee took
the view that as N/S were an irregular
partnership and as South had not
checked the card, the partnership had no
agreement. Therefore the information on
the card was misleading, so East might
have been damaged.
On the other hand, Bobby Goldman pointed out that notwithstanding the possibility of South having only two diamonds it would be right for East to cross back twice in spades to ruff diamonds. Had he followed this line, he would have found out quite quickly that South actually held three diamonds and the problem would not have arisen.
There was some discussion in committee as to the merits of awarding N/S -790 and E/W -500 which it was felt would be appropriate in a pairs game. As the E/W pair in the other room scored +170, this would have meant both teams losing 12 IMPs on the board. However, in the interest of equity, the Committee decided that the board should be cancelled -- no swing to either side.
Chairman: Grattan Endicott
Members present: Ernesto D'Orsi, Sabine
Zenkel, Kathie Wei-Sender, Joan Gerard,
John Wignall.
Scribe: Tony Sowter
|
Board 17 Love All. Dealer North. WEST |
NORTH Q 10 9 7 4 7 5 3 J K 7 6 5 |
EAST |
| K 8 3 8 6 4 2 A 9 8 7 5 2 - - |
SOUTH |
5 K Q J 9 K 10 6 A Q J 8 4 |
|
A J 6 2 A 10 Q 4 3 10 9 3 2 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| - | 2(1) | 3(2) | Pass |
| 3 | Pass | 3 | Pass |
| 4 | All Pass |
(1) Weak two-bid in either major.
(2) After some thought.
4H made five.
THE FACTS
North-South asked for a ruling on
the basis that West might have been
influenced by East's hesitation. The
director adjudged this to be a possibility
and adjusted the score to 3, down two.
East-West appealed.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee established that had
East passed and doubled 2, that would
have been for takeout. Because the
North-South convention contained no
strong options, it was not clear that
South would actually bid in response to
2. This placed East in a more difficult
position than normal.
In the committee's view, it was
normal for West to bid 3D, so the score
was put back to 4, making five.
COMMENT
On 13-15 high-card points (any
shape), the defense doubles, so 3 is by
system strong. West is entitled to look
for a contract.
Chairman: Bobby Wolff
Committee: Edgar Kaplan, Grattan Endicott
Scribe: 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(1) | Redbl | 2 | Pass |
| Pass | 2 | Pass | 3 |
| All Pass |
(1) West told South that this was a support double East North that they normally played support doubles but they had no agreement after 1NT.
THE FACTS
North-South askled for a ruling on the
basis that if West's double was a support
double, then North's redouble showed
invitational values, but if West's double
was penalty, the the redouble asked
South to bid 2 as part of an escape
mechanism. The director ruled that the
result should stand.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee took the view that
North-South had clearly been damaged
and adjusted the score back to 2 just
making. The result at the table had been
3 down one.
|
Board 12 N/S Vul. Dealer West. WEST |
NORTH 8 7 4 J 4 2 K 3 10 7 6 5 4 |
EAST |
| Q J A Q 6 A Q 9 8 A 9 8 2 |
SOUTH |
9 3 2 K 10 9 8 5 4 2 K J 3 |
|
A K 10 6 5 7 3 J 10 7 6 5 Q |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| 1 | Pass | 1 | 1 |
| Dbl | Pass | 3 | Pass |
| 4 | All Pass |
4H went down one.
THE FACTS
South led the K, followed by the A. North played the 4 and 8,
respectively. South next played the Q. Declarer inquired about signaling
methods and received the reply, "We play inverted count except in certain
situations." Believing this was a normal situation, East decided at a later
stage to base an endplay on the expectation of a doubleton spade in North's
hand.
THE PLAYERS
An exception to the inverted count understanding was contained in
supplementary sheets, cross-referenced on the card. It noted that on the lead of
the king with the ace of the suit not in dummy, count was normal not inverted.
Declarer's attention was not drawn to this note in the course of North's explanation.
THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled an incomplete explanation (
Law 75C
) and adjusted the score to four hearts made.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee considered that
North-South had failed in their
responsibilities to the opponents. The
committee also took a very poor view of
the incomplete explanation and deprecated
the comment to the committee by one of
the North-South players that the
opponents had asked only about signaling
methods in general, not about the specific
case of the K opening lead. It was clear
that declarer wanted to know about
matters applicable to the deal being
played and the particular understanding
on king leads should have been covered
as a matter not only of duty but indeed
of fair play.
