European Union Bridge League

Appeal No. 1

Board 23 Both vul Dealer S WEST	NORTH   A 7 4 3 2   10 9   10 5 3   K 4 3	EAST
K 6   Q 8 7 6 5 3   A K J 4   A	SOUTH	Q 9 5   J 2   Q 8 7 2   10 9 6 5
	J 10 8   A K 4   9 6   Q J 8 7 2

W	N	E	S
-	-	-	pass
1	pass	pass	1NT
2	2	...pass	pass
3	pass	3	All Pass

Result : 3 + 1, -170 to N-S.

The Facts : The TD was called to the table at the end of the auction. There had been a hesitation over 2, agreed by East. The TD felt West had bid her hand already with 2 and that there was a risk in bidding again, especially with Kx in front of the spade bidder.

The TD's Ruling : West's risk in bidding a third time is reduced by East's hesitation over 2. The score is therefore adjusted to 2 just making, +110 to N-S.

The Committee's Decision : West claimed that she took no notice of partner's hesitation, that she had "a wonderful hand", and that partner is likely to have at least some slender values after the weak bidding from the opponents.

However, the Commitee was unanimous that the hesitation had removed enough of the risk from a further bid from West to debar her from bidding again. The TD's adjustment was thus upheld. The Committee did feel that the appeal had some merit and the deposit was refunded.

Comment: West clearly felt that her 3 bid was a normal, not to say routine, pairs action. However, the criterion which needs to be applied in all 'Unauthorised Information' situations is not what is a normal action for a particular player, but rather what is a normal action for the population of players of like ability. This is the basis for the so-called '70% rule', and is the principle Appeals Committees will apply.

Here, most players would feel that there is more than a little risk attached to a 3 bid because East-West are vulnerable on what is clearly a partscore hand, a risk which must be reduced by partner's hesitation.

Appeal No. 2

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

W	N	E	S
-	pass	pass	1
1	1	pass	1NT
2	2	...pass	pass
3	pass	3	3
All Pass

Result : 3-2, -200 for N-S

The Facts: South called the TD when West bid 3. She wanted to preserve her rights after a hesitation from East over 2. The TD asked East, then West about this hesitation and they both said "No". West said: "I felt nothing". Asking North, he said it was a slight hesitation. South maintains, there was surely a hesitation. The ruling was difficult.

The TD's Ruling : The TD's mind was, "There will be probably a hesitation, even if it is slight" because East had 9 points after two bids from West." So the TD did not allow West's bid of 3 and returned the score to 2-1, 100 pts for EW.

The Committee's Decision : Hesitation not proven. West is thus free to act as she likes. Table result stands: 3-2, -200 for NS.

Editor's Comment : I fully accept the Committee's decision if the hesitaion is unproven. However, as a bridge player holding the East hand, nothing would have stopped me from raising 2 to 3, whether North bids 2 or passes. I strongly suspect, therefore, that there was some break in tempo which West, perhaps subconsciously, picked up.

Appeal No. 3

Board 28 NS vul Dealer E WEST	NORTH   10 9 6 4   K 9 7 3   7 3   K 9 4	EAST
8 3 2   J 10 8 6 2   A J 9 5   10	SOUTH	Q 7 5   4   K Q 10 6   J 8 7 6 5
	A K J   A Q 5   8 4 2   A Q 3 2

W	N	E	S
-	-	pass	2NT
pass	3*	pass	3*
pass	4	pass	4NT
All Pass

Result : 4NT+2, +690 for NS

The Facts : At his last pass, East, wondering why 4 hadn't beeen alerted, asks the meaning of the 3 bid. Explained by North as 1 or 2 4-card majors. Before the first lead, South corrected the explanation of North, after being asked by East what 4 meant. She answered "He has diamonds".

Since the convention card of N-S wasn't filled out, I couldn't ascertain if the this answer was correct. After investigation, I found that North was bidding Puppet Stayman, but South took it for old-fashioned Stayman. For me there was no unauthorised information between North and South.

