Appeals Case 1

Board 14 None vul. Dealer East WEST	NORTH   A Q J 10 9 3   Q 10   9   Q 5 7 3	EAST
-   J 9 8 7 5 2   A J 8 7 6 3   J	SOUTH	K 8   A K 3   5 4   A K 10 8 6 2
	7 6 5 4 2   6 4   K Q 10 2   9 4

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

(1) Alerted, could be short
(2) Alerted, support double
(3) Break in tempo

The Facts: The opening lead was the 9, after which 6 made six, plus 980 for E/W. Everyone agreed there had been a break in tempo before East doubled 5. The Director ruled (Law 16) that East's break in tempo was unauthorized information and that pass by West was a logical alternative. The Director canceled the 6 bid and changed the contract (Law 12) to 5 doubled, down four, plus 800 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. West told the Committee that she was going to bid 6 whether her partner doubled in tempo, doubled slowly, or passed, because she thought there was a good chance that N/S could make 5. N/S stated that they thought pass was a logical alternative because West had a defensive trick, was short in clubs, and the quality of the heart suit was poor. When the Committee inquired about the break in tempo, all four players agreed that it had been 25-30 seconds.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the admitted lengthy hesitation before the double of 5 could well have suggested that a 6 bid might be more successful than passing. West could not know that East's hand was as strong as it actually was since East had merely made a support double at the one-level. West on her own quite normally bid 5 at her next turn based on distributional values rather than high-card values.

The Committee rejected as self-serving West's statements about the 6 bid. West's statements completely overlooked the fact that if N/S could make 5, E/W would certainly go down at least three (doubled) in their 6 contract. The Committee therefore canceled the 6 bid and changed the contract to 5 doubled down four, plus 800 for E/W.

The Committee believed that the 6 bid bordered on taking blatant advantage of unauthorized information. However, in view of the apparent lack of experience exhibited by the E/W pair, even though they were Life Masters, the Committee elected neither to assess a procedural penalty nor to keep the deposit. E/W were given a stern warning about their responsibilities in such situations.

Chairperson: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Richard Popper, Judy Randel, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Appeals Case 2

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

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

(1) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 3 made three, plus 110 for N/S. There was an agreed break in tempo by South after East's 2 bid. The Director ruled (Law 16A) that there was unauthorized information present and that pass by North was a logical alternative to 3. The Director changed the contract to 2 made two, plus 110 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. Both sides agreed there had been a break in tempo. North did not believe that pass was a logical alternative with a six- loser hand, not vulnerable, at matchpoints. N/S were playing their first session together and had a combined total of approximately 300 masterpoints.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that even though there was a break in tempo, it was likely from the auction that the South hand would have one or more useful cards. The Committee members did not believe that defending 2 was a decision that would be considered by N/S's peers. The Committee restored the table result of 3 made three, plus 110 for N/S. The importance of bidding in a relatively even tempo was explained to N/S. They were made aware that a player's breaks in tempo usually transmit unauthorized information which might strictly limit the acceptable options available to his partner.

Chairperson: Bruce Reeve
Committee Members: George Dawkins, Mary Jane Farell

Appeals Case 3

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

The auction was not available

The Facts: The contract was 4 by South. After the opening lead of the 3, the play proceeded as follows:

West: H3 HT HQ H5
East: D3 D2 D8 D9
North: SA S2 S4 S3
North: S8 ST SJ SQ
West: HJ . . .

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South stated that because he had thought trumps were drawn, it was unreasonable to make him play his last trump before he began to play diamonds. If that line of play was allowed, West would ruff the fourth round of diamonds, and South would then be able to win two high spades, two ruffs, and three diamond tricks for down three. E/W stated that had play continued, when East did not follow suit on the third round of trump, South might have played another round.

