Subject: Misinformation
Event: Flight A Swiss, March 6, 1st session

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

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

(1) explained by West as a good heart raise. East intended the double as "spades, with heart tolerance."

Result: 5 doubled, down one; N/S minus 200

Facts: South summoned the director at the end of the hand when he knew that East did not have the hand that West had described in response to the question about the initial double.

TD's ruling: The director ruled that the result at the table would stand; N/S minus 200

The Appeal: South contended that the established (from the auction) E/W heart fit marked North with shortness and that he would not likely have bid 2, then 3, without an ace and so bid 5 confidently. Without the established heart fit, he alleged that he would have competed to 4.

The committee's decision: The Committee members decided that South's decision to bid 5 might well have been influenced by the misinformation and that he was damaged. The Committee canceled the table result and substituted 4, making four, for N/S plus 130, E/W minus 130.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen

Committee members: Gil Cohen, Abby Heitner, Bart Bramley, Howard Weinstein

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Swiss, March 6, 1st session

Board 32 E/W vul. Dealer W WEST	NORTH   9 6   K 7 6   A Q J 10 5 2   A 7	EAST
A 3   A Q 9 5 4   8 4   10 5 3 2	SOUTH	K Q J 8 7 5 4 2   J 8   7 3   Q
	10   10 3 2   K 9 6   K J 9 8 6 4

West	North	East	South
Pass	1NT(14-17)	3	Pass
4	Pass(1)	Pass	5
Dbl	5	Pass	Pass
Dbl	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 5 doubled (N), making six; N/S plus 650

Facts: Everyone agreed that North's pass over 4 was out of tempo but that it was minor.

TD's ruling: The director canceled the result achieved at the table and substituted 4 (E), down one. N/S plus 100.

The Appeal: South contended that he didn't bid over 3 because he didn't think his side could make a game, but felt it was clear to protect against 4, as a save with an outside chance for a make.

The committee's decision: The Committee members felt that the hesitation by North did not suggest bidding on; if anything, North was more likely to be considering a penalty double than any other action. A pass by South was not deemed by the Committee to be a logical alternative at this vulnerability and form of scoring. The Committee restored the result at the table: 5 doubled (N); N/S plus 650.

Chairperson: Howard Chandross

Committee members: Nancy Sachs, Nell Cahn, Jerry Gaer, Bruce Reeve

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Swiss, March 6

Board 11 None vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   A Q J 9 x x   x   A x x x x   x	EAST
	SOUTH
	K 8 x   A Q x x   K x   A K J 10

West	North	East	South
-	-	-	2NT(19-20)
Pass	4(1)	Pass	4
Pass	4NT(2)	Pass	5(3)
Pass	5NT(4)	Pass	6(5)
Pass	6(6)	Pass	7
All Pass

(1) Texas Transfer to spades
(2) RKCB(S)-1430 responses
(3) 0 or 3 Key Cards
(4) Invites a grand slam
(5) K
(6) Slowly bid

Result: 7(S), making seven; N/S plus 1510

Facts: N/S conducted a long slam auction in which most of the bids were made slowly, particularly by North. The Director was summoned only after the score comparison (Swiss Teams event) and E/W alleged that South had bid the grand slam only after a slow 6 by North, and that he might have taken advantage of the unauthorized information (that North was thiking of bidding seven himself) in selecting his last call. N/S stated that there was no break in tempo all their bids were slow.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that the result achieved at the table would stand; N/S plus 1510.

The Appeal: E/W contended that North could have bid 6 to cooperate in a grand slam invitation but instead bid a slow 6.

The committee's decision: It was determined that all bids were made in the same tempo and that tempo was consistently slow. There was no testimony that 6 was any slower that any other N/S call. N/S testified that 6 was in itself a grand slam try and that 6 would have focused on that suit. North feared that South might bid 7 with K x x, and so rejected 6. the committee found that there was no unauthorized information and that therefore there was no reason to adjust the result at the table; N/S plus 1510.

Chairperson: Howard Chandross

Committee members: Jerry Gaer, Nell Cahn, Nancy Sachs, Bruce Reeve

Subject: Tempo
Event: Morning Knockout Teams

Board 28 N/S vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   A K   A K 10 x   A J x x   Q x x	EAST
Q 10 x x   x x x   K 10 x   x x x	SOUTH	J x x x x   J x x x   x x   J x
	x x   Q x   Q x x x   A K 10 x x

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	2NT	Pass	3(1)
Pass	4	Pass	4NT
Pass	5	Pass	5(2)
Pass	6	Pass	6
All Pass

(1) Alerted; asking about minors
(2) Break in tempo Result: 6 (N); plus 1370

Facts: South intended 4NT as RKCB (D) and followed up with 5 after considerable thought. North thought that 4NT was natural in context, and invitational, but once he was accepting the invitation, he showed his Key Cards for diamonds in keeping with partnership agreements. There was a clear pause for thought by North before he bid 6. North claimed he was always bidding a slam after the try by South.