The TD's Ruling : Since E-W were damaged by the wrong explanation, of South on 4, I changed the score to 4NT-1, 100 for E-W.

The Committee's Decision : We feel that if 4 had been alerted, East would have doubled. N-S then have no obvious escape. We therefore accept the ruling of 4NT-1.

Appeal No. 4

Board 18 NS vul Dealer E WEST	NORTH   10 9 6 4   K 9 7 3   7 3   K 9 4	EAST
8 3 2   J 10 8 6 2   A J 9 5   10	SOUTH	Q 7 5   4   K Q 10 6   J 8 7 6 5
	A K J   A Q 5   8 4 2   A Q 3 2

W	N	E	S
-	-	pass	1*
pass	1*	dbl*	pass
2	pass	pass	dbl
pass	2	pass	3
dbl	pass	pass	3
pass	4	pass	4
All Pass

Result : 4-2, -200 for N-S

The Facts : 1 strong; East afterwards claimed that 1 was not Alerted (16+). 1 was artificial, a positive hand with fewer than 3 controls, game forcing. East's first double was explained as +. The player (East) didn't ask the meaning of 1 but told me that he was trying to show both suits (+).

The TD's Ruling : The hand (East) differs from the explanation. E-W cannot prove otherwise (convention card is blanc here). So I have to assume wrong information. 4 is then a probable contract, so the score is adjusted to 4=, +620 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : 4-2, -200 for NS. Misinformation not shown, but essentially N-S could discover from the bidding that hearts were more likely to break badly than spades (the first double implies shortness in hearts). Spades seems to be a better 4-3 contract and might make even if East has Qxxx.

Comment : Even if there is misinformation, the table result should only be altered, in law, if the damage to the other side is a consequence of the misinformation. Since misinformation here is unproven, the table result should remain.

Appeal No. 5

Board 19 EW vul Dealer S WEST	NORTH   K 7 5 2   A 7 3   10 9 8 6   K 2	EAST
J 10 9 4   K J 9   -   A J 9 5 4 3	SOUTH	Q   Q 10 8 4   A Q 7 2   Q 8 7 6
	A 8 6 3   6 5 2   K J 5 4 3   10

W	N	E	S
-	-	-	pass
pass	1*	pass	1
pass	pass	1NT*	pass
2	pass	2NT	pass
3	pass	pass	3
All Pass

Result : 3-2, -100 for N-S

The Facts : 1 = 5-card majors, 4-card diamonds. 1NT alerted but not asked for meaning. Later explained as "less than 15 pts"

The TD's Ruling : Since East did not hear an explanation from West during the auction, he cannot know what his partner thinks his bid means. Therefore no unauthorized information and no adjusted score.

The Committee's Decision : The East player was questioned as to what he thought his partner's explanation of 1NT would have been, and it seemed clear that he thought the explanation would have been what it turned out to be. The decision of the TD is agreed. The deposit is refunded.

Appeal No. 6

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

W	N	E	S
-	-	1	2*
3	pass	4	5
dbl	pass	pass	5
...dbl	pass	5	All Pass

Result : 5-1, +100 for N-S.

The Facts : The hesiation was agreed, described as "...not long". The TD was called after the play.

The TD's Ruling : Because there was no bid over 5-dbl, there was no reason for East to bid 5 over 5-dbl. There is a line of play to make 12 tricks in N-S finessing against the Q. Adjusted score: 5 dbl +1, +1050 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : We accept the ruling of the TD. If East is correct to remove the double of 5, she should also remove the double of 5 (if they were made in the same tempo). The deposit is refunded.

Comment : The Committee considered the possibility that East had passed 5x but pulled 5x simply because she thought she had more defence against 5 than she had against 5. However, the heart void could cut both ways: a ruffing potential in 5 and an indication of a bad trump split in 5, as long as both of West's doubles are equally prompt.

Appeal No. 7

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

W	N	E	S
-	-	-	pass
1*	3	3	pass
4	pass	4NT*	pass
5	pass	5	pass
6	All Pass

Result : 6= -1460 for E-W

The Facts : 5=0 or 3 keycards out of 5. 5: after hesitation agreed by all the players. N-S protested against 6.