COMMITTEE DECISION
The score of 4: minus 420 for North-South; plus 420 for East-West. The
committee also assessed a penalty of one-half of a board for incomplete
disclosure and failure in duties to the opponents. The deposit was retained.
|
Board 27 Love All. Dealer South. WEST |
NORTH K 8 5 4 3 2 5 4 8 6 9 6 3 |
EAST |
| J 7 6 6 3 K Q J 9 7 4 Q 5 |
SOUTH |
A 10 K Q J 9 8 7 2 A J 4 2 |
|
Q 9 A 10 2 A 10 5 3 K 10 8 7 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| - | - | - | 1 |
| 1 | Pass | 4 | Pass |
| Pass | Pass(1) |
(1) Hesitation.
South led the Q. 4 went down one.
THE FACTS
At the end of the auction, North's final pass was slow. South led the Q.
East-West contended that the lead could be influenced by the hesitation. The
North-South pair were playing a 1 opening that could be a strong club or a
natural suit opening or a balanced opener with minimum values.
THE DIRECTOR
The director allowed the score to stand for East-West, but limited
North-South to a maximum of 40% on the board. The director found that there
was unauthorized information.
THE PLAYERS
Before the Commitee convened, East questioned the ethics of North-South,
suggesting more than a momentary lapse.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee took the view that plus 50 for North-South with the pair
limited to 40% on the board was a fair outcome. The committee complimented
the director on a good ruling. The committee also reprimanded East for
attacking the ethics of North-South without substantial grounds for doing so.
East commented that he is a highly correct player; the committee does not
deny this but on this occasion he did not come up to standard in the
committee room.
COMMENT
Appeals committee concern themselves with facts, the application of
law to those facts and judgments of equity. Players harm their own standing
before the committee if they indulge in unsubstantiated allegations, introduce
extraneous matters or seek to have the committee listen to complaints about
procedures, regulations, laws applying to the tournament they have entered under
its rules. The committee is concerned only with the ruling that is appealed.
|
Board 27 Love All. Dealer South. WEST |
NORTH A 10 3 A 9 5 4 J 9 7 2 K 5 |
EAST |
| Q J 9 7 6 5 2 7 4 3 J 9 3 |
SOUTH |
K 8 J 10 8 3 2 10 6 8 7 4 2 |
|
4 K Q 6 A K Q 8 5 A Q 10 6 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| - | - | - | 1 |
| 3 | Dbl(1) | Pass | 6 |
| Pass | 7 | All Pass |
(1) alerted as negative.
THE FACTS
At his first call, North surprised everybody by putting a blue card on the
table. After his redouble was cancelled, he replaced it with a double.
THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled the redouble inadvertant. They play a takeout double
of overcalls up to 3, so this is penalty.
THE PLAYERS
North is unfamiliar with bidding boxes; intended to double. In the box, the
blue card only shows a single X to the eye, so he thought it was a "double"
card.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee agreed it was an inadvertant act. It is not an action that
conveys any unauthorized information to partner who is free to bid as he
likes -- even shooting, as here.
COMMITTEE DECISION
In the absence of unauthorized information the score of +1440 is fairly
obtained. The result stands, and money was refunded.
|
Board 10 Game All. Dealer East. WEST |
NORTH A J 9 7 6 5 3 A 5 7 10 5 3 |
EAST |
| K 10 J 9 7 6 A Q 6 4 K J 2 |
SOUTH |
Q 2 K Q 10 8 3 2 8 5 2 7 4 |
|
8 4 4 K J 10 9 3 A Q 9 8 6 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| - | - | 2(1) | Pass |
| 4 | All Pass |
(1) Flannery, 5 hearts and 4 spades in a limited opening..
THE FACTS
When East opened 2, North asked if it was weak. East nodded yes and then
immediately corrected the explanation to 5 hearts and 4 spades with 12-17 HCP.
When the bidding arrived at North's turn, it was difficult to bid 4, even
though partnership understanding was that after a Flannery opening, 4 should
be natural.