The Committee Decision: Law 70C states: "When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hand, the Director shall award a trick or tricks . . . that could be lost to that trump by any normal play" Also, the Laws state `normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational". In order to decide how many tricks to award the defense the Committee had to decide if it was "irrational", or merely "careless" for South to play a fourth round of trump. Two Committee members believed that since West had clearly miscounted trumps, as well as his tricks, there was a chance he would carelessly play a fourth round of trumps. Three Committee members believed that when declarer played the K and West followed with the 7, it would be irrational for South to then play the 6. Therefore, in a three-two split decision, the Committee changed the result to 4 down three, plus 150 for E/W.

Chairperson: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: Eric Kokish, Bill Laubenheimer, Ed Lazarus, Robert Morris, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Appeals Case 4

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

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

(1) Alerted; Precision, natural.
(2) Alerted; relay to 3.
(3) Alerted; forced.
(4) Information volunteered that 3 was forcing.

The Facts: After the opening lead of the J, 6 went down three, plus 150 for E/W. The Director was called by West after he asked the meaning of the 3 bid and was told only that it was a relay to 3. He wanted more information. The Director remained at the table while the auction continued. North volunteered that 3 was forcing. When asked about 5, South stated that he didn't know what it meant.

At this point, the Director instructed that the auction continue and left the table. Before the opening lead was made, South explained that systemically the 3 bid showed either a diamond bust or a game-forcing hand with a six-card or longer suit. At this point East called the Director. When the Director arrived, there was a great deal of commotion at the table.

The Director did not take East away from the table to ask if he wanted to change his last call based on the information that South had provided. East stated, however, that he wished to reserve his rights. The Director instructed that play continue. After play was completed, the Director was called again by East who stated that had he known the meaning of all of the bids before his final pass, he would have doubled the final contract. The Director ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that if he had the correct information about the auction, he would have doubled the final contract. South had been playing his complicated system for about four years. He stated that he had been teaching his wife (North) the system over the last two years and that there had not been too many partnership misunderstandings. The Committee examined the N/S convention cards and found that this specific auction (2 - Pass - 3) was listed and described.

The Committee Decision: The Committee had to deal with a unique situation in that the Director had not taken East aside to determine if he would have changed his final call had correct explanations been given. The Committee decided, after listening to East and considering that he had doubled 3 and had indicated that he wished to reserve his rights, that it was possible that he would have doubled the final contract. The Committee also decided that it was possible that East had enough information about the hand to double in any case if he wanted to do so. The Committee decided to award an adjusted score (Law86B) that consisted of 25% of the IMPs for a contract of 6 doubled down three, plus 500 for E/W and 75% of the IMPs for a contract of 6 undoubled down three, plus 150 for E/W.

Since North's incomplete explanations had affected East's decision to not double, a 1-IMP procedural penalty (that accrued to E/W) was assessed against N/S.

Chairperson: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: Eric Kokish, Bill Laubenheimer, Ed Lazarus, Robert Morris, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Appeals Case 5

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

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

(1) Gambling, not Alerted.

The Facts: The opening lead was the A, after which 6 made seven, plus 1010 for N/S. After the play was completed, West called the Director because he was not sure whether the 3NT bid was Alertable. He stated that if it was alertable, and if it had been Alerted, he might have chosen a different opening lead (a trump).

The Director ruled that the result would stand since E/W had not been damaged (Law 40C) by the failure to Alert.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. West stated that he expected the dummy to be a strong balanced hand and he thought that the failure to Alert denied him the opportunity to consider other opening leads. He stated that he had led the A in order to determine the best shift after he saw the dummy. West also stated that he had tried to unobtrusively examine the N/S convention cards, but since they were not in a position that could be easily seen, he was unable to do so.

The Committee examined the N/S convention cards and found that Gambling 3NT was clearly marked. When asked why 3NT was not Alerted, South stated that she did not realize the bid was Alertable, and that this was the first time the bid had been made in their partnership. When asked if he wondered why there had not been any sort of transfer auction, West stated that he really didn't think about it - - he just assumed that 3NT was strong and balanced.