The TD's Ruling : TD considers that the risk of finding 2 losers (A and A or AK) has been diminished. Adjusted score: 5+1, -680 for N-S

The Committee's Decision : TD's ruling upheld. It is possible that a player in some circumstances may use Blackwood without an Ace and in that case the 5 signoff would be prompt. So the risk of bidding 6 the risk of bidding 6 must be diminshid by the hesitation.

Deposit : forfeited.

Comment : East could have avoided this problem if East had considered his continuation after partner's response to Blackwood before bidding 4NT.

Appeal No. 8

Board 18 NS vul Dealer E WEST	NORTH   8 6   Q 10 5 3   A 9 2   A K 4 3	EAST
K   K 8 7   J 8 7   Q J 10 7 6 2	SOUTH	A Q 5 2   9 6 4 2   K 5 4   9 5
	J 10 9 7 4 3   A J   Q 10 6 3   8

Result : 4-3, -300 for NS

The Facts : The TD was called to the table:

W:J / N:K / E:4 and 5 / S: J

West told South quietly something about the clubs. TD asked South who told about the revoke. She answered: "I dont know". At the other side of the screen, TD asked East how she discovered her revoke; answer: "I looked into my hand and found another club". North said that she didn't notice anything about the conversation at the other side of the screen and the captains didn't say anything!

The TD's Ruling : The TD decided for an unestablished revoke and a major penalty card. Result stands.

The Committee's Decision : The Committee determined that the TD had acted correctly given the information available to her. After a fuller investigation at the hearing it was agreed that the revoke was established. The score was therefore adjusted to 4-1, -100 for N-S

Deposit : refunded.

Comment : The Laws of Bridge state that a defender may not draw attention to partner's revoke without establishing the revoke. Even creating a hesitation for the apparent purpose of allowing partner time to wake up will establish the revoke.

Appeal No. 9

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

W	N	E	S
pass	pass	1	pass
2	pass	3*	pass
4	pass	pass	pass

Result : 4= -620 for N-S

The Facts : After the bidding, 3 was explained as 5+ and 5+. Afterwards, East explained to the TD that he knew that they agreed on 3 being 5+/5+ but that he decided in this special case to bid 3 with 5/4. The convention card could not prove this statement, so the TD had to assume that there was some wrong information by E-W. According to the TD, South had actually no reason to try and give his partner a club ruff. After a club lead, declarer played a small heart for South who continued with diamonds in the third trick. He might have played clubs now if he knew that East could hold a 5/4.

The TD's Ruling : With correct information, N-S would never have made the the subsequent defensive error. Adjusted score: 4-1, +100 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : TD's decision agreed. EW have the onus of proving that there was not misinformtion. (It is not relevant that the Committee believes them.) Their convention card does not prove it. Thus possible damage to N-S.

Deposit : refunded.

Appeal No. 10

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

W	N	E	S
-	1NT	2*	dbl*
2*	3	pass	3*
dbl	pass	pass	4
All Pass

Result : 4= +130 for N-S

The Facts : 2 for the majors, double on 2 is natural. 2 explained by East to North: "asking for majors", by West to South: "natural". Misinformation by East, so North thinks now that 3 is natural and passed on 3 doubled. With the correct information, 3 would be asking for a diamond stopper and he would have bid 3NT.

The TD's Ruling : Adjusted score: 3NT = +600 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : We accept the ruling of the TD based on misinformation. The misinformation was certain, as was the consequent damage. The Committee felt there was no substantial ground for appeal there.

Deposit : forfeited.

Editors Comment : At championship level players are assumed to know their system. It is quite likely that problems caused by system misinformation will continue to be severely penalised by Appeals Committees.

Appeal No. 11

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

W	N	E	S
1NT	2*	dbl*	2
pass	pass	dbl	...pass
pass	2	dbl	All Pass

Result : 2 dbl -1, -200 for N-S.

The Facts : 2 (N): 5/4 majors. East's first double: penalty for 1 major. 2 = natural, no 3-carder in the majors. The TD was called after the play. There was an agreed slight hesitation (a few seconds) by South before passing after 2-dbl.