THE DIRECTOR
The director let the result stand as North had been correctly informed as to
the E/W agreement as confirmed by the convention card.
THE PLAYERS
N/S decided to appeal.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee had some sympathy with
North's plight even though East's original
explanation and her own hand had given
her a clue as to what happened. However,
having said that, the law is specific that
North was only entitled to know what the
E/W agreements were, and not what East
actually held in her hand.
COMMITTEE DECISION
The appeal was dismissed and the deposit was retained.
COMMENT
The committee was very surprised that this exhibit had come to appeal,
especially so when it transpired that N/S had consulted with some leading players
before submitting their appeal. It is typical of the kind of appeal the team
captain would squash before it got to committee, the law being so specific. The
Chairman felt that this type of incident was a blight on the game, and he would
like a scheme of penalties introduced to encourage players not to forget their
system.
Committee Chairman: Bobby Wolff
Committee Members: Jeff Polisner, Joan Gerard, Brattan Endicott
|
Board 8 Love All. Dealer West. WEST |
NORTH J 9 2 J 8 5 K Q 8 2 Q J 5 |
EAST |
| K 10 6 4 3 7 3 J 7 5 A 9 3 |
SOUTH |
A Q 5 K 4 2 10 K 10 7 6 4 2 |
|
8 7 A Q 10 9 6 A 9 6 4 3 8 |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| Pass | Pass | 1 | 2NT(1) |
| Pass | 4 | All Pass |
(1) clubs and diamonds
THE FACTS
In the play, declarer (North) had taken a diamond lead and then had
fumbled his next play, pulling 8 while trying to pull a heart. Declarer
had a heavy bandage on his hand owing to a recent accident. The problem was
whether the diamond was played.
THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled the card played. The contract was then two light (
Law 45c2
).
THE CHIEF DIRECTOR
The chief director ruled that in the Director's ascertainment of fact, the law
specifies the card to have been played (
Law 93b1
).
THE COMMITTEE
The committee watched as the players at the table demonstrated variously
declarer's movements of hand and card. Heard all four players agree that they
had no belief declarer intended to play the diamond. Considered what sympathy
they could offer declarer.
COMMITTEE DECISION
The committee established as fact that the card had been accidentally dropped,
pulled out by the bandage (
Law 48a
).
Score was adjusted to N/S +420. The committee remarked that a generous
opponent, in view of North's problems with his hand, might have been blind to
the incident and the Director would not then have been called; once he was
called, the rest of the process is unavoidable.
Committee Chairman: Bobby Goldman
Committee Members: Sabine Zenkel, Jeff Meckstroth
Scribe: Tony Sowter
|
Board 25 E/W Vul Dealer North WEST |
NORTH 9 8 6 5 - - A K Q 10 3 A K 7 2 |
EAST |
| A 7 4 3 2 5 3 9 4 Q J 8 6 |
SOUTH |
10 Q J 10 6 4 7 2 10 9 5 4 3 |
|
K Q J A K 9 8 7 2 J 8 6 5 - - |
| WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
| - | 1 | Pass | 1 |
| Pass | 1 | Pass | 2(1) |
| Pass | 3 | Pass | 3 |
| Pass | 4 | Pass | 4(2) |
| Pass | 4NT | Pass | 6 |
| Dbl | All Pass |
(1) Fourth suit forcing.
(2) Alerted as a cue bid by both N/S
players, but South had said that 4 could
be passed.
THE FACTS
Table result was N/S +1090 after a club lead.
THE DIRECTOR
The director ruled that as there had been different explanations on both sides
of the screen, E/W might have been damaged, so he adjusted the score to N/S -100.
THE COMMITTEE
The committee established that initially both North and South had given the same
explanation. They appreciated that West would want to know whether 4 was a
possible place to play before venturing a lead-directing double which led to the
possibility that South had indicated this to be the case. However, the committee
felt that this additional information did not damage E/W. No doubt East could
have questioned the meaning of the 4 bid further had he wanted to, and
without the double he would probably have led a spade. However, when West
doubled, East tried to give his partner a club ruff.
COMMITTEE DECISION
The committee determined that E/W had
not been damaged, and returned the
score to N/S +1090.