APPEALS
By John Blubaugh

Subject: Gratuitous Information
Event: Charity Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Forcing for one round

Result: The K was led and 3NT made five, +460 for North-South.

Facts: After the auction, East asked about the 1NT bid and it was explained as forcing for one round. North added that North-South played Flannery, so a bid of 1 over 1 would have shown a five-card spade suit. East drew the inference that North wouldn't have volunteered this information unless he indeed had four spades. East claimed this deflected him to lead the K which resulted in +460 for North-South.

Director's Ruling: The Director considered the "Flannery Alert" a Special Alert, implying that North was more likely to have been in jeopardy if he had not added his comment. The Director allowed the table result, +460 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee agreed with the Director that North acted correctly. The Committee disagreed with East's assumption that North would only have qualified the explanation when it matched his actual hand.

The Committee also felt that the lead of the K was a poor choice since North rated to have at least four diamonds and more likely five. The table result, 3NT making five, +460 for North-South was allowed to stand and East-West was assessed a one matchpoint penalty for bringing an appeal the Committee deemed to be substantially without merit.

Chairperson: Phil Brady
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus and George Dawkins

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Stratified Pairs

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1NT	Pass	Pass
2	Pass	Pass	Dbl
2	Pass	Pass	Pass

Result: 2 went down two, +100 for North-South.

Facts: East West played Hamilton (2C shows a long unknown suit) directly over a 1NT opening bid. In the balancing seat, their bids were natural. North - South maintained that West was "awakened" to his partnership agreement when his 2 bid was not Alerted (correctly so) by East and 2 doubled should have been the final contract. West argued that North - South deserved their result because they failed to double 2.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that a player cannot use the Alert procedure to wake up to agreements. The contract was changed to 2 doubled down three, +500 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee pointed out that West was obligated to proceed as though the hand was being played behind screens. In that case, West would not have known that his partner did not Alert his 2 bid, might not have discovered his own error, could have assumed East wanted to play clubs, and passed. The director's ruling was upheld and the contract of 2 doubled down three, +500 for North South, was allowed to stand.

Chairperson: Peggy Sutherlin
Members: Darwin Afdahl and Jerry Clerkin

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo
(2) Alerted: Showed clubs and a higher ranking suit

Result: 3 made three, +110 for East-West.

Facts: Over the 1NT call, West took a moment, asked the Notrump range, and passed. East balanced with a DONT 2 bid and West's 2 bid showed fewer than three clubs and at least four diamonds, unless West was 4-4-3-2. West would still have bid 2 with that pattern. After 2 rolled around to East, he believed that his side probably held nine diamonds and 3 was indicated.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative for East and the Contract was changed to 2 making two, +110 for North-South.

Committee Decision: East-West testified that West "always pauses over 1NT" and asks for the Notrump range. West said that he does pause, but only to keep all of his bids in an even tempo. North-South's testimony merely reiterated the break in tempo and that West passed more quickly on the companion board. The Committee decided that the 3 call might have been influenced by the original break in tempo. The Committee changed the contract to 2 making two, +110 for North-South.

Chairperson: Jim Linhart
Committee Members: Bob Glasson and Barry Rigal

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Flight A Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Non-forcing Stayman

Result: 2 doubled went down two, +300 for East-West.

Facts: 2 was Alerted initially as non-forcing Stayman. At the declarer's last turn to call, the explanation was changed to either a diamond suit or a major suit and clubs.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that the unauthorized information did not effect the result and the table result, 2 doubled down two, +300 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that North was in possession of unauthorized information from the mistaken explanation that South did not have four hearts. Therefore, the pass of 2 was made more attractive and bidding 2 was a reasonable alternative. The contract was changed to 2 doubled by North. The Committee was unable to determine what would happen in this contract and the result was changed to -500 or average-minus (whichever was worse) for North-South and +500 or average-plus (whichever was better) for East-West.

Chairperson: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Jerry Clerkin, Lynn Deas, and Jo Morse

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Strati-flighted B Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Negative double

Result: 3 went down one, +50 for North-South.