The Committee Decision: The Committee agreed that there had been a failure to Alert. The Committee explained to the players that since the failure to Alert was misinformation, Law 47E2 allowed the player to "retract the card he played after a mistaken explanation of an opponent's conventional call " which is what the Director would have communicated to the players had he been (Law 9B1a) ". . . summoned at once when attention . . . drawn to an irregularity." The Committee determined that due to this negligence the damage was not a consequence of the infraction (Law 40C) and allowed the table result, 6 made seven, plus 1010 for N/S to stand.

The Committee also explained that an opening 3NT bid was sufficiently rare that the player had an obligation to determine the meaning of the call if he considered that information necessary to make an informed decision.

The Committee also decided that since the failure to Alert was an infraction, and since there was no damage to the non-offenders, N/S would be assessed a one-half IMP procedural penalty that would accrue to E/W for contributing to the disruption that ensued.

Chairperson: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: Eric Kokish, Ed Lazarus, Robert Morris, Peggy Sutherlin (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Appeals Case 6

Board 30 None vul. Dealer E WEST	NORTH   K 10 7   K J 10 7   2   K 9 5 3 2	EAST
Q 8 5   9 8 2   Q 5   A Q 10 6 4	SOUTH	A J 6   A 6 5 4   10 9 8 7 4 3   - -
	9 4 3 2   Q 3   A K J 6   J 8 7

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

(1) 11-15.
(2) Alerted; rescinded.

The Facts: 2 doubled by South went down two, plus 300 for N/S. After 2 was doubled, North rescinded the Alert and announced that the double was for penalty, adding; "He should have five" diamonds. The Director ruled that there was no damage from the misinformation and allowed the result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated he predicated his redouble on the likelihood of an E/W major suit fit.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that East's judgment in redoubling was less than ironclad in that E/W might well find themselves playing in a 6-0 club fit at the three-level and that opposite partner's presumed diamond shortness, a 4-3 spade fit might not stand up well to repeated trump leads. Furthermore, the Committee was not sure E/W had been damaged, inasmuch as 2 doubled might well fail by two tricks. North was instructed not to give the opponents the benefit of his bridge judgment when asked about his partnership's agreements. (He had stated when asked that this partnership did not have the agreement that the double showed five trumps.)

In summary, the Committee agreed that East took his chances and should live with the result. The Committee allowed the table result (2 doubled by West down two, plus 300 for N/S) to stand. The E/W deposit was returned.

Chairperson: Peggy Sutherlin
Committee Members: Bruce Keidan, Phil Leon

Appeals Case 7

Board 17 None vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   10 8 7   J 9 6   K J 8 7   J 10 6	EAST
A J   A 10   Q 10 2   A 9 7 5 4 3	SOUTH	5 4   K 5 4   A 9 6 5 4 3   K 2
	K Q 9 6 3 2   Q 8 7 3 2   -   Q 8

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

(1) Alerted; a good preempt in spades.

The Facts: 4NT went down three, plus 150 for N/S. 3 was Alerted as a good preempt in spades; 3 would be a weak preempt in spades. E/W asked North to provide them with an example of a good preempt and were told that AKxxxxx would be an acceptable suit. After South's hand was disclosed, the Director was summoned. East alleged that had he known that South might hold a six-card suit, he would have doubled 4. The Director ruled that the result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. They stated that they should have been told that the bid might be based on a "shaped" hand and might not be a seven-card suit. East stated that had he been apprised of the possibility that South held a six-card suit, he would have chosen to double 4. If South held seven spades, East believed that West might be able to isolate South in the play.

The Committee Decision: The Committee deemed North's answer to East's question (regarding the nature of 3) to be sufficient; AKxxxxx was both close to the prototype (by agreement) and definitely a valid example. Although E/W contended that North should have said something about six-card suits, the hand that South held (third seat, not vulnerable) was so much better than a "bad" 3 preempt (via 3) that E/W should have realized its appropriateness and withdrawn their appeal.

