Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Life Master Pairs

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

West	North	East	South
-	-	Pass	3
3NT(1)	Pass	6	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo.

Result: 6 made six, +1370 for East-West.

Facts: West hesitated before the 3NT bid.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 3NT was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 3NT making six, +690 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The players agreed that South did not announce a skip bid warning when he bid 3. The players also agreed that West hesitated for 20-25 seconds after the 3 bid. West stated that she was thinking about "doubling first and then bidding spades" but decided after some thought to bid 3NT. East said that she was always going to bid 6 and expected her partner to have a double stopper in hearts to pitch her expected diamond loser.

The Committee discussed at some length what the break in tempo conveyed and whether the tempo break suggested the 6 action taken by East. The Committee did not want to deprive East of "taking a shot" on the board if the hesitation did not clearly suggest bidding on. Certain typical hands for this auction were ruled out; i.e, A x A x x A K Q x x x x Cx, balanced 16-18 HCP. The Committee decided that the break in tempo indicated extra values and decided that East's bid could have been suggested by West's hesitation. The Committee was unanimous that very few of East's peers would have bid 6 and that a pass of 3NT was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 3NT, making six, +690 for East-West. The Committee debated keeping East- West's deposit and declaring their appeal to be without merit. The Committee opted to explain the term logical alternative to East-West and returned the deposit.

Chair: Robert Glasson
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Martin Caley, Abby Heitner and Nancy Sachs

Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Pairs

E/W vul. Dealer South WEST	NORTH   9 3   A J 10 5 4   9 8 7   J 9 2	EAST
K 10 6 4   9 7   J 4   Q 10 6 5 3	SOUTH	Q J 8 7 5   8   A Q 6 5 2   A 4
	A 2   K Q 6 3 2   K 10 3   K 8 7

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

(1) Jacoby transfer to hearts
(2) Alleged break in tempo
(3) Break in tempo

Result: 4 went down two tricks, +100 for East-West.

Facts: The players did not agree on the facts. North-South claimed that West broke tempo before the pass of 3. East-West maintained that any break in tempo was caused by the rapid 3 bid, and if there was a hesitation it was very short.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that East might have received unauthorized information from West's break in tempo and that a pass of 3 was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 3 down one, +50 for East-West. The floor Director did not attend the Committee hearing.

Committee Decision: The Committee first considered the East hand as an isolated problem without any knowledge of the four players. None of the Committee members considered taking a vulnerable action over 3. The Committee quickly concluded that East could not be allowed to act if improper information was available. The Committee then had all of the parties join them and proceeded in normal fashion. The Committee had a difficult time deciding whether an unacceptable conveyance of information had occurred.

Agreed Testimony: After the 2 bid, West leaned over to the middle of the table with her cards folded in her hand which was also in the middle of the table. After South's 3 bid, West withdrew from the table, unfolded her hand, paused a bit and passed. The Director was called after East's double. This double was made after a lengthy hesitation.

Disputed Testimony: North claimed West hesitated for 8-10 seconds. South, in abstentia, stated to the floor Director that there was a distinct hesitation but it may well have been less than eight seconds. East-West claimed that they adhere to a 2-3 second tempo in competitive auctions. They also claimed that the 3 bid was made immediately over 2 and West was deprived of time to adjust to an unusual auction. They claimed that West made a very slight pause. North maintained that the South's 3 bid was made after a brief gesture (non-verbal) by South asking for clarification of the 2 bid and not particularly rapid.

Factors that suggested no violation had occurred were the East-West statements of the time involved, the perception that South could have bid 3 quite quickly with his hand, and the display by East-West of their knowledge of their obligations with regard to breaks in tempo.

Factors arguing that unauthorized information was available: the North-South call for a Director, the statements by North-South, West's inability to explain her thought processes during the crucial period, and the Committee's perception of self-serving exaggerations in other elements of East's testimony.

The Committee reached consensus that "it was more likely than not" some form of unauthorized information was received, at least subconsciously, by East that may have influenced his decision to bid. This information could have been in the hesitation but was more likely a result of a mannerism that indicated a lack of recognition of the powerful 2 bid. East testified that he meant the 2 bid as a Michael's cuebid showing spades and a minor suit.

The Committee changed the contract to 3 down one, +50 for East-West.

The Committee Chair has some questions for the expert panel in the next Appeals Case book:

1. Is it essential for the floor Director to be present in such cases?

2. Is a weak "more likely than not" standard enough to determine a violation?

3. If the Committee had believed that a majority of players would have acted over 3 with the East hand, it probably would have allowed the double in light of the close call on the violation. Would that have been the correct decision?