Facts: East-West requested a score adjustment to +130 for 3 making four because South's hand held nothing resembling a negative double and East claimed that he misplayed the hand as a result.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that East-West were not damaged by South's bid and the table result, +50 for North-South was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee allowed the table result, +50 for North-South to stand. The Committee decided that South may have made a bad bid, perhaps even a psyche, but no real infraction or damage occurred.

Chairperson: Jim Linhart
Committee Members: Bob Glasson and Barry Rigal

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 3 made three, +140 for East-West.

Facts: West hesitated before passing 1. East-West maintained that East's action over 1NT was not influenced by the break in tempo.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 1NT was a logical alternative for East and the contract was changed to 1NT down one, +100 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that East's action over 1NT was clear-cut. The Committee believed that even if the 3 was questionable, the partnership would have played 3. The original score, 3 making three, +140 for East-West was restored.

Chairperson: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Jerry Clerkin, Lynn Deas, and Jo Morse

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Multi showing a weak two bid in hearts or spades
(2) Alerted: Asked North to pass if his suit was hearts or correct to 2
(3) Break in tempo
(4) Break in tempo

Result: 3 went down one trick, +50 for North-South.

Facts: West broke tempo twice during the auction. East-West maintained that the hesitations were short and reasonable considering the complexity of competing against Multi.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there had been significant breaks in tempo and passing 3 was a logical alternative for East. The contract was changed to 3 making three, +140 for North-South.

Committee Decision: This case was heard directly after Appeals Case Three (Monday Bulletin) and was protested by

the same pair. The Committee decided that a pattern was clear. West's hesitations allowed East to bid the same values over again with no risk. The 3 was disallowed and the contract was changed to 3 making three, +140 for North-South. East-West were strongly admonished and the guidelines for breaks in tempo were clearly explained. East-West's $50 deposit was forfeited.

Chairperson: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Jerry Clerkin, Lynn Deas, and Jo Morse

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Pairs

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

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

(1) 10-12 HCP Notrump
(2) Break in tempo
(3) Alerted: Showed clubs and a higher ranking suit

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

Facts: West hesitated before passing 1NT.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 1NT was a logical alternative for East and the contract was changed to 1NT down four, +200 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that passing 1NT was a logical alternative for East. The Committee believed the hesitation suggested bidding would be more successful than passing. The contract was changed to 1NT down four, +200 for East-West.

Chairperson: Jim Linhart
Committee Members: Bob Glasson and Bill Laubenheimer

Subject: Tempo
Event: North American Open Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 4 made four, +420 for North-South.

Facts: North-South played a 14-16 HCP notrump so the rebid of 2NT showed 17 to 19 HCP. South bid 3 very slowly. North maintained that he always intended to bid a game, but perhaps he should have rebid 3NT to give South his choice of games.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 3 was a logical alternative for North and the contract was changed to 3 making four, +170 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the slow bid of 3 clearly showed a desire to bid game and that pass by North was a logical alternative. There was no certainty that ten tricks could be scored. The Committee discussed North's contention that no player would have considered a pass of 3 and rejected that premise. The contract was changed to 3 making four, +170 for North- South.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig
Committee Members: Jerry Clerkin and Michael Rosenberg

Subject: Miscellaneous
Event: NABC Open Pairs

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	Pass	1
Dbl	1NT	Pass	Pass
2	All Pass

Result: 2 made two, +90 for East-West.

Facts: East-West claimed that South psyched when he opened the bidding with 1 and North fielded the psych when he failed to double 2. North maintained that he thought he could go +200 by passing 2 and he feared that doubling would force East-West into a better spot (spades).

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that North had fielded the psych and the score was changed to the better of the table result or average-plus for East-West and the worst of the table result or average-minus for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee believed that there were some good bridge judgment reasons for passing 2. The Committee also believed that there was a clear possibility that South would not have sat for the double of 2. Even so, how bad a spot could 2 have been? North also maintained that he would have sat if South had reopened with a double. The Committee believed this statement to be self-serving. The Committee invoked the Rule of Coincidence and the score was changed to the better of the table result or average-plus for East-West and the worst of the table result or average-minus for North-South. North-South were also warned that they were very close to receiving a penalty for bringing an appeal that was substantially without merit.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig
Committee Members: Harvey Brody and Bruce Reeves

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Stratified Senior Pairs

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1
2	2	4	4
5	All Pass

Result: 5 went down three, +150 for North-South.