The TD's Ruling : The TD decided that 2H by North was allowed because of the 6/5 majors holding, despite the the slight hesitation by South. Result stands, E-W appeals.

The Committee's Decision : The slight hesitation made it easier for North to bid rather than to pass. The Committee therefore ruled that North had relevant unauthorised information and the contract was changed to 2-dbl. There was then the main difficulty of determining what happens to 2-dbl. If West leads A, the contract is down one, if he leads a trump from Qxx it is three down. We ruled that 50% of the time he would lead A (-200) and 50% a trump (-800). The result of this calculation was that the appealing side were awarded an additional 4 imps.

Appeal No. 12

Board 12 NS vul Dealer W WEST	NORTH   J 9 7 6 3 2   K J 10 5 2   3 2   -	EAST
10 8 5   A 4   Q 8 7   A K 9 5 4	SOUTH	K Q   Q 9 7 3   A 6 4   Q J 7 3
	A 4   8 6   K J 10 9 5   10 8 6 2

W	N	E	S
1	2*	dbl*	2
pass	pass	dbl	pass
pass	2	dbl	All Pass

Result : 2 dbl -3, -800 for N-S.

The Facts : 2 on both sides alerted and explained as spades and another suit. Double on 2: East's version: points, West's version: "I'm not sure; probably with spades. If 2 would be spades and another known suit, it would be with spades; for instance, if 2 would be spades and hearts then the double would be with spades".

South claimes that if he had not been told that the double would probably include spades, with two cards in hearts and spades, he might have bid 2 at some point.

The TD's Ruling : Adjusted Score: 2+1, +140 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : TD's ruling upheld because of misinformation. West should not speculate about what the bid might show. If there is not a known partnership agreement, one should do no more than explain that this is the situation. We felt it was a substantial appeal and refunded the deposit.

Appeal No. 13

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

W	N	E	S
-	1	1	dbl*
3	pass	4	4NT
pass	5	All Pass

Result : 5-3, -300 for N-S.

The Facts : double = four spades. 4NT explained by South to West as asking for the minors. 4NT explained by North to East as Blackwood (5 = no Aces)

East explains that she would have doubled 5 if she had known that 4NT was for the minors.

The TD's Ruling : The convention card cannot prove that the explanation is correct, so the score is adjusted to 5-dbl -3, -800 for NS. TD took into account the fact that East should have doubled 5 anyway, but she could not have made that mistake without the wrong explanation.

The Committee's Decision : Regardless of the meaning of 4NT, the Committee felt that East should always double 5 because N-S have nowhere to run. In addition, South's sputnik double will normally show only four spades, and East knows by the answer to 'Blackwood' that North has no Aces. Thus N-S are already in trouble. We therefore overruled the TD and returned the contract to 5 undoubled down three.

Appeal No. 14

Board 19 EW vul Dealer S WEST	NORTH   9 6   J 3 2   A 9 6 5 4 2   10 4	EAST
K Q 8 5 2   4   K Q   A K 9 8 6	SOUTH	A J 4 3   A Q 10 9 7 6   8 7 3   -
	10 7   K 8 5   J 10   Q J 7 5 3 2

W	N	E	S
-	-	-	3
pass	pass	dbl	All Pass

Result : 3 dbl -5, -1100 for N-S.

The Facts : 3 was not alerted. West picked up the convention card of N-S, looked at North, and North said: "Natural, preemptive".

The TD was called by North who told the auction and reserved his rights. At the end of the play, North called the TD again and complained about the double after the actions of West.

The TD's Ruling : North holding a 6/4, no clubs and 11 good points, the TD allowed the double, but severely warned West and told him that next time the TD would enforce a procedural penalty.

The Committee's Decision : Decision of TD stands. N-S already have a good score since teammates made a slam. We find it difficult to believe that even if East bids 3, the alternative action suggested by N-S that E-W will not reach a slam, since after ... 3 - 3 both players have extra values. We therefore feel that the appeal lacks substance and retain the deposit.