Chair: Bobby Goldman
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Ed Lazarus, Judy Randal, and Jan Shane

Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Women's Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 4 went down two, +100 for North-South.

Facts: East hesitated before the double of 3.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 3 doubled was a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 3 doubled made three, +730 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the pull of the double and bid of 4 was clear-cut. The hesitation before the double was not a factor in making the decision to bid.

Chairman: Martin Caley
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell, Robb Gordon, Doug Heron, and Nancy Sachs

Subject: Tempo
Event: Open Board-a-Match Teams

None vul. Dealer North WEST	NORTH   J 4   A 4   A Q 7 6 5   K J 3 2	EAST
A Q 9 7 5 2   K J 9 3   10 8 2   -	SOUTH	8 6   8 7 5 2   4   Q 9 7 6 5 4
	K 10 3   Q 10 6   K J 9 3   A 10 8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	1NT	Pass	3NT
Pass(1)	Pass	Pass

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 3NT made four, + 430 for North-South.

Facts: North-South believed that West's short hesitation implied a long suit and they wanted to force East to lead from his club suit. They claimed this would have allowed them to make 11 tricks.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that the break in tempo could have made unauthorized information available to East. East was forced to lead a club and the score was changed to 3NT making five, +460 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that the break in tempo was agreed upon but only "a bit" more than the ten seconds allowed. There was no skip-bid warning given before the 3NT bid.

The Committee believed that most or nearly all players with the South hand would not have given the skip-bid warning. That did not mean there was no liability for failing to do so. Hence, in the rare situations where West may have wanted some time to consider his options, South's failure to use the STOP card could have been the cause of a slight break in tempo.

The Committee found that North-South assumed a small responsibility for the hesitation. A club lead had to have been made to assure the +460. The Committee believed that East's rationale for choosing not to lead a club was reasonable. The failure to use the STOP card did not create such a liability that a club lead was mandated. However, the choice of a spade rather than a heart was a bit troubling. Since both leads produced the same result, no adjustment was deemed necessary. The table result of 3NT making four, +430, was allowed to stand.

Committee Chairman: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Bart Bramley, Martin Caley, Doug Heron, and Richard Popper

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC Women's Board-a-Match Teams

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

West	North	East	South
-	1	Pass	1
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
Pass	4	Pass	4NT
Pass	5	Pass	6
All Pass

Result: 6 made six, +1430 for North-South.

Facts: 3 was meant as a mini-splinter by North showing shortness in hearts, four spades, ad less than game-forcing values. South said "wait a minute" and otherwise expressed doubt about what North's 3 bid meant. South thought North could have been 7-4 or 6-5 and North would have pulled 3NT. North believed that 4 was automatic. East-West thought a pass of 3NT without the unauthorized information was a logical alternative.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that North had to assume South knew their agreement and wished to play 3NT. The Director believed some players would have considered a pass of 3NT at matchpoint scoring and the contract was changed to 3NT made five, +660 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee did not necessarily accept South's explanation of North's distribution. All of the Committee members supported the concept of logical alternative in general and all agreed that North had unauthorized information. Nothing in the North-South testimony indicated that 3NT might have been artificial (even with a 4-4 spade fit). The Committee agreed the issue was "was a pass of 3NT a logical alternative?"

Change the South hand slightly to

K J 5 4 3 K Q T K Q J 3 2

and 3NT would have been the top board-a-match contract.

The point to those on the Committee who agreed was that if North had used only authorized information (i.e. South had Alerted and had explained the 3 bid exactly as it was intended), that was what North was authorized by Law to assume happened, whether it did or did not. North might well have passed 3NT if she trusted her partner. Therefore, pass was a logical alternative and the Committee believed they were compelled by Law to change the contract to 3NT making five, +660 for North-South.

Two of the Committee's five members (one especially) believed a pass of 3NT was too deep a position to qualify as a logical alternative. The majority (three) did not believe "splitting the pie" was appropriate.

Chair: Eric Rodwell
Committee Members: Jerry Clerkin, Ralph Cohen, Mary Jane Farell and Jerry Gaer

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Non-Life Master Pairs

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

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

(1) Negative double

Result: 3 made four, +130 for East-West.

Facts: East-West explained the double of 2 as a penalty double showing cards.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that North-South had been given misinformation. The contract was changed to 3 making three, +140 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that East-West were playing a variation of responsive or action doubles. The Committee believed that East described the second double every poorly to North when he stated "the double of 2 was a penalty double showing cards." East then reasoned that 3 was the correct action. The Committee believed that at this level, North, after being doubled at the two level, was never going to compete to the three level. East's 3 bid and explanation of the second double were inconsistent. The Committee changed the contract to 3 made three, -140 for East-West and average-plus for North- South.