Facts: 4 was not Alerted and was explained as strong. After the play of the hand, it was discovered that East- West had no agreement about the 4 bid.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there had been no damage and North-South should have known what was going on. The table result, +150 for North-South was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that South should have been allowed to bid. When called away from the table, her first choice was to bid 5. Therefore, the contract was changed to 5 making five, +450 for North-South.

Chairperson: Steve Lawrence
Members: Chuck Said and Mike Flanagin

Subject: Misinformation
Event: Vanderbilt Knockout Teams

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

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

(1) Alerted: Natural or a balanced 15-21 HCP or strong
(2) Alerted: Either 10+ HCP with diamonds, a club raise, or balanced hand with no four-card major suit
(3) Alerted: Showed diamonds and no major suit
(4) Explained after the auction as Roman Keycard Blackwood
(5) Explained after the auction as showing two keycards without the Q

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

Facts: All of the bids by East-West were properly Alerted and explained. When West bid 4, he intended it as a splinter. The partnership agreement was clearly that it was Roman Keycard Blackwood for diamonds. At the conclusion of the auction, East explained that they had an RKC auction and East had shown two keycards without the Q. West leapt to 6 thinking East had to have the AK and the A since she had not cuebid the A and shown 15 to 21 HCP.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there had been no damage and the table result, +1370 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee discovered that West was under no obligation to explain that he had violated partnership agreements when he bid 4. The Committee decided unanimously that North-South had been properly informed of all of East-West's agreements and were not entitled to redress. The table result, +1370 for East-West, was allowed to stand.

Chairperson: Howard Chandross
Committee Members: Curtis Cheek, Lynn Deas, Jim Linhart, and George Mittelman

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: 6 made seven, +1010 for North-South.

Facts: South hesitated before bidding 4 and East-West felt that pass was a logical alternative for North.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 4 was a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 4 making seven, +510 for North-South.

Committee Decision: In Committee, North contended that since his partner showed a game-forcing hand, 4-6 in the major suits, and he could cover all side losers, good hearts plus the A would produce a slam that was no worse than on the spade finesse. North believed that this entitled him to continue the auction and he selected 5 as the best systemic call to obtain the information needed. North conceded that he had endplayed himself into underbidding his hand with his 1NT rebid (their 1NT opener was 15 to 17 HCP), but noted that he had attempted to catch up with his 3NT bid.

The Committee opened its deliberation by attempting to determine whether the hesitation suggested an alternative action, and if so, whether that action would be more successful. Some discussion was made of the possibility that partner might hold a shapely 10 HCP and was thinking about passing 3NT. This was viewed as unlikely. More discussion ensued about whether the hesitation mattered. Did North have an "automatic" continuation over 4? The consensus of the Committee was that it was possible, but given that North had bid conservatively up to this point, he might very well have continued his conservatism.

After some discussion with a Senior Director and with a Co-Chairman of NABC Appeals, the Committee determined that the ruling would need to be based on what action players who would open 1, rebid 1NT, and jump to 3NT with this hand would select over a prompt 4. The Committee voted two to one (Lazarus dissenting) that a significant enough fraction of those players would choose to pass 4. The contract was changed to 4 making seven, +510 for North- South.

Dissenting opinion from Committee member Ed Lazarus: The Committee decision was based on the interpretation of Law 16 which states in part: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of.......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."

An argument can be made on most hesitations that one bid or another is a logical alternative which has been construed by National Appeals Committees to be an action that would be taken by 5% to 15% of the bidder's peers. This Committee believed that this action fell within these limits; i.e., that 5% to 15% of the bidder's peers would pass. However, I believe that when North saw that he held KJ9 in support of spades, he needed only AQxx, AJ9xxx, x, xx to have a good play for a slam. Any better holding would increase the odds in favor of making a slam. Therefore, a bid of 5 should be seen as a proper action whether or not pass was a logical alternative. Pass is an alternative which was logical only if one does not think about the bidding! Therefore, I would have allowed the 5 bid.

