1995 American International Team Trials
Las Vegas, Nevada

ITT Appeals
by Rich Colker

(North & East, South & West, were screenmates).

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

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

(1) Alerted, transfer to clubs.
(2) Natural, 4 diamonds, 6 clubs.
(3) Explained by East to North as a cuebid, by West to South as keycard.

North led the spade jack and the slam was made. After learning of the discrepancy in the information about the 4 bid, North called the Director, arguing that he might have led a heart had he known that 4 was not a cuebid. The Director (Patrias) ascertained that E-W's partnership agreement was that 4 was keycard and after deliberation with Moran, ruled that North might, given the correct information, have led a heart. They estimated the likelihood of that at about 30%. Correspondingly, they assigned each side 30% of the result that would have occurred following a heart lead (+100 to N-S) plus 70% of the result that would have occurred with any other lead (+1370 to E-W). This ruling was appealed by N-S.

The Committee (Chairman: Colker and Wolff), after hearing brief testimony from both sides, ruled that North had indeed been given misinformation as to the meaning of West's 4 bid. However, even with the correct information, the Committee believed that the spade jack would still have been the overwhelmingly likely lead. The result on the board was therefore adjusted to 90% of the result following a spade lead (+1370 to E-W) plus 10% of the result following a heart lead (+100 to N-S). The Committee also determined that E-W had committed convention disruption in an auction whose meaning they were responsible for knowing and representing accurately to their opponents. They were, therefore, assessed an additional 2 IMP procedural penalty for not knowing and explaining their convention adequately.

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

North	East	South	West
-	-	-	1
Pass	2	3	4
All Pass

Declarer ruffed the 9 of hearts lead, South playing the jack, and then played three rounds of diamonds ruffing with dummy's jack. (N-S followed up the line, South discarding the club 9.) Assuming N-S's carding was standard declarer then played South for the KQ of clubs and led a club to the jack. North won the queen and played his fourth diamond, South over ruffing dummy's 7, and returning a club to set the contract.

After learning that N-S were playing upside down carding West called the Director (Moran). West claimed that had he known that South's 9 of clubs discard had been discouraging he would have made his contract by ruffing a second heart and then end-playing North with the fourth diamond to score a second club for his tenth trick. After consultation (with Weinstein and Patrias) the Directors ruled that the result stood. However, N-S were penalized 1 VP for violating policy by not informing declarer of their carding methods when the opening lead was made. E-W appealed this ruling.

The Committee Chairman (Colker) interviewed the players involved. This was the fourth board of an eight board swiss match, and N-S had defended the previous board (#7). East, the declarer, had inquired before the opening lead (while the screen was down) and learned that N-S's carding was upside down, but this information was not known to West (although he did have the opportunity to observe the play and defense of the board). Also, had West inquired about the opening lead he would have learned that N-S led low from three small in partner's suit. Thus, North's lead of the 9 of hearts, by partnership agreement, signified at most a doubleton. And finally, when asked, West indicated that he thought South could have discarded the club 9 from KQ9x.

The Committee determined that N-S had been negligent in not informing BOTH opponents of their nonstandard carding agreements either before play in the match begun, or at their earliest opportunity on defense, and had thus violated regulations. They were consequently assessed a (nominal) 1 VP procedural penalty.

However, this technical violation does not automatically entitle E-W to receive redress, and there are two good reasons for denying it on the present deal. First, players at this level are expected to exercise reasonable precaution to protect themselves, such as by asking about the opponents' carding agreements when they become relevant to the play of a hand. (Especially when no information had previously been obtained regarding such agreements.) West was clearly negligent in this regard. Second, West made an assumption about the meaning of South's 9 of clubs discard which was suspect on the face of it, and inconsistent with what he needed South to hold for his line of play to succeed. If he had asked about the opening lead he would have found out that South must have held at least six hearts. Since South was known to have started with two diamonds, and the 9 of clubs couldn't reasonably have been discarded from less than a four card holding including the KQ (by West's own testimony), South would then be left with at most a singleton spade which would necessitate the loss of two trump tricks and doom the contract to defeat. Thus, West's line of play couldn't possibly have succeeded even if South held what he expected. The Committee therefore ruled that the result on the board stood for both pairs.

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

North	East	South	West
-	Pass	1*	1
Pass	1	2	3
Pass	3NT	Pass	4
All Pass

*Strong Artificial and Forcing

N-S had pre-alerted their carding as upside down, and South led the club ace (A from AK), 4, 6, 2. Declarer thought for some time before playing from dummy, and as he played his own card South informed him that this situation was an exception to N-S's upside down carding methods (North's 6 had been a standard signal). Declarer, who had intended his deuce to encourage South to continue clubs, was now prevented from playing the deceptive 9 (since the 2 was already on the table). However, the contract was made and the incident was dropped.

Following the teams' comparisons it was discovered that the E-W pair at the other table had been in 5 making (after South had bid diamonds and then shown clubs), and an overtrick at the first table would have made a 1 VP difference. At this point the Director (Moran) was summoned, and after consultation (with Weinstein and Patrias) ruled that the result stood. Based on the result from the other table, and with no further analysis, E-W appealed this ruling.

The Appeals Committee (Chairman: Colker; and Wolff) determined that N-S's team all played the same varied carding methods exactly as had been recommended to them by a top expert. Their normal practice was for the opening leader to inform declarer whenever an exception to their upside down methods arose, but to wait until third hand had played to the trick to avoid the possibility of transmitting unauthorized information to their own side. However, here South had (unfortunately) failed to provide the information in a sufficiently timely manner to help declarer.

The Committee also determined that N-S had failed to properly pre-alert their special carding exceptions, due to the variety of bidding-related pre-alerts and convention defense preparations which had occupied their attention during the pre-alert period. Although a laminated pre- alert card had been provided by N-S detailing on one side their carding methods and the exceptions, it had been left turned exclusively to the opposite side on which were summarized their bidding pre-alerts and suggested defenses.

While the Committee acknowledged N-S's good-faith efforts to do the ethically correct thing in carding exception situations, it pointed out that their informational methods were deficient in several respects. The crucial timing required to properly inform declarer was too delicate and error prone, as the current problem demonstrated. In addition, their procedure allowed declarer to form his plan of attack, play from dummy, see third hand's card, and only then was he given information about the exception. This could necessitate a re-analysis of the opponents' carding methods as well as of the card which declarer should play, but only when the card mattered (i.e. possible deception was involved). This would routinely disadvantage declarer by isolating his deliberations about the play from his own hand at trick one from his general deliberations before playing from dummy, and was clearly unacceptable.

In ruling on the present case the Committee allowed E-W to withdraw their request for a score adjustment after pointing out crucial differences between the situations at the two tables. The contract at the other table had been 5, not 4, and their auction had afforded them additional distributional information about the South hand. In addition, the defense had started with ace, king, and a third club making the play for five fairly routine. No line of play for the overtrick in 4 which didn't place the contract in considerable extra jeopardy appeared reasonable.

Regarding N-S, the Committee assessed a one-half VP procedural penalty for the problems created by their failure to inform their opponents in a timely