Chair: Martin Caley
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell, Robb Gordon, Doug Heron and Nancy Sachs

Subject: Tempo
Event: Stratified Pairs

None vul. Dealer South WEST	NORTH   Q J 8   10 9 6   Q 10 7 5 2   9 4	EAST
A 4   A K Q 5   K J 9 3   A K 3	SOUTH	K 10 9 7   J 8 7 4 3   A   J 7 6
	6 5 3 2   2   8 6 4   Q 10 8 5 2

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

(1) Alerted: Explained as waiting
(2) Alerted: Explained as Puppet (or five-card Stayman)
(3) Alerted: Showed a four-card major suit
(4) Alerted: Showed both major suits and slam interest
(5) Post Alerted: Showed zero or four key cards
(6) Post Alerted: Showed the K
(7) Break in tempo

Result: 7 made seven, +1510 for East-West.

Facts: East hesitated before the 6 bid.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 6 was a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 6 making seven, +1010 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that a pass of 6 was not a logical alternative and the table result - 7 making seven, +1510 for East-West - was allowed to stand.

Chair: William Passell
Committee Members: Phil Brady and Jim Linhart

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Flight A Swiss Teams

E/W vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   K 9 7 5 3 2   K J 8 6   9 2   Q	EAST
Q 8 6 4   Q 9 3   K J 3   7 6 4	SOUTH	J   7 5 2   A 8 7 6 5   J 9 8 5
	A 10   A 10 4   Q 10 4   A K 10 3 2

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

(1) Failure to Alert new minor forcing

Result: 5 made four, +450 for North-South.

Facts: South failed to Alert North's 3 bid as new minor forcing. East claimed he would have led the A against if he had been Alerted that 3 was artificial.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that East-West might have been damaged by the failure to Alert. East was allowed to lead the A and the result was changed to 5 down one, +50 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that East-West might have been damaged by the failure to Alert. East was allowed to lead the A and the result was changed to 5 down one, +50 for East-West. The Committee chair did not document the Committee's reasoning.

Chair: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Jerry Clerkin and Judy Randel

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Board-a-Match Teams

Both vul. Dealer East WEST	NORTH   9 7 4 2   Q 9 2   K Q   9 8 7 2	EAST
A K 10 5 3   K J   A J 8 4   J 3	SOUTH	Q J 8 6   -   10 9 10 3 2   A Q 10 4
	-   A 10 8 7 6 5 4 3   6 5   K 6 5

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

(1) Alerted: Namyats, the weakest method of bidding 4
(2) Break in tempo

Result: 4 made six, +680 for East-West.

Facts: West hesitated before the pass of 4. North-South Alerted that they played Namyats. East thought it was normal for a passed hand opposite a preempt to reopen with a double. East claimed that it would not have occurred to him to pass 4.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 4 was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 4 down one, +100 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee believed this case was right on the edge of what should be allowed after a break in tempo. Clearly the hesitation (a long one, agreed to by all parties) made double a 100% action. Was pass a "logical alternative?" The Committee decided that pass was just barely a logical alternative (one Committee member dissented). North was unlimited and this made the double more dangerous. East was a little short in quick tricks (If the Q J x x was the K T x x, the Committee might have voted the other way). Did West's cautious pass over 4 indicate a partnership style of caution?

The Committee believed the vast majority of East's peers would have reopened. However most would have seriously considered a pass and a small number of players would have, in fact, passed. The Committee had a choice of uncomfortable options and there was no predilection toward a split ticket or adjusted score. The Committee believed it was obligated to make he who hesitated pay the price of it. The Committee changed the contract to 4 down one, +100 for East-West.

Chair: Bill Pollack
Committee Members: Larry Cohen, Robert Gookin, Robb Gordon and Peggy Sutherlin

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC Board-a-Match Teams

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

West	North	East	South
-	-	1	1
2NT	4	Dbl	Pass
5	Pass	Pass	Dbl
All Pass

Result: 5 doubled made five, +750 for East-West.