TD's ruling: The Director canceled the result achieved at the table and substituted 5 (N), making six; plus 620.

The committee's decision: The Committee members believed that from North's point of view, South had offered to quit at 4NT and then again after North showed his Key Cards.

South's slow "signoff" was considered by the Committee members to be an action that could easily be interpreted as showing continued interest in slam. The Committee next considered whether somenumber of North's peers would seriously consider passing 5. The Committee members believed that this was the case, which makes pass a logical alterntive to the chosen by North -- 6.

The Committee members felt this was an unlikely point to consider given South's willingness to stop in 4NT. The slow 6 bid was not an issue. It was believed that North was trying to decide whether he could justify bidding over the slow 5 call.

This was a good example of a situation where the Blackwood bidder was unprepared for the three possible responses. Had South bid 5 in tempo, there would have been no problem. The Committee decided to uphold the Director's ruling, N/S 5 plus one, plus 620.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig

Committee members: Walt Shafer, Geoff Hampson

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Weekday Bracketed Knockout 3.

Board 34 N/S vul. Dealer E WEST	NORTH   J 4 3   Q 7 3 2   J 2   10 6 4 2	EAST
10 7 6 2   8 6 5   K   K 9 8 7 3	SOUTH	A K Q 8   - -   Q 10 8 7 6 5 3   A 5
	9 5   A K J 10 9 4   A 9 4   Q J

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

(1) Not Alerted; maximal double

Result: 3 down one; E/W plus 100

Facts: The double of 3 was not Alerted. South notified the opponents that there had been a failure to Alert before the opening lead was made. The Director was called.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that E/W might have been damaged by the failure to Alert. The contract was changed to 3, E/W plus 200.

The committee's decision: East testified that he would have bid 3 had he known that South's double was not penalty. West stated that he believed a raise to 4 would have been clear-cut had East bid 3. West was not familiar with maximal doubles, while East had some knowledge of them. The Committee decided that it was likely that E/W were damaged by the failure to Alert, and that West might have raised 3 to game had East bid again freely over 3. The score were therefore adjusted to E/W plus 650 N/S minus 650.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Eric Kokish, Howard Chandross

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Stratified B/C Pairs.

Board 28 N/S vul. Dealer W WEST	NORTH   A K J 8 7 4   K Q J 6   J 9 6   - -	EAST
10 6   10 9 6   A 8 7 5 3   A K 5	SOUTH	Q   A 8 7 3 2   K Q 2   J 10 6 3
	9 5 3 2   4   10 4   Q 9 8 7 4 2

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

(1) Precision.
(2) Alerted; both majors.
(3) Alerted; 0-5 HCP. Result: 3; N/S plus 170

Facts: The Director was called to the table at the end of the hand when it was determined that East's holding did not correspond with the information from West's Alert. N/S contended that the misinformation that East held spades kept them from reaching game.

TD's ruling: The Director determined that E/W's agreement was that 1 was natural. He ruled that N/S had been given misinformation which could have affected their ability to reach game. The score was adjusted to N/S plus 620, E/W minus 620.

The Appeal: West testified that he forgot his partnership's agreement that a 1 overcall was natural (a jump to 2 would have shown both majors). E/W played once every six months or so, but were not a regular partnership. E/W noted that at the table South had commented that maybe he should have bid game even with the information he had available, so the misinformation might not have been responsible for N/S's bad result. South testified that he suspected that North might have held only five strong spades for his 2 rebid and feared a 4-0 trump break. North feared that South's delayed 3 raise might have included only weak (doubleton) support, and that he might have had two or more trump losers. Both players felt that withou the misinformation they would have reached the 4 game.

The committee's decision: The Committee decided that misinformation was present which could have prevented N/S from reaching the normal 4 game, and assigned an adjusted score of minus 620 to E/W as prescribed by Law 12C2. There was some discussion, however, as to whether N/S deserved protetion from this misinformation. some Committee members felt that had South made a normal raise to 2 on the second round of of the auction (he had alredy limited his hand to 0-5 HCP, and he had four trumps and a singleton to more than justify the bid) that N/S would have reached the game in spite of the misinformation.