This case fell within the gray area that Law 16A is supposed to protect. I believe that when an action is a much more logical alternative the law can cause problems by preventing proper bridge action. Since most Committees are interpreting the law similar to the thought process involved in this case, I believe that a further change in the law should be considered, a change which would allow a reasoned logical action, even in light of other logical alternatives which can be viewed to be in a clear minority.

Chairperson: Bill Laubenheimer
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus and Bruce Reeve

Subject: Tempo
Event: B/C/D Stratified Pairs

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

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

(1) Break in tempo
(2) Break in tempo

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

Facts: West hesitated before passing 3. North-South maintained that passing 3 was a logical alternative for East. East-West contended that the 4 bid resulted from the 3 push.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 3 was a logical alternative and the contract was changed to 3 making three, +140 for North-South.

Committee Decision: East testified in Committee that he was on the borderline between a 3 and 4 bid on his second call. East decided to take the push to 4 when the opponents bid on. He contended that his decision to bid 3 on the previous round was based on his now devalued spade holding, onside and opposite likely shortness. After the 3 bid, he claimed that he was expecting to score no better than -140 by defending, and given his heart holding and length, might not get doubled in 4. Even if he was doubled, down one would have been a likely result and a better matchpoint score.

North-South contended that West's hesitation necessarily barred East from bidding. The Committee then asked North, who had observed a short break from East and a longer break from West, which he believed suggested that they wished to bid further, why he had elected to reopen the auction. North said that he thought he could make 3.

The result at the table was discussed next. 4 was made on the lead of the K followed by a spade switch. During the subsequent play, North was saddled with a low club as a major penalty card, allowing the declarer to score a club trick and discard a club on a spade.

The Committee determined that all of the players involved had between 800 and 1100 masterpoints and have been playing tournament bridge for a number of years. The Committee decided that the bid of 4 was the only logical alternative after North continued to 3. The Committee unanimously allowed the table result of +420 for East-West to stand.

The Committee believed that North, who had heard both opponents indicate by their mannerisms that they wished to bid more, could have passed the auction out at 3 and that the bid of 3 amounted to a try for a double shot at getting a good result. North-South were informed that hesitations do not automatically bar the hesitator's partner but merely prevent him from taking any action suggested by the break in tempo as opposed to the cards held.

Chairperson: Bill Laubenheimer
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus and Bruce Reeve

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Mixed Pairs

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

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

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

Result: Five hearts went down one trick, +100 for North-South.

Facts: East hesitated before passing 4. North-South maintained that passing 4 doubled was a logical alternative for West and they requested a score adjustment. West contended that his partner had doubled expecting him to have 10+ HCP and a four-card heart suit. West also indicated that he was bidding the contract to make, vulnerable versus nonvulnerable, and would have made the same bid even if his partner had hesitated a full minute instead of fifteen seconds.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 4 was a logical alternative for West and the contract was changed to 4 doubled making four, +590 for North-South.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that a significant number of West's peers would have sat for the double. The contract was changed to 4 doubled making four, +590 for North-South.

Chairperson: Walt Walvick
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell, Abby Heitner, Jim Kirkham, Bruce Reeve

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Mixed Pairs

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

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

(1) Explained as very strong, 16 to 17 HCP, no less than 15 HCP

Result: 3NT made three, +600 for East-West.

Facts: When asked before the opening lead, East volunteered the information that 2NT was very strong, 16 or 17 HCP at least. At trick three, North asked again, "Could 2NT be a little weaker in the balancing seat?" East responded negatively and the declarer said nothing. North maintained that he almost shifted to a diamond but deemed that it was too risky at matchpoints based on the information he was given.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that there was no misinformation and the table result, 3NT making three, +600 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee questioned East-West very carefully about their agreements and found that East- West played together about once a month. The Committee also discovered that the partnership had never bid with less than 16 HCP in this situation and that their agreement was that 2NT should have shown that strength. West was under no obligation to tell North that he had violated the partnership agreement by bidding 2NT with 14 HCP. The Committee decided that East had given the proper explanation of their agreements and the table result, 3NT making three, +600 for East-West, was allowed to stand. The Committee also informed East-West that they now had a new partnership agreement and should explain that 2NT in this position could be as light as 14 HCP.