Facts: West claimed that he misunderstood the auction and thought South had made a takeout double instead of bidding 1. West meant his 2NT bid as Jordan showing limit raise or better values in support of diamonds. North-South claimed that West was awakened by his partner's failure to Alert his 2NT bid. West maintained that he saw the 1 bid at the same time as he bid 2NT and was well aware that he had made a mistake.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 4 doubled was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 4 doubled down one, +100 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that West's hand was evidence that he had thought that South had made a takeout double. The Committee did not believe that West was awakened by his partner's failure to Alert his 2NT bid. The Committee also decided that North-South's defense of 5 doubled was poor, they deserved their bad result, and were not injured by West's action. The table result of 5 doubled made five, +750 for East-West, was allowed to stand.

Committee Chair: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Jerry Clerkin, Ed Lazarus, Judy Randel and Bruce Reeve

Subject: Tempo
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

E/W vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   Q 10 6 3   J 9 7 3 2   J 8 5   7	EAST
A K 7   A 8 6   Q 2   K J 5 4 3	SOUTH	8 5 2   Q   A K 9 7 6 4 3   A 6
	J 9 4   K J 5 4   10   Q 10 9 8 2

West	North	East	South
-	-	-	Pass
1NT	Pass	4	Dbl
4	Pass	5	Pass
5	Pass	6(1)	Pass
6	Pass	7	Pass
7NT	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 7NT made seven, +2210 for East-West.

Facts: East hesitated before he made the 6 bid.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that pass of 6 was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 6 made six, +1370 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that pass of 6 was a logical alternative. The Committee determined that the declarer would have taken thirteen tricks. The contract was changed to 6 made seven, +1390 for East-West.

Chairman: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Nell Cahn, Robert Gookin, and Jim Linhart

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

E/W vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   J 4 2   5 3   K Q 9 2   K Q 8 6	EAST
A 5   Q 10 4   A 8   A 9 5 4 3 2	SOUTH	K Q 10 9 7 6 3   7   7 5 4   J 10
	8   A K J 9 8 6 2   J 10 6 3   7

West	North	East	South
-	-	-	4
Pass	Pass	4	All Pass

Result: 4 made four, +620 for East-West.

Facts: East made the comment "Oh, well" in a discouraging tone of voice before making the 4 bid. North-South believed West's pass could have been influenced by that comment.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that West could have received unauthorized information from East's comment. The contract was changed to 5 down one, +100 for North-South.

Committee Decision: West appealed the ruling and testified that, in his opinion, his hand did not warrant a 5 bid and that 4 could have been defeated. North-South testified that they believed the prolonged hesitation and the unnecessary comment by East might have influenced West to refrain from bidding and they believed their defense was immaterial if the contract was 5.

Law 16A states: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by an unmistakable hesitation..., the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

The Committee decided that a bid of 5 was a logical alternative by West and the contract was changed to 5 down one, +100 for North-South. The Committee seriously considered the issue of whether the appeal had substantial merit. They determined after considerable discussion that it was very close to lacking merit but they returned the $50.

Chairman: Darwin Afdahl
Committee Members: Martin Caley and Ralph Cohen

Appellant Alan LeBendig brings attention to the writeup of Case Twelve on Thursday. LeBendig had these comments:

It was reported that there was serious consideration given to a penalty for bringing a frivolous appeal. That was inaccurate.

It was not noted in the writeup that one of the main issues in the appeal was the fact that East-West believed North-South should not have received +100. East-West conceded they could understand receiving -100 in 5, but they believed North-South deserved -420 as a most likely favorable result. The Committee disagreed.

Response from Committee Chair Darwin Afdahl: The Committee agrees with the above facts stated by LeBendig. However, the Committee never considered 4 a viable contract. Therefore the defense to 4 was immaterial.

The issue of the appeal lacking substantial merit was considered briefly and the Committee decided to refund the $50.

Subject: Tempo
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo
(2) Alerted: Forcing

Result: 3 went down one, +100 for East-West.

Facts: North-South claimed East took a long time to make her original pass.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative over 2. The result, 3 down one, +100 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: North testified that East's original hesitation may have been, "I don't know, she might have been thinking about something else." The Committee believed the 2 bid by West, after passing originally, was virtually automatic based on the vulnerability.

North took the worst of the four alternative bids over 3. 4 was a winner, double would have worked well, pass would have resulted in a plus score, 3 was the only losing action, and North-South were not entitled to a two-way shot at a good result.

The Committee decided that pass was not a logical alternative over 2. The table result, 3 down one, +100 for East-West was allowed to stand. The Committee considered the protest frivolous but did not impose the $50 fine because of a technicality.

Chair: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Nell Cahn, Robert Gookin and Jim Linhart

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

Both vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   6   A Q 10 7 6 4   A J 6 5   Q 6	EAST
K 7   J 2   Q 10 8 7   A J 5 4 3	SOUTH	Q J 9 8 5 4 2   3   K 4 2   9 2
	A 10 3   K 9 8 5   9 3   K 10 8 7

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

(1) STOP card played before the bid

Result: 4 made five, +650 for North-South.

