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

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

(1) Alerted as a weak two-bid in either major.
(2) Alerted as willing to play 3 but reluctant to play 3.

2 failed by three tricks. Plus 300 to North-South.

Facts: North-South stated that they would play East-West's suggested defense to the 2 opener. The double showed a takeout double of spades. North doubled without having consulted the suggested defense card he had agreed to play. South maintained he heard the explanation of the 2 bid and could sense that his partner has three or more spades from East's stated reluctanc to play 3.

Director's ruling: The director determined that East-West were not damaged by unauthorized information and the score was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: Committee member Warden provided the committee with documentation. The committee felt that unauthorized information had been given and that it tended to make a pass by South more likely to succeed. It was a question of degree, however.

Other factors:
1. South was entitled to know the general reliability of his partner.
2. It was unclear what the meaning of North's double might have been, both systematically and from and individual partnership view.
3. North was in the pass-out seat and might have bid again.
4. A free 3 bid may have shown more.

After more than an hour of debate, some committee members wanted to uphold the director's ruling, letting the result stand. The committee, however, decided to assess a procedural penalty of one- quarter of a board against North-South. One committee member wanted the quarter board to be awarded to East-West as compensation. This was rejected by the committee because North-South had agreed to follow the suggested defense and passed. The committee felt that plus 300 would have been achieved anyway. The committee agreed that East-West did not provide adequate follow-up on the suggested defense card and this may have handicapped North-South somewhat. The committee felt that playing similar systems with East-West-'s suggested defense would not have advisable in pair games.

Committee chairman: Jan Cohen
Committee Members: Bruce Reeve, Mary Jane Farell, Hugh Ross and Phil Warden (scribe)

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

West	North	East	South
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	2	Pass	3
Pass	3	Pass	3NT(1)
Pass	4	Pass	4
Dbl	Redbl	Pass	6
All Pass

(1) Break in tempo.

Result: 6 made 12 tricks. Plus 920 for North-South.

Facts: South hesitated before bidding 3NT.

Director's ruling: The director ruled that a break in tempo had occurred and a pass of 3NT was a logical alternative. The score was adjusted to 3NT making nine tricks. Plus 400 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The documentation was provided by Treadwell. The committee ruled that the result at the table -- plus 920 for North-South -- was allowed to stand. The committee majority believed that the admitted huddle by the 3NT bidder did not convey information that made a further bid by North-South attractive. The North hand was rich in controls and playing strength with the probability of a singleton diamond in South's hand. A 5 contract might have been far safer than 3NT and there was a possibility of 6 being laydown. It was, the majority believed, the hand rather than the hesitation that made the 4 bid reasonable.

Dissenting opinion: Meckstroth pointed out that when South was asked what he would bid over 2 if he had one fewer club and one more diamond, he responded that he would still have bid 3. Perhaps with this hand he might bid 3NT quickly because slam is much less likely. Meckstroth maintained that the hesitation might have suggested the 4 bid, and he also thought that a pass of 3NT was a logical alternative.

Committee chairman: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Jeff Meckstroth, Mike Aliotta, Bart Bramley and Bobby Goldman.

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

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

(1) Break in tempo.

Result: 5 failed by two tricks. Plus 100 to North-South.

Facts: East believed she had the final bid in the auction. After some thought, she started to put her bid cards back in the box. At that point, she was made aware that the auction was not over, and she passed. West then bid 5.

Director's ruling: The director allowed the result at the table to stand.

Committee Decision: Committee chairman Howard Chandross provided the documentation. The committee felt that the 5 bid might have been influenced by East's hesitation. The committee unanimously ruled to change the result to 4 making four -- plus 620 to North-South.

Committee chairman: Howard Chandross
Committee Members: Robert Gookin and Jim Linhart.

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

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

(1) Alerted as forcing
(2) Break in tempo
(3) Break in tempo

Result: 3 made ten tricks, +130 for North-South.

Facts: South hesitated before bidding 2 and North broke tempo before bidding 2. North-South insisted they reached this contract by using their system, not by the hesitations.

Director's Ruling: The director determined that there had been a break in tempo and the score was changed to average-plus for East-West, average-minus for North-South. North-South filed the appeal.

Committee Decision: The Committee found that there were two breaks in tempo by North-South. The Committee felt that many pairs would play 3 using a forcing notrump system. However, North-Souths tempo problems made it much easier to investigate playing a major suit and escaping to 3. The Committee ruled that passing was a logical alternative to bidding over 2. The Committee decided that a bridge result should be determined and the result was changed to 2. The Committee determined that with the best defense, 2 should fail one trick. East-West was awarded +50 or average-plus, whichever was better. The North-South score was changed to -50 or average-minus, whichever was worse.