Although all Committee members felt that South was culpable to some degree for his side's poor result, the extent of his responsibility was not clear for a player at this level. After much discussion it was decided that this figure should be fixed at 40%. N/S were therefore assigned 40% of the matchpoints for plus 170 and 60% of the matchpoints for plus 620.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Howard Chandross, Karen Allison

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Pairs, March 7, Session Two

Board 28 N/S vul. Dealer W WEST	NORTH   K Q 10 8 7 6 5 2   9   7 3 2   3	EAST
- -   10 8 6   A J 10 8 6 5 4   K J	SOUTH	A 9 3   A Q 5   K Q 9   9 7 5 2
	J 4   K J 7 3 2   - -   A Q 10 8 6 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
3	Pass	3NT	Pass(1)
Pass	4	Pass	Pass(2)
5	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	5	Dbl	All Pass

(1) Break in Tempo.
(2) Shorter break in tempo. Result: 5 doubled, N/S plus 1050 (lead: K)

Facts: South's pass over 3NT was slower than the normal ten seconds and there was a shorter but noticeable tempo break by South over 4. Neither hesitation was disputed. The Director was first called by East after North bid 4, and E/W called the Director back after the play ended.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that unauthorized information was available to North. The table result was canceled and the contract was changed to 5 doubled, N/S plus 100.

The Appeal: North claimed that an immediate bid of either 3 or 4 over 3 would have shown a better hand than a delayed bid.

North further stated that he pulled the double of 5 "out of fright." He felt that the opponents were just unhappy that they did not lead the A and another spade to defeat the contract.

The committee's decision: The Committee determined that the North and South players each had more than 3000 masterpoints, although their partnership had little recent experience. The Committee members felt that while North's 4 bid might make some players nervous, pass was not a logical alternative.

However, North's own testimony about the strength requirements of a direct spade bid suggested that South would not expect any defensive tricks from North. Since the pass of 5 doubled would certainly have been the choice of many players with these agreements, pass was deemed to be a lgoical alternative. The committee canceled the result at the table and changed the contract to 5 doubled. N/S plus 100.

Chairperson: Bruce Reeve

Committee members: John Sutherlin, Jim Linhart

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Womens Pairs, March 7, 1st qualifying

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

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

(1) Agreed tempo break

Result: 4 (S); N/S plus 420

Facts: Agreed break in tempo over 3. E/W alleged facial expressions by N/S at the time of the 4 call.

TD's ruling: The director canceled the result achieved at the table and substituted 4 (N), down three, N/S minus 150.

The Appeal: North-South appealed on the basis that 4 was a forcing bid. North stated that she did not know what 3 meant and thought it might be a splinter. South thought 3 was natural, invitational and that 4 was forcing.

The committee's decision: The Committee ruled that the unauthorized information suggested bidding 4 rather than passing 4. Pass and 5 were both felt to be logical alternatives to 4. The deposit money was not forfeited because of the one dissenting opinion and because one other member of the Committee also felt that there was some merit in the appeal. the Commttee judged to uphold the director's ruling and the contract was deemed to be 4 (N), down three; N/S minus 150.

Dissenting opinion (Doug Heron): There is no question that North broke tempo, but was pass a logical alternative for South? Consider that the game is Matchpoints, West had passed initially, East had passed over 1, and neither North nor South had started with a preempt. These considerations lead to the conclusion that 4 must indeed be a forcing call.

If you allow that 4 was forcing (a) what is partner doing? (b) is any call suggested by the break in tempo rather than the auction itself? If you think partner is giving you a choice of games, then 4 is your call. If you think partner is giving you room to show a heart control, then 4 or 5 is your call. If you think partner has both club and heart controls and is inviting slam, then 4NT might be your call.

In other words, there were options, none of which were pass, and I did not consider the appeal to be without merit. The Committee decided to roll back the auction to 4, judged down three, minus 150, N/S. Perhaps if not allowing a 4 bid and forcing 5 on South, the result should be 5 down one or two, depending on whether E/W shift to hearts before the A is ruffed.

I confess I wasn't up to suggesting this last option at I am after a tough day of play. Perhaps Committees, like judges, should be allowed to reflect (overnight in Committee cases) and render their decisions the next day.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen

Committee members: Doug Heron, Rebecca Rogers, Mike Huston, Richard Popper

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC Open Pairs II, Session Two

Board 28 N/S vul. Dealer W WEST	NORTH   A K J 8 7 4   K Q J 6   J 9 6   - -	EAST
10 6   10 9 6   A 8 7 5 3   A K 5	SOUTH	Q   A 8 7 3 2   K Q 2   J 10 6 3
	9 5 3 2   4   10 4   Q 9 8 7 4 2

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

(1) 11-14 HCP.
(2) Hesitation; 30 seconds - 1 minute.
(3) Forced a redouble if next hand passed.

Result: 4 doubled; N/S plus 790

Facts: North hesitated for between 30 seconds and 1 minute before each of his doubles. The Director was called after South pulled the second double to 4.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that South's pull could have been influenced by North's slow double, and adjusted the score to 4 doubled, E/W plus 100.

The Appeal: N/S testified that North's double of 1NT showed points or tricks, but that they could also have shown a weaker hand with spades by bidding Cappelletti (2C showing a one-suiter). Also they felt it was not reasonable for South to pass 4 doubled with undisclosed four card spade support, heart shortness, and no defense against hearts.

The committee's decision: The hesitations by North were agreed to by all three players present (West did not attend the hearing). The Committee determined that the South and North players had about 200 and 600-700 masterpoints, respectively, and that N/S had no firm agreement as to the meaning of North's second double.

When questioned about why he hadn't bid 4 directly over 4 South testified that he wasn't sure North was strong enough to make a game opposite his weak hand, and he didn't want to go minus (vulnerable). When North doubled the second time South decided that North's hand was even stronger than previously shown. He then concluded that with negative defense and useful (undisclosed) offense he would go for the vulnerable plus 620 instead of a lesser number of defense.

The Committee members believed that few players at South's level would bid game directly over 4. They also found South's testimony to be entirely believable that, in light of North's failure to bid Cappelletti originally, South would find the prospect of making 4 to have improved with North's second double, and that the would "running scared" from defending 4 doubled with a singleton heart, undisclosed four-card spade support, and no defensive values.

The Committee therefore adjusted the score for both pairs to the original result at the table, 4 doubled, N/S plus 790. In addition, the need for N/S to make their bids in tempo and the dangers in failing to do so were discussed with them at length.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Howard Chandross, Karen Allison, George Steiner, Ed Lazarus

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Womens Pairs. March 7, 2nd qualifying

Board 21 N/S vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   A 9 4   -   A K 10 8 4 3 2   J 8 4	EAST
K J 8 5 3 2   Q 8   9 6   Q 5 3	SOUTH	Q 6   10 9 5 3   Q J 7 5   K 7 2
	10 7   A K J 7 6 4 2   -   A 10 9 6

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

(1) Alerted by North; explained as 5/5 majors, 5-10 HCP

Result: 4 (S); N/S plus 650

Facts: N/S supplied their notes to show that their agreement in this situation is as Alerted and that South forgot the agreement.

TD's ruling: N/S average minus; E/W average plus

The Appeal: N/S appealed, claiming that South bid her hand in keeping with her initial view of the meaning of 2. In this scheme, North's 2 would be an artificial ask about South's hand type for her strong jump shift. North had to know that South's 4 was impossible if she held the 5-10 HCP 5/5 majors hand, and the auction told her that she should pass 4. Although this was lucky for N/S, south had not acted on the misinformation, so N/S should be given the result achieved at the table.

The committee's decision: N/S's agreement was that 2 shows 5-10 HCP and exactly 5/5 in the majors. Their jump shifts have many different meanings, depending on the auction. South clearly forgot the partnership agreement in this auction. She thought that she had made a strong jump shift and that North's 2 bid was a systemic relay to allow her to clarify whether she held a one-suiter, support for North, or a notrump type. Her jump to 4 described an unbalanced, strong one-suiter. North knew that this was an impossible bid if South had remembered the correct meaning of 2, so she felt that pass was the best way to recovered from an accident. There was no damage and no use was made of unauthorized information by N/S. They supplied notes regarding both the conventional 2 response to a minor and the next step-relay for clarification over certain (strong) jump shifts.

N/S were admonished that when they play such complex methods, they take on a special burden to know and remember what they are playing. This "forget" has been noted and if there is another accident of this type, it might be dealt with more harshly.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen

Committee members: Mike Huston, Doug Heron, Rebecca Rogers, Lynn Deas

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC Open Pairs II, Session Two

Board 27 None vul. Dealer S WEST	NORTH   Q J 10 4 2   A J   K Q 10 9   4 2	EAST
A 5 3   K 10 6 5 4   6 5   A Q 6	SOUTH	9   Q 8   A J 7 2   K J 10 8 5 2
	K 8 7 6   9 7 3 2   8 4 3   9 7

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

(1) Alerted; negative.
(2) Alerted; nonconstructive.
(3) Premature bid; North still held his Pass card.

Result: 3 doubled; E/W plus 300

Facts: As North was pulling his Pass card from his bidding box on the second round of the auction, while the card was still only 4-5 inches from the box, East had his 3 bid near the table and had to pull it back until North placed his Pass on the table. The TD was called at the end of the hand, N/S questioning whether West's double could have been influenced by the likely knowledge that East had clear values for his 3 bid.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that pass by West was a logical alternative to doubling 3. The double was canceled and the score adjusted to 3 down two, E/W plus 100.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling, arguing that East's tempo suggested extra values, that West's hand contained negative defense (holding the A-Q of East's known six-card club suit), and that the double of 3 seemed an unusual action with the West cards (and could have been influenced by East's tempo). E/W testified that they played East's sequence (negative double followed by 3) as showing extra values. With a weaker hand East would have bid 2 directly over 1 (later bidding 3 if the opportunity arose). Easts's 3 bid showed 6-4 distribution, since with 5-4 East would have reopened with a double while with 5-5 he would have reopened with 2NT.

West testified that he felt his balancing action was clear, not only because East's sequence had shown values, but also to protect N/S's equity in the partscore battle.

The committee's decision: The majority of the Committee members (Steiner, Chandross, Allison) felt that West's balancing action was not influenced by East's tempo. If anything they felt the fast 3 bid suggested not to double, but rather to compete in clubs. For example, if one of South's diamonds were exchanged for one of North's clubs, then 3 doubled would be unbeatable, while 5 would still be cold.

A minority of the Committee members (Rodwell, Colker) felt that East's tempo could have suggested that double by West could be the winning action. E/W's testimony about the negative double sequence being stronger than a 2 - 3 sequence seemed flawed by the fact that 3 hadn't been Alerted during the auction (most pairs play the sequences reveresed in meaning). This undermined West's testimony that he knew East held sound values from the auction along (and not East's tempo).

Allowing West's unusual double after his partner's irregular tempo also seemed disquieting on purely intuitive grounds, and it was additionally unsettling since practiced partnerships (as this E/W pair were) often have more information available to them about their temp variations that a casual outside observer might expect. The Committee decided (3-2) to allow the result at the table to stand. E/W were additionally assessed a one-tenth of a board procedural penalty (rounded down to the nearest .5 matchpoint), not to accrue to N/S, for East's improper and undue haste in making his 3 bid.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Howard Chandross, Karen Allison, George Steiner, Eric Rodwell

Subject: Tempo; chain of causality
Event: Open Pairs

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

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

(1) break in tempo

Result: 4 (N), down two; N/S minus 100

Facts: The Director was called and confirmed a break in tempo by North before she doubled 3NT. E/W initially suggested that 3NT doubled might have been made (South leads a club), but the Director ruled that if South did not pull the double of 3NT, the likely result would have been N/S plus 300 (two down; heart lead and spade switch or spade lead).

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that there had been no damage to E/W by the slow double and pull to 4. Quite the contrary. The Director ruled that the result achieved at the table would stand; 4 (N), down two; N/S minus 100.

The Appeal: E/W did not appeal on the issue of whether 3NT doubled might have made. Instead, E/W contended that South took advantage of the slow double to bid in a manner that suggested a more distributional hand. The effect of South's bidding was to convince E/W that a penalty double would not be a sound course of action. E/W alleged that if they had known that South had been acting on the unauthorized information, they would have double and they asked the Committee to substitute 4 (N) doubled, two down; N/S minus 300, for the score achieved at the table.

The committee's decision: N/S did not attend the hearing and neither did West. The Committee first considered the possible legal recourses for the unusual claim made by the appellants. After consultation with the Directors, the Committee members were satisfied that there was no basis in law to award an adjusted score to E/W. E/W were not directly damaged by South's pull of the slow double. Although East's failure to double the final contract may have been based on his belief that South held a different hand for this sequence of bids, East drew that inference at this own risk.

The Committee decided unanimously that the result achieved at the table would stand; 4, down two; N/S minus 100.

The Committee members were concerned with the actions of South and referred the case to the Director for possible further action. The Committee considered (but rejrected) a recommendation that the N/S score be changed to Average Minus if their minus 100 proved to be a better score that that. The Committee recommend that the incident be recorded.

Although the merits of E/W's appeal might be construed as somewhat dubious, and that East might well have been asking for something for nothing, the Committee felt that it was worthwhile to examine the issues involved in this unusual set of circumstances.

Chairperson: Eric Kokish

Committee members: Judy Randel, Jerry Clerkin, Gil Cohen, Mary Jane Farell