Facts: There was no STOP card played before the 2 bid (East said "Stop" but South did not hear it). South put the STOP card on the table and bid 3. Attention was called to this irregularity and South blurted, "Oh, I thought he bid 1." East-West believed that unauthorized information was available to North.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that unauthorized information was available and pass was a logical alternative for North. The contract was changed to 3 making five, +200 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that a Director was not summoned until North bid 4. The Committee determined that there was no legal requirement to use a STOP card, though there may be consequences for not using one. A minority of the Committee members believed that the East's failure to use a STOP card could have been a factor which could have influenced the outcome of this decision. The majority believed that there should not have been an impact on the decision from East's failure to use the Stop card.

The Committee determined (with assistance from the Director) that if a Director had been called to the table when South's error was made, the Director should not have offered South the opportunity to change his call to 4. South could have done this on his own motion and merely paid the price of that irregularity (barring partner), but the Director should not have offered an irregularity as an option.

The issue was one of determining whether North had a logical alternative to bidding 4. One Committee member contended that the definition of logical alternative creates a very high standard. That member said the definition is "an alternative which some number of the player's peers would seriously consider, whether they opted for it or not." This member believed that pass would have been seriously considered by several players, even in the Blue Ribbon Pairs.

Another Committee member indicated a belief that this was a very close case and admitted that East's failure to use the STOP card may have influenced North's decision to find no logical alternative to 4. The other three members were in agreement to allow the 4 bid. They believed the 4H bid was certainly not an action with a 100% success ratio, but even if it had a 65% success ratio, all or nearly all of this player's peers would have made the bid. The 6-4 pattern, shortness in LHO's known suit length, and tenaces over RHO's presumed honors all mitigate in favor of bidding. The majority believed there was no logical alternative to bidding 4.

The Committee agreed that the Director should have ruled as he did since close calls on logical alternative should be determined by Committees, and Directors should make the offending side be the party with the burden of making the appeal.

The Committee also gently admonished North-South to summon a Director when these irregularities occur and to learn not to blurt out any statement after an irregularity has been committed. The table result of 4 making five, +650 for North-South, was allowed to stand.

The Committee chair would like the expert panel that will be reviewing these decisions in the Atlanta Casebook to give their opinions on whether Active Ethics creates an obligation for players to behave in such a way that would minimize the chance of irregularities by their opponents. If so, then should the Committee have paid more attention to East's failure to use the STOP card?

Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Judy Randel, Barry Rigal and Michael Rosenberg

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Open Board-a-Match Teams

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

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

(1) Alerted: Preemptive
(2) Alerted: Takeout
(3) Break in tempo

Result: 5 went down one, +50 for East-West.

Facts: 3 was Alerted as preemptive and the double of 4 was Alerted as takeout. There was also a break in tempo before the double of 4. The break was longer than a few seconds. The play was the K holding the trick, A, and a heart to the king.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that West was allowed to value his hand as preemptive and pass was not a logical alternative after the double of 4. The table result, 5 down one, +50 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: North-South testified that they thought West's decision to bid 3 and subsequently double 4S indicated that West did not believe 3 was preemptive and the double was a way to recover from the misunder- standing. The Director at the table heard both East and West explan the 3 bid as preemptive. West explained that at matchpoints with a hand like this he could mix it up a little.

West thought the opponents would reveal much about their hands on the next round of bidding and he would be well placed to make a decision later. East explained the Alert of the double of 4 as takeout. Both East-West convention cards indicated that they don't play penalty doubles in competitive situations. The only way a double can be effected is for it to be converted by the non-doubler.

The fact that East believed that his partner had spade shortness when he held a singleton spade indicated, the Committee believed, that the conventional agreement did apply at this level of bidding.

The Committee believed that West's 3 bid was bizarre, but may have had tactical merit. So long as he understood his 3 bid to have been preemptive when he made it, he was entitled to take that action.

The hesitation before the double of 4 may have suggested doubt about some aspect of the double. The Committee was not clear about what the hesitation might have suggested. It turns out East took the losing action. Bidding 5 was going to net East-West a minus score, while sitting out the double put East-West in a position to be plus in 4 with more accurate defense.

North-South contended that the 5 bid should have been canceled and the defense against 5 should be duplicated, i.e. 4 scoring. The Committee decided East had made the losing choice of bidding 5 and the defense to defeat 4 was rather easy for a national event. The Committee believed the route to making an adjustment was blocked. The Committee allowed the table result, 5 down one, +50 for East-West, to stand.