Comment : We strongly endorse the warning given by the TD to West. Especially without screens, unauthorised information can come from many sources.

Appeal No. 15

Board 20 All vul Dealer W WEST	NORTH   J 9 6 2   Q J 9 7 2   Q 9 7 3   -	EAST
K 5 3   A 6   A 5   A K 8 6 5 3	SOUTH	A 10 4   4 3   K J 8 4   Q J 10 2
	Q 8 7   K 10 8 5   10 6 2   9 7 4

W	N	E	S
1	pass	1	pass
2NT	pass	3	pass
4	pass	5	pass
6	pass	pass	pass

Result : 6 = -1370 for N-S

The Facts : 6 was bid after a hesitation before 5 from East. 1 in West promises at least 4 cards (ACOL system), 2NT = 18-19HCP. 1 & 3 from East indicates a good hand (at least 9 points with at least 4/4 in the minors). If East was weaker (5 to 9 bad points), he would have raised directly to 2 (or 3). 4 in West is an invitation to slam with a 5th card in the suit. East bid only 5 (after thinking) because he had a limited hand (in his mind, he showed 9+ to 11 points) and West said 6 with all top cards and a 6th card in the trump suit (10 trumps in his line).

The TD's Ruling : The score was returned to 5+1, - 620 for N-S. It's always easier to raise to 6 when partner was thinking before 5 (so showing extra values). If West wanted to play 6, why didn't he bid 6 directly on 3?

The Committee's Decision : The result is changed back to 6= -1370 for N-S. The Committee accepts the E-W explanation of their methods that 1-1, 2NT-3 is already at least a mild slam try, and that after this start the issue in West's mind is between 6 and 7.

Comment : Had West instead made grand slam try over the slow 5 bid, that might well have been a different matter.

Appeal No. 16

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

W	N	E	S
-	-	-	2*
pass	2NT*	3	3*
pass	4	dbl	pass
5	pass	pass	5
pass	pass	dbl	All Pass

Result : 5 dbl -2, -500 for N-S

The Facts : 2 was alerted and explained as Weak 2. East's first double was explained to North as penalty, to South as takeout.

The TD's Ruling : The TD considered that North received the correct explanation from East, who described his hand, and that North therefore suffered no dammage. South fully described his hand with 2 and 3, so the decission for a 5 sacrifice had to be taken by his partner. South bid 5 on his own responsability and risk. N-S appealed after comparing the scores. The score stands since his bad score was due to South's own bidding.

The Committee's Decision : North was damaged because he says that, had he known that his partner had received misinformation, he would have realised that a 5 bid from South was possible and would have doubled to prevent it. South was damaged because, had he known that the double of 4 was for penalties, he would not have bid 5. The Committee therefore adjusts the result to 5 -2, +200 for N-S.

Editor's Comment : This is a slightly unusual position. The Committee did not have to decide whether the double was penalties or takeout (although they appear to have favoured the penalty interpretation). In either case North or South suffered damage as a consequence of the differing explanations.

Appeal No. 17

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

W	N	E	S
-	pass	pass	1
pass	2	pass	3*
pass	4	All Pass

Result : 4= +620 for N-S

The Facts : North hesitated before bidding 2. 3 was alerted and explained by North as "forcing with points and with diamonds".

The convention card of N-S mentions nothing about trial bids. West, with 5 diamonds, led a small heart to prevent dummy from ruffing diamonds. West said that with a spade lead the contract goes down one.

The TD's Ruling : Concerning the hesitation, the TD decided that South, with 16 points, is allowed to make an effort over 2.

On the other hand, the TD decides for wrong explanation (3 showing diamonds, but no entry on the convention card), so he adjusted the score to 4-1, -100 for N-S.

The Committee's Decision : Our view is that the situation of a trial bid intended to mislead the opponent combined with no entry on the convention card about trial bids is unaccecptable. We therefore endorse the ruling of the TD.

Deposit : forfeited.

Comment : The decision to accept 4-1 is more a penalty for not having trial bids explained rather than a view on the play in 4.