Furthermore, the E/W case was the sort of stretch of imagination that a Committee would always regard as self- serving and E/W were both very experienced players. East had a very good hand on the auction and were perhaps as likely to be missing a slam as going down in 4NT. Had East or West wished to know about the possibility of a six-card suit, it was open to both of them to ask a specific question to that effect.

The Committee members considered the E/W case to be without merit and decided to retain E/W's deposit. Furthermore, the Committee deemed E/W's appeal to be abusive of the appeals process and accordingly assessed them a penalty of one-quarter of a board.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig
Committee Members: Bobby Goldman, Eric Kokish

Appeals Case 8

Board 17 None vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   Q J 9 2   A J 8   10 4   K 10 8 2	EAST
4 3   K 9 5   K Q 9 8 6 2   6 4	SOUTH	A 10 8 7 5   10 6 2   A J 7   5 3
	K 6   Q 7 4 3   5 3   A Q J 9 7

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

(1) 10-12.
(2) Alerted; one suit.
(3) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 130 for N/S. The double of 3 was not Alerted. The Director was called after the auction ended and ruled that it was a logical alternative for North to pass South's double of 3. The contract was changed to 3 doubled down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The break in tempo was admitted to be 25-40 seconds. South stated that the only time a diamond contract could be doubled for penalty would be immediately after the 2 bid. They play penalty doubles at the two-level and takeout doubles at the three-level. He stated that the break in tempo was because he was considering bidding 3 but was concerned that his partner might think he had five hearts.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the explanation of the double of 3 was a self-serving statement. The admitted 25-40 second hesitation seemed uncommonly long for a South who "knew" that double was for takeout. Based on this observation, the Committee changed the contract to 3 doubled down one, plus 100 for N/S. The combination of the N/S explanation of the meaning of the double, the failure to Alert, and the long hesitation was sufficiently contradictory to convince the Committee to retain the deposit because the appeal did not have substantial merit.

The East player, who arrived late, professed not to know whether there was to be a Committee. He hotly denied that his partnership was notified until the Director showed him his partner's signature in the non-appellants box of the appeal form. In addition, he made his statements between bites of food he had brought with him. The Committee considered a procedural penalty for his conduct, but decided instead to inform him of their concerns.

Chairperson: Phil Brady
Committee Members: Richard Popper, Judy Randel, (scribe; Linda Weinstein)

Appeals Case 9

Board 1 None vul. Dealer N WEST	NORTH   2   Q J 8 4 2   Q J 10 4 3   J 10	EAST
A 10   10 9 7   9 7 5   8 7 6 4 2	SOUTH	K Q J 9 7 3   A K   K 6 2   9 5
	8 6 5 4   6 5 3   A 8   A K Q 3

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

(1) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 4 went one down, minus 50 for N/S. North pulled South's slow double of 3 to 4 and finished in 4. East, who had summoned the Director after North bid 4, sought redress. The Director ruled that it would have been a logical alternative for North to pass South's double of 3 and that the tempo of the double made it more likely that it would be successful for North to take it out. The Director canceled the table result and replaced it with Average Plus for E/W, Average Minus for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. N/S agreed that the double of 3 had been out of tempo. North asserted that she would have bid 4 regardless of the tempo of the double because her hand was worthless on defense.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that South's tempo break before doubling 3 suggested some uncertainty and could have suggested that it would be more successful for North to take it out than it would be to leave it in, and that pass was certainly a logical alternative. Pursuant to Law 12C2 , the Committee canceled the table result. The more difficult decision was the score adjustment. The Committee concluded that there was at least a one-in-six chance that N/S would go minus 530 against 3 doubled, and at least a one-in-three chance that East, given the clues available to him from the auction, would achieve that result by playing for ace-and-one diamond on his left. The Committee therefore assigned 3 doubled made three to both pairs; plus 530 to E/W, and minus 530 to N/S.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Ron Gerard, Abby Heitner, Ed Lazarus

Appeals Case 10

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	3	Pass
3	3	Pass	Pass
Dbl	All Pass

The Facts: 3 doubled by North went down two, plus 500 for E/W. There was nothing marked about responses to weak two-bids on the East convention card. West had marked that 2NT was a conventional response to a weak two-bid. The Director ruled that the failure to Alert the 3 bid suggested that 2NT might be natural or might not be a forcing response to the weak two-bid. The Director ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling.

The Committee Decision: The Committee assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty against E/W for inadequate disclosure and failing to have two identical convention cards. The Committee allowed the table result (3 doubled down two, plus 500 for E/ W) to stand. The N/S deposit was returned.

Chairperson: Phil Leon
Committee Members: Bobby Goldman, Claire Tornay

Appeals Case 11

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	1NT(12-15)
Dbl(1)	Pass(2)	2(3)	Pass
2(4)	Pass	3	Pass
3	Pass	4	All Pass

(1) Alerted; "Jump Ball" a puppet to 2 to describe one of four hand types.
(2) Alerted; no single suit, possibly the start of an escape sequence.
(3) Alerted; semi-forced.
(4) Alerted; explained as showing spades and clubs.
(5) Before the opening lead, West explained that East's interpretation of 2 was incorrect; the four hand types included in West's initial double were: (a) clubs, (b) diamonds and hearts, (c) hearts and spades, or (d) a good hand with spades. West had shown (with his 2 bid) type (d) a good hand with spades.

The Facts: 4 by West made four, plus 620 for E/W. 2 was explained by East as showing spades and clubs. The explanation was corrected by West prior to the opening lead (note (5) above). The Director was called and ruled that East's explanation had provided unauthorized information to West, and that passing 3 was a logical alternative to bidding 3. The Director changed the contract to 3 by East down two, plus 200 for N/S.

The Appeal: Due to the lateness of the hour, West was the only player to appear before the Committee. The facts were not in dispute. E/W alleged that 3 was the normal action for West over 3, with or without the misexplanation.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was unauthorized information available to West after the explanation of the 2 bid. The Committee decided that although the 3 bid was not an egregious action, a significant number of West's peers (15%-25%) would seriously consider passing. Therefore, pass was a logical alternative and pursuant to Law 12C2, the Committee changed the contract to 3 by East down two, plus 200 for N/S and assigned this result to both pairs.

Chairperson: Harvey Brody
Committee Members: Ed Lazarus, Bruce Reeve

Appeals Case 12

Board 30 None vul. Dealer EAST WEST	NORTH   A K 10 9 7   Q 4 3   J 9   K 4 2	EAST
2   9 7   A 10 8 7 5 4 3   8 7 5	SOUTH	8 6 5 4   10 8 6 5 2   K Q 6   10
	Q J 3   A K J   2   A Q J 9 6 3

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

(1) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 6 by North made seven, plus 1010 for N/S. There was a break in tempo before the 5 call, as South agreed in response to a question by East before bidding 6. Pursuant to Law 16 , the Director ruled that pass was a logical alternative to 6 and changed the contract to 5 made seven, plus 510 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed on the grounds that 5 was an attempt to elicit a 6 cuebid from North after which South intended to bid a grand slam. South estimated the break in tempo to be two seconds, North called it a "slight hitch", and West (the only member of her partnership present) declined to estimate the length of the break in tempo other than to note it qualified as a break in tempo. Asked why he chose 5 instead of 4NT (Blackwood), South said, "I made a bad bid." The Committee discovered that North had about 1400 masterpoints and South had about 2200 masterpoints.

The Committee Decision: The Committee ruled that having created a trap for his partner by bidding 5 , South was caught in it after the break in tempo. Noting that it could construct several hands in which the small slam would hinge on a trump finesse that was odds on to lose, the Committee ruled that North's break in tempo had converted a 70% decision into a 99.99% decision. The Committee decided that passing 5 was an option that a significant number of South's peers would consider, and changed the contract to 5 made seven, plus 510 for N/S. The Committee returned the deposit. They did not doubt that South intended to bid at least a small slam at the point he bid 5 ; however, they found that assertion irrelevant.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committee Members: Harvey Brody, Abby Heitner, Bill Laubenheimer, Dave Treadwell, (scribe: Bruce Keidan)

Appeals Case 13

Board 18 N/S vul. Dealer EAST WEST	NORTH   A K 4   A J 5 2   7 5 3 2   A 2	EAST
10 9 5   K Q 8 4   Q 9 6   8 5 3	SOUTH	Q J 8 6 2   6   J 10 4   K Q J 9
	7 3   10 9 7 3   A K 8   10 7 6 4

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

(1) Alerted; puppet to 3

The Facts: 3NT by North made three, plus 600 for N/S. South intended 2NT as natural; North thought it was a puppet to 3. The Director ruled that South had unauthorized information and that passing 3 was a logical alternative. The Director changed the contract to 3 by North down two, plus 200 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling, contending that South had little choice but to bid 3NT over 3 since at BAM scoring, 3 was unlikely to be to play on this auction, even if North had not Alerted 2NT. South stated that he realized at the point his partner Alerted that it was likely his 2NT bid had been construed as Lebensohl. North stated that reasonable defense would have defeated 3NT, suggesting that the damage to E/W was self-inflicted. South stated that he had intended 2NT as natural and that N/S had played together only three times previously and not at all in the past 15 months.

The Committee Decision: The Committee agreed with the Director that a 3 bid with no Alert from North would have expressed an interest in playing a club partscore rather than a notrump game. Thus, North had chosen from among logical alternatives (passing and bidding on) the one that could reasonably have been suggested by the unauthorized information (the Alert). Pursuant to Law 12C2, the Committee canceled South's 3NT bid and assigned to N/S the score for 3 by North down two, plus 200 for E/W (the most unfavorable result that was at all probable). The Committee rejected the notion that E/W had made an egregious error in defense, which would have deprived them of the right to redress due to their own fault. 3NT cannot be beaten after the lead of the K, a reasonable lead that was made at this and lots of other tables.

Again, pursuant to Law 12C2, E/W were assigned the same score (3 by North down two, plus 200 for E/W), the most favorable result at all likely had the infraction not occurred.

Chairperson: Mike Huston
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Lynn Deas, Bob Gookin, Bob Glasson, (scribe: Bruce Keidan)

Appeals Case 14

Board 25 E/W vul. Dealer North WEST	NORTH   A 10 5   10 5   K J 5 4 2   8 6 3	EAST
K J 7 6 4   K 7 2   A Q 10 8   Q	SOUTH	-   A Q 9 8 6 3   -   A J 10 7 5 4 2
	Q 9 8 3 2   J 4   9 7 6 3   K 9

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	1	Pass
1NT(1)	2	3	3
4	Pass	4NT(2)	Pass
6NT	Pass	7	Pass
Pass	Dbl	All Pass

(1) Alerted; shows spades.
(2) Not Alerted; shows a spade control - 4 would have been RKCB.

The Facts: 7 doubled by East made seven, plus 1770 for E/W. 4NT was not Alerted and showed a spade control (by partnership agreement). N/S called the Director, and were told by that Director and a second Director that the double of 7 would be canceled. Sometime before the end of the afternoon session, N/S were told by a third Director that the double was not canceled, as there was no requirement to Alert 4NT, which meant that there was no infraction by E/W. The Director(s) therefore allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: N/S believed that they were told by the Screening Director that current ACBL regulations did not require an Alert of 4NT, and that therefore they had no case. When a fourth Director was consulted, N/S were told that they would lose their deposit if they took their case to a Committee. Nonetheless, N/S believed that appearing before a Committee was the only avenue available to them to protest the treatment they had received and to express their opinions about the new Alert regulations.

The Committee Decision: The Committee found that under current ACBL regulations the 4NT bid did not require an Alert and that there was therefore no basis for score adjustment. The Committee agreed that this seemed to fly in the face of the original purpose of the Alert procedure, which was to make the opponents aware of an "unexpected" or conventional agreement. The Committee members understood the frustration felt by the N/S pair. Although any protest was substantially without merit since the Laws (or Regulations) were specific on this issue, the Committee nevertheless elected to return E/W's deposit and bring the circumstances of this appeal to the attention of the Director-In-Charge of the tournament.

Chairperson: John Anderson
Committee Members: Bruce Reeve, Harvey Brody, Nell Cahn, Ed Lazarus

A SECOND LOOK

Appeals Case 14 raises an important issue, one that might well send the regulators back to the drawing board.

The point raised by the N/S pair in this case is well taken. The Alert procedure was not intended to place the opposing side (the side not making the call that might require an explanation) at a disadvantage. The "No-Alert" rule for bids of 3NT and beyond (after a player's first turn to bid) was intended to prevent the "involved" side from conveying unauthorized but potentially undetectable information through the use or non-use of Alerts.

In this case, there was no suitable "official" solution available to North. If he had asked for an explanation of the E/W bidding and had been given the correct information, he might well have decided not to double the slam, but in the asking, it might have been alleged by E/W that North had shown interest in a spade lead, dummy's first-shown suit. Sort of a Lightner Non-double.

While it might then be argued that E/W's "unusual" agreement had created the need for their opponents to seek clarification and that N/S should not then be saddled with responsibility for generating unuthorized information, this sort of fractious situation is not one that the sponsoring organization should wish to endorse through its regulations. Many experts believe, nonetheless, that allowing anyone to ask a question at his turn to bid is the most palatable solution to this complex problem.

The situation can be remedied, but perhaps not entirely. If we wish to retain the "No-Alert" rule because its benefits seem to outweigh its deficiencies, we could add a provision that would protect the "uninformed" side where there is no current legal obligation to do so. We could oblige the side that is about to buy the auction (they have made a bid and two passes have followed) to volunteer to provide the information that their opponents might require before they close out the auction.

In Case 14, either West or East would be obliged by Regulation to ask North if he wished an explanation of the entire sequence. If North accepts the offer, he would know without prejudice to his side that East's 4NT shows a spade control and that West's 6NT is natural. Then North would be able to double 7 or pass it out, but would not have to ask a potentially prejudicial question. He must not ask about any particular call, but his opponents must provide explanations of all but the strictly standard calls.

While this would be the ideal procedure for slam-zone auctions, the introduction of this procedure would not deprive a player from asking a proper question at any of his (other) turns to call.

There might still be problems earlier in the auction. A player contemplating a lead-directing double or a penalty double might wish to ask about a particular call, conveying unauthorized information when the explanation leads him to pass rather than double. Since we can't force a player to ask about all his opponents' calls, we are going to have to deal with these situations on a case-by-case basis.

Eric Kokish, Appeals Administrator

Appeals Case 15

Board 26 Dealer East WEST	NORTH   J 8   J   Q J 9 4 3   K Q 8 6 4	EAST
9 5 3 2   Q 8 4 3   8 5   J 10 3	SOUTH	A Q 10 6 4   A K 10 5 2   7 2   A
	K 7   9 7 6   A K 10 6   9 7 5 2

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

(1) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 4 doubled by East made five, plus 990 for E/W. East broke tempo before he doubled 4; 10-12 seconds according to all but North, who contended that the break in tempo was 30 seconds.

The Director changed the contract ( Law 12 and Law 16 ) to 4 doubled made four, plus 710 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. There was an agreed break in tempo prior to the double of 4.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that pass of 4 doubled was a logical alternative for West. While Law 12C2 states that the non-offending side should be assigned the most favorable result likely, the Committee did not believe it likely that North would lose only one club trick.

The Committee decided that the score for N/S would be minus 200 or Average Plus, whichever was better, and that the score for E/W would be plus 200 or Average Minus, whichever was worse.

Chairperson: Ed Lazarus
Committee Members: Jeff Meckstroth, Mary Beth Townsend

Appeals Case 16

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

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

(1) Announced; forcing
(2) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 by West made five, plus 650 for E/W. There was an agreed-upon break in tempo by East over 1NT, which E/W estimated to be about three seconds and South thought was more like six seconds. South called the Director after West's 3 balance. The auction continued, with E/W reaching 4.

Pursuant to Law 12 , the Director changed the contract to 3 by North down one, plus 100 for E/W.

The Appeal: West acknowledged that pass, rather than 3, could be the winning action on some layouts but felt it was a "deep position" at high-level matchpoints. East noted that there had been no break in tempo over 3 and that for all he knew, 3 might have been going for minus 200 or more if left undisturbed. West felt that the 3 call had not been suggested by the break in tempo.

The Committee Decision: There was some discussion by the Committee on the perils of passing 3 with the West hand at matchpoints, particularly in a high-level matchpoint event, but in the end, the Committee decided the break in tempo took much of the jeopardy out of the 3 call. The Committee discovered that E/W had done nothing to determine whether N/S had other ways to reach 3, so West could not with confidence gauge the strength around the table.

While East was marked with some values, the break in tempo suggested that he would have something more than the ten or eleven-point minimum that the auction indicated. East figured to have enough extra strength to be able to make 3 playable even with no fit, or to enable East to advance the bidding in another strain. The Committee changed the contract to 3 by North down one, plus 100 for E/W. The deposit was returned.

Chairperson: Bob Gookin
Committee Members: Karen Allison, Jan Cohen, Bruce Keidan, Eric Kokish

Appeals Case 17

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 4 doubled by East made four, plus 790 for E/W. There was a break in tempo before West passed East's 3 bid. The Director ruled that there was unauthorized information and awarded Average Plus to N/S and Average Minus to E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. The raise from 1 to 2 was constructive. E/W stated that the 4 bid by North made it more likely that West had diamond values and that it was likely that the K was favorably placed.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that virtually all players would at least consider bidding 4 with the East hand immediately over North's 3 bid with a good two-suited hand and the K favorably placed. Although the brief break in tempo by West in passing 3 might have suggested 4 by East, the 4 bid by North made it much more likely that partner had help in diamonds. It was this bit of authorized information rather than the break in tempo that made the 4 call virtually mandatory. The Committee changed the contract to 4 doubled made four, plus 790 for E/W.

Chairperson: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Michael Huston, Bruce Reeve

Appeals Case 18

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

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

(1) Break in tempo, length not confirmed

The Facts: 2 by North made two, plus 110 for N/S. 1NT was 15-17 and 2 was natural. South admitted to a "pause" over the 1NT call. The Director was summoned after North's 2 call. After the hand was played in 2, the Director returned to the table and ruled pursuant to Law 12 that pass was a logical alternative to 2 with the North hand. He changed the contract to 1NT by East made four, plus 180 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North claimed that there was little if any break in tempo, given that South hesitates whenever it is his turn to bid. North stated that he could have bid 2 to show clubs and a second suit but did not do so because he feared his partner (who was marked with a good hand on the evidence available from the auction) might bid 2NT over 2. E/W, while not specifying the length of the alleged break in tempo, said South "crossed and uncrossed his legs", peered at his cards and finally passed. E/W noted that no other North had found a 2 bid.

The Committee Decision: The Committee members believed that a significant number of North's peers would not have bid 2. The contract was therefore changed to 1NT by East made four, plus 180 for E/W. The Committee would have preferred that South attend the hearing. The deposit was returned.

Chairperson: Bob Gookin
Committee Members: Karen Allison, Jan Cohen, Bruce Keidan, Eric Kokish