The Committee did not seriously consider retaining the deposit because of the strange 3 bid and the subsequent hesitation double. The Appeal was considered to have substantial merit.

Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Bart Bramley, Martin Caley, Doug Heron and Richard Popper

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams

Both vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   J 9   K 10 6 4   K Q 10 5 2   4 2	EAST
K Q 10 8 7 6 4 3   J   3   Q J 5	SOUTH	A 2   A Q 7 5 3 2   6 4   10 9 8
	5   9 8   A J 9 8 7   A K 7 6 3

West	North	East	South
4	Pass	Pass	Pass

Result: 4 went down one, +100 for East-West.

Facts: North led the K which was overtaken by South's A. South played the K, West followed with the Q, and North while playing the 2 said, "We play upside-down count and attitude signals." South, after some thought, played the A, continued a club, and North ruffed. East-West believed that South may have had unauthorized information from North's announcement and may have been alerted to his doubleton holding.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there may have been unauthorized information but South would have continued clubs and beaten the contract. The table result, 4S down one, +100 for East-West was allowed to stand. North-South were issued a quarter-board procedural penalty for making their carding announcement at an inappropriate time.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that this was the first board of a three boards set. All the parties agreed on the timing of North's statement. North-South believed they would always have made the right play even if North had made no announcement. They emphasized that they were only trying to do the right thing in announcing their carding agreements. East-West believed there was unauthorized information available and playing a second diamond was a logical alternative to continuing clubs.

The Committee believed that the wrong side was forced to bring this case because the directing staff failed to rule for the non-offending side when there was a clear possibility that they were damaged. The Committee decided that there was unintentional unauthorized information available and that continuing a diamond was a logical alternative that some players would have considered. The result was changed to 4 made four, +620 for East-West. The Committee believed this was enough punishment for making the gratuitous comment and the quarter-board procedural penalty was removed.

Chair: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: John Blubaugh and George Dawkins

Subject: Tempo
Event: Mixed Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Preemptive
(2) Break in tempo

Result: 5 went down one, +100 for East-West.

Facts: South hesitated before the double of 5.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative after the slow double of 5. The table result, 5 down one, +100 for East-West, was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee believed North's action was totally justified by his cards. The 3 bid would seem to have indicated a prepared auction planning to bid over the opponents, further bidding. South's hesitation would have barred North from bidding if he had bid 4 originally. The table result, 5 down one, +100 for East- West, was allowed to stand.

Committee Chair: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Karen Allison and Doug Heron

Subject: Miscellaneous
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

E/W vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   10 8 6   A Q 8   Q 9   A Q 9 4 3	EAST
A K 5 2   6 4   K 6 4   J 8 7 5	SOUTH	J 9 3   J 9 7 5 2   J 5 3 2   10
	Q 7 4   K 10 3   A 10 8 7   K 6 2

The auction was not recorded.

Result: 3NT made three, +400 for North-South.

Facts: East-West were defending 3NT and East revoked in clubs. Declarer thought clubs weren't running and reverted to diamonds as his source of tricks. The diamonds were subsequently established and nine tricks were scored.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that North-South were damaged and the score was changed to +430 or average-plus. The ruling was appealed by North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee determined that if East had not revoked, declarer would have run the club suit and West would have had to unblock the spade suit to avoid being thrown in and forced to lead away from the K. If West made this good play the result would always have been +430 for North-South. However, if West missed this play the result would have been +460 if declarer guessed diamonds well. The Committee asked for the real matchpoints for +430 and +460 and adjusted the score to average-plus accordingly.

Chair: Lynn Deas
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Ralph Cohen, Everett Fukushima, and Tom Smith

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Life Master Open Pairs

E/W vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   K 9 6 3 2   5 3   7 6 2   9 7 2	EAST
7 4   10 9   A 10 9   K Q 6 5 4 3	SOUTH	A J   A K J 8   8 5 4 3   A 10 8
	Q 10 8 5   Q 7 6 4 2   K Q J   J

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

(1) Alerted: Flannery showing 11-15 HCP, four spades, and five hearts
(2) Break in tempo

Result: 3 went down one, +50 for East-West.

Facts: East asked for an explanation of the 3 bid and was told it was probably invitational but it had not been specifically discussed. This partnership was formed a few minutes before game time.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there had been misinformation given and the score was changed to average-plus for East-West and average-minus for North-South.

Committee Decision: North testified that North-South gave East-West their partnership agreements and understandings. This was the first Flannery auction for North-South. The Committee believed that North held an absolutely classic preemptive 3 bid and meant 3 exactly that way, thinking it was the partnership agreement or it was undiscussed. In either cae, North had an obligation to disclose this information before the opening lead was made. The Committee gave no credibility to North's statement that he knew 3 was invitational and was merely psyching.

The Committee believed East would have bid 3NT and would have been virtually certain to take 11 tricks. The contract was changed to 3NT made five, +660 for East-West.

Comments from Committee member Bruce Reeve: I have considered this case carefully for several days. In retrospect, with regard to the above case, it is very probable that the action taken by the Committee was in error. Some of the Committee s bridge judgment may have been clouded by circumstances at the hearing. This comment is not intended to be a minority report. I concurred with the other committee members at the time.

Chair: Robert Gookin
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell and Bruce Reeve

Subject: Unauthorized information
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs

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

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

Result: 4 doubled made five, +690 for East-West.

Facts: There was a dispute about whether there had been a break in tempo before the 2 bid was made. East-West claimed that the 2 bid showed more values than standard by partnership agreement. This was not Alerted.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there was unauthorized information available and a pass of 4 was a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 4 down one, +100 for East-West.

Committee Decison: The Committee, after a lengthy debate, found there was a majority of the members who agreed that unauthorized information was available for East-West. The Committee decided that a pass of 4 was a logical alternative, particularly in light of the fact that West chose not to act directly over 3 as most of his peers would have. The decision was not unanimous. The contract was changed to 4 down one, +100 for East-West. East-West were cautioned that their treatment of 2 in this auction was Alertable. The deposit was returned.

Chair: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: Lynn Deas, Ralph Katz, Jim Linhart, and John Solodar

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams

None vul. Dealer East WEST	NORTH   -   Q J 2   K J 8 7 5 2   K 9 8 6	EAST
10 9 7 4 3   10 7 5   10 9 4   4 3	SOUTH	A K Q 8 6   K 9 6   6   A Q 7 2
	J 5 2   A 8 4 3   A Q 3   J 10 5

West	North	East	South
-	-	1	Pass
Pass	Dbl	Rdbl	2
2	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	2NT	All Pass

Result: 2NT went down two, +100 for East-West.

Facts: The double of 2 was not Alerted. At the conclusion of the auction, the Director was summoned and was informed that the double was competitive and not penalty. The Director called East from the table and asked if he wouldhave taken a different action if he had been Alerted. East said he would have bid 3. West was called from the table and asked whether he wanted to withdraw his last pass and he declined.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that misinformation had been given and East-West were damaged. The contract was changed to 3 made three, +140 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee determined that the East-West agreement was that the double of 2 was competitive. The Committee considered three possible scores; East-West +140, East-West +100, and East-West average-plus. The Committee never considered a score of better than -100 for North-South.

The consensus was that while North-South had committed an infraction, the damage to East-West was minimal. This was borne out by West's refusal to reopen the bidding. Presumably he worked out that since his side had ten spades, the opponents had either two eight-card fits or a nine-card fit. In either case partner's high cards in spades rated to be an asset on defense against 2NT and a liability on defense against a suit contract. The Committee decided to change the result to average-minus for North-South and average-plus or +100 for East-West, whichever was better. The Director was instructed to apply the fouled board regulation to achieve a result on the board.

Committee Chair: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Mark Feldman, Barry Rigal, Tom Smith, and John Solodar

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Swiss Teams

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

West	North	East	South
-	Pass	Pass	1(1)
1	Pass	Pass	Pass

(1) Pre-Alerted and Alerted: Forcing and unlimited three-suiter with a possible five-card minor suit

Result: 1 made two, +110 for East-West.

Facts: North-South were playing an unusual system including a forcing 1. 1 was pre-Alerted and Alerted after the 1 bid. No offer to provide a defense was made although the yellow defense sheet was on the table. East- West claimed the defense sheet was under or in the North- South convention card and was not seen or offered.

The pass over 1 was not Alerted, but later explained as showing a tolerance for hearts with no other biddable suit.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there had been no misinformation or an inadequate explanation of North-South's agreements and the table result, 1 made two, +110 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that East had a clear 1 bid and was not damaged. If the recommended defense had been available, the same 1 overcall would have been made. The Committee allowed the table result, 1 made two, +110 for East-West was allowed to stand.

However, North-South were warned that playing an unusual system imparts an extra onus to give complete explanations and to actively offer defenses. North-South were given a one Victory Point procedural penalty for not meeting this obligation.

Committee Chair: Doug Heron
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Howard Chandross, Robert Gookin, and Everett Fukishima

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Reisinger Board-a-Match Teams

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

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

(1) STOP card placed on the table before the bid was made

Result: 3 made three doubled, +530 for East-West.

Facts: The Director was summoned when the 3 was played with a STOP card.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there was unauthorized information and North-South were damaged. Pass was deemed to be a logical alternative for East and the contract was changed to 3 down two, +100 for North-South.

Committee Decision: North-South did not appear before the Committee. East-West explained to the Committee that they played fit-showing jumps. The Committee found that the STOP card suggested that West held spades. However, it was also the majority of the Committee's opinion that the failure to bid 1 also meant that the 3 bid showed spades. The majority found that pass was not a logical alternative to 3 and the table result, 3 doubled made three, +530 for East-West, was allowed to stand.

Committee Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Nell Cahn, George Dawkins, and Richard Popper

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Swiss Teams

None vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   Q 8 7 5   Q 9 5   J 7 3   Q 10 6	EAST
A   A J 4   K 6 5 4 2   A 9 8 3	SOUTH	J 10 2   10 8 7 3   Q 10 8   K J 2
	K 9 6 4 3   K 6 2   A 9   7 5 4

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 4 made four, +420 for East-West.

Facts: East hesitated about 8-9 seconds (by West's estimate) before he made the 3NT bid.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a pass of 3NT was a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 3NT down one, +50 for North-Soth.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that North- South did not ask about the choice of bidding 4 until the play in 4 was completed. The A and another diamond gave declarer enough control to bring home ten tricks.

West believed it was clear in his bridge judgment to bid 4. North-South stated that they were fairly inexperienced and didn't think they could make any remarks until after the play of the hand.

East's explanation of 3 was that it either showed a big hand or a hand more interested in a minor suit contract. East thought that 3NT was his most descriptive bid in this context.

The Committee accepted this explanation but they believed that the rather subjective nature of the situation could easily have benefited from an informative hesitation. In this light, pass was deemed to have been a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 3NT down one, +50 for North-South.

Committee Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Nell Cahn, Bob Glasson, and Richard Popper

Subject: Miscellaneous
Event: Stratified Senior Pairs

None vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   3   Q 10 9 6 3   3 2   8 7 5 3 2	EAST
K 9   K J 8 5   K 5   A K Q J 4	SOUTH	Q 6 4 2   A 7 2   A 8 7   10 9 6
	A J 10 8 7 5   4   Q J 10 9 6 4   -

West	North	East	South
-	Pass	Pass	Pass
2NT	Pass	3	3
4	Pass	6NT	7
Pass	Pass	?Pass

Result: 7 went down seven, +350 for East-West.

Facts: East claimed that when 7 came around to her, she thought she played the double card instead of pass. She immediately changed it to double.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that East had doubled the contract and the result was changed to 7 doubled down seven, +1700 for East-West.

Committee Decision: North-South testified that West said, "Oh, you passed partner, then I double," after East played the Pass card. The Director said that when he questioned North-South they claimed East made this statement East-West denied making the statement.

All three Committee members believed that East did not realize West had passed instead of doubling until she placed the Pass card on the table and partner alerted her to the pass. So, East's initial play of the Pass card was not inadvertent. West never explained, when questioned, why he made a forcing pass to 7. West had about 1100 masterpoints and East had about 2000 masterpoints. The table result of 7 down seven, +350 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Chair: Peggy Sutherlin
Committee Members: Jim Bishop and Barbara Brier

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Stratified Senior Pairs

None vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   A K J 5   8 3   A 10 9   K J 4 2	EAST
Q 9 6 2   10   8 7 6 2   A 9 7 6	SOUTH	10   A K Q 6 5   K J 5   Q 10 5 3
	8 7 4 3   J 9 7 4 2   Q 4 3   8

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

(1) Alerted: DONT showing clubs and a higher ranking suit
(2) Alerted: no questions asked

Result: 4 doubled went down two, +300 for North-South.

Facts: 2 was Alerted and no questions were asked. North-South had no agreement in this situation.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that East-West were given misinformation and they were damaged. The contract was changed to 3 down one, +50 for East-West.

Committee Decision: East-West were given misinformation by North's Alert of 2 and were damaged by East-West's failure to have a partnership agreement. North-South had about 10,000 masterpoints each. The contract was changed to 3S down one, +50 for East-West.

Committee Chair: Mary Hardy
Committee Members: Steve Lawrence and Jacqueline Tucker