Chairperson: Mary Hardy
Committee Members: Michael Huston, Martin Caley, Bruce Reeve and Jim Linhart

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 3 failed two tricks, +100 to North-South.

Facts: West hesitated before passing 3. West claimed he was trying to decide whether to make a sacrifice or not. He was not sure that East-West could make anything. West stated that he didn't worry about his opponent‘s head-space only his partner‘s. West felt that his opponents could certainly deduce that he was considering saving.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled that North-South were damaged by West's break in tempo and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee unanimously determined that West had hesitated at least a full minute before passing. The East-West pair had between 1200 and 1500 masterpoints and the Committee found them to be experienced players. The Committee felt that West should have known that a long hesitation in this auction would give an erroneous impression to his opponents. The Committee believed that a score adjustment was proper under Law 73F2 and the table result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West.

Chairperson: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Ralph Buchhalter and Nell Cahn

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

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

(1) Alerted and explained as a four-card constructive raise.

Result: Eleven tricks were scored, plus 650 to North-South.

Facts: East, a visiting European player, asked about the meaning of the 3 bid and was told it showed four-card spade support and 6 to 9 high-card points. East considered the club honors to be well placed and bid 3. East had a 3 bid available that would show five hearts and five clubs. East maintained this would have made it very simple to find their sacrifice if he had been informed that 3 did not show clubs.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled that their had been no misinformation given and the table result, plus 650 for North-South was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee determined that East was told that 3 showed a four-card spade raise and East simply assumed (with no basis for the assumption) that it showed clubs also since that is the continental style he had been playing in Europe. The committee allowed the table result, plus 650 to North-South, to stand. The committee would have considered this appeal to be substantially without merit if the appellant had not been a visitor who was unaccustomed to so-called Bergen raises.

Chairperson: Robert Gookin
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Bruce Reeve, Richard Popper, Harvey Brody.

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

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

(1) Alerted as showing spades and another suit.
(2) Alerted as showing three spades.
(3) Break in tempo.

Result: 3 made nine tricks, plus 140 for East-West.

Facts: East asked several questions after the 2 bid and then took another 20 seconds or more to pass. North-South felt that passing was a logical alternative for West after the break in tempo. West maintained she always intended to bid hearts, she was just waiting to see what suits North-South showed.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled that pass was a logical alternative and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that East-West were inexperienced players (East had fewer than 100 masterpoints and West had 240) and explained to West that she should have bid her heart suit at the two level when she had the opportunity. It was pointed out to East that he really had no reason to ask questions or break tempo, he had already described his hand with the 1NT opening bid and he put an extra burden on his partner with the hesitation. The committee felt that passing was a logical alternative for West and the result was changed to average-plus for North-South and average-minus for East-West.

Chairperson: John Blubaugh
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus, Miles Adkins

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

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

(1) Alerted as being artificial and showing 16-plus high-card points.
(2) Alerted as showing 15-plus HCP.

Result: 6NT made twelve tricks, plus 1440 for North-South.

Facts: North-South had an agreement that 3 was minor-suit Stayman. This was not Alerted by North. 4NT was Roman Keycard Blackwood and South responded giving the keycard response for spades (5C showed three key cards).

At this point, West started asking questions and South called the director, walking away from the table. When West returned to the table, the auction proceeded with North bidding 6NT. West felt that there had been a conventional breakdown and South should not be allowed to give a key card response to a suit that was bid conventionally. West believed that South should have been forced to give a straight Blackwood response to 4NT (5S, showing three aces). North would have interpreted this as keycard in support of spades and probably would have passed 5, thinking he was missing two key cards. East-West maintained that they always gave key card responses to the last suit bid in the auction unless they had bid and raised a suit.

Director's Ruling: The director determined that East-West had not been damaged and the table result, plus 1440 for North-South, was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: West, an experienced Flight A player, pleaded his Appeals Case, asking for the contract to be reverted to 5. The committee felt there was no reason for West to be asking questions in the middle of the inexperienced North-South‘s Roman Key Card Blackwood auction with his one high-card point. If these questions had caused North-South to misplay the hand, West might have been penalized for asking such questions. North-South convinced the committee that their key card agreement was as stated. The committee admonished South for calling the director and leaving the table bringing to the attention of everyone at the table (including her partner) that something had gone awry in the auction.

While the committee believed that North-South had a very poor agreement, the table result, plus 1440 for North-South, was allowed to stand because the committee believed North would always bid a slam after South's big club opening bid and they were adequately punished for their breakdown by missing the club grand slam. The committee felt the appeal was substantially without merit but with all of the confusion caused by South's calling the director and leaving the table, the committee decided not to assess a procedural penalty against West.