Chairperson: Howard Weinstein
Committee Members: John Blubaugh and Martin Caley

Subject: Tempo
Event: Afternoon Continuous Pairs

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	1	Pass	1
Pass	1	Pass	4NT
Pass	5	Pass	6
Pass	7	All Pass

Result: 7 made seven, +1440 for North-South.

Facts: South hesitated before bidding 6. East-West maintained that the break in tempo suggested bidding on rather than passing.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that the break in tempo did not suggest that 7 would be more successful than any other action (i.e., passing or bidding 6NT).

Committee Decision: The Committee of one decided to allow the 7 bid, +1440 for North-South. Pass was not deemed to be a logical alternative for North after the bidding had gone 1-1H-1S. Had the auction been 1-1H-2S, etc., then the 7 bid would not have been allowed because a pass of 6 would then have been a logical alternative.

Chairperson: Ed Lazarus

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs II

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

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

(1) 13 to 15 HCP
(2) Break in tempo

Result: 3 made five, +150 for East-West.

Facts: West paused briefly before passing the 2 bid. North asked about the strength of the 1NT opening (13 to 15 HCP). It was unclear whether the question occurred before or after West's pass.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 2 was a logical alternative for East after the break in tempo. The contract was changed to 2 down one, +50 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided it was appropriate to pause briefly when there was a high probability that there had been a conventional call so that an Alert could be made. The Committee believed that West's hand did not warrant a hesitation to suggest action after the 13 to 15 HCP 1NT opening bid.

Chairperson: David Treadwell
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Karen Allison, Bob Glasson, Abby Heitner Day

Subject: Tempo
Event: Vanderbilt Knockout Teams

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

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

(1) Alerted: Negative double
(2) Alerted: Good hand with spade support
(3) Alerted: Minimum hand
(4) Break in tempo

Result: 3 made three, +140 for North-South.

Facts: North asked questions at length after East's 2 bid and again after West bid 3. Upon receiving the information requested, North continued to think at his turn. Screens were in place (West and South were on one side of the screen and North and East were on the other). However, it was evident to all present at the table that North had used the bulk of the lengthy period of time before the bid board was passed through the screen to South and West.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 3 was not a logical alternative for South. The table result, +140 for North-South was allowed to stand. Committee Decision: The Committee decided that South's 3 balance might have been influenced by North's break in tempo. The Committee believed that passing 3 was certainly a logical alternative. The contract was changed to 3 by West and the result was determined to have been down one, +50 for North- South.

Chairperson: Howard Chandross
Committee Members: Chip Martel, Beth Palmer, Bill Passell, and Walt Walvick

Subject: Tempo
Event: Stratified Open Pairs

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

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

(1) Alerted: Showed spades and another suit
(2) Break in tempo

Result: 4NT went down three, +150 for East-West.

Facts: East-West maintained that North hesitated before he doubled 4. North-South contended that this break in tempo should not have been considered unusual in this auction. South also believed that North's double implied a heart card and 4NT should have been made.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that passing 4 doubled was a logical alternative for South and the contract was changed to 4 doubled making four, +590 for East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee changed the contract to 4 doubled making four, +590 for East-West. The Committee informed South that if "he would always have bid after the double," then he should have bid 4NT at his previous turn.

Chairperson: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Darlene Hammond and Jan Shane

Subject: Tempo
Event: North American Pairs Flight B

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

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

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

Result: 6 made six, +1430 for East-West.

Facts: West hesitated before bidding 4.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative for East and the result, +1430 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Committee Decision: The Committee decided that this pair could have made a better bid but the function of the Committee is not to teach Flight B level players how to bid. The Committee believe that even after the admitted hesitation, East was safe to bid to the five level investigating slam. The table result, 6 making six, +1430 for East-West was allowed to stand.

Chairperson: Michael Aliotta
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Phil Brady, Abby Heitner, William Laubenheimer