Chairperson: John Blubaugh.
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus, Miles Adkins.

None vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   A Q x x   Q x   A K x x   K J x	EAST
x x x   A K 10 x x   10 x   x x x	SOUTH	J x x x   x x   Q x   Q 10 x x x
	K x   J x x x   J x x x x   A x

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

(1) After some thought, Alerted as a Lebensohl relay.
(2) Alerted as being forced.
(3) Alerted as a sign-off in diamonds showing 7 or fewer high-card points.

Result: 3NT made eleven tricks, plus 460 for North-South.

Facts: South hesitated before bidding 2NT, signed off in 3, and North bid on.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled there was no damage and the table result, plus 460 for North-South was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: North-South were Flight A players who didn't appear before the committee, so the committee had no opportunity to ask the pair any questions. The director stated before the committee that South confirmed there was a huddle before bidding 2NT. The committee felt that North was safe in bidding over 3 since the break in tempo suggested South didn't have a true negative response to the Lebensohl auction. The committee changed the result to 3 making four, plus 130 for North-South. The committee believed that most East-West defenders would score the Q uppercut when West continued a heart after cashing the A and K.

Chairperson: Peggy Sutherlin.
Committee Members: Bruce Reeve, George Dawkins.

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

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

(1) Alerted as showing no outside feature.

Result: 3 scored 10 tricks -- plus 170 to East-West.

Facts: Before making the opening lead, North inquired: "Does 3 deny a feature?" East replied that 3 did indeed deny a feature and West remained mute. North led the A and continued hearts after South played the 6. North requested a director's ruling based on being given misinformation and being injured therefrom.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled that there was misinformation and North-South were injured by the misinformation. The director adjusted the score to 3 making three, plus 140 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The committee report was provided by Chairperson, Bobby Goldman. The Committee examined East-West's convention card and discovered that 2 showed 5-11 high-card points, but was blank regarding responses and rebids. West claimed that the explanation given to North-South was correct. West maintained that he had "psyched" having no feature because of his weak hand. The East-West partnership had played together periodically for many years. The committee decided to allow the table result, plus 170 for East-West, to stand.

Majority Opinion: The majority (Heron, Gookin, and Lawrence) felt that based on the East-West testimony there had been no violation of disclosure obligations. Further, if there had been a minor violation thereof, North-South were experienced enough to realize there was a possibility of a side card being held by a weak hand. Additionally, a ruling against East-West would equate to calling them liars.

Minority Opinion: The minority (Goldman and Deas) believed that one of three possibilities actually occurred:

1. The one expressed by East-West -- with declarer having no obligation to correct the explanation;
2. The partnership had no agreement -- in which case dummy's explanation was at best his opinion and thus misinformation as to the partnership agreement (which declarer should correct);
3. The agreement was that of most pairs -- 3 showed all minimum hands, in which case dummy's answer was incorrect and declarer had a clear obligation to correct the explanation.

So, the committee had to decide between a misbid (intentional) or misexplanation. Proper procedure, when in doubt, is to rule "misinformation" unless compelling evidence exists to support "misbid."

Self-serving statements, which we believe committees should tend to ignore, certainly fall short of compelling information. There were defensive prospects for one or two extra tricks (still possible after the lead of the A) and we would have supported a ruling of minus 140 or minus 170 for North-South and plus 140 or minus 50 for East-West. We would also have considered plus 170 with a quarter board procedural penalty assessed to East-West.

Chairperson: Bobby Goldman.
Committee Members: Doug Heron, Lynn Deas, Robert Gookin and Mike Lawrence.

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

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

(1) Alerted as a negative double.

Result: Ten tricks were scored at 4, plus 620 to East-West.

Facts: West's double was explained as negative. Before South made the opening lead, West explained that they played negative free bids and the double was either negative or, if the doubler bid again, game forcing. North-South believed that they had been given an improper explanation and felt that improper comments were made by West during the auction. There was considerable joking during the play of the hand.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled that there were no grounds for making any adjustment.

Committee Ruling: The committee documentation was provided by Chairperson David Treadwell. The committee felt that East's explanation was inadequate but, in the committee's opinion, this inadequate explanation did not affect the North-South result. The pair, however, uses negative free bids and the double, therefore, may be made on a hand without hearts and thus is a special Alert. Because of the failure to make a special Alert, a one matchpoint procedural penalty was assessed against East-West and they were told to give more complete explanations in the future. The table result of plus 620 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Chairperson: David Treadwell.
Committee Members: Martin Caley and Ed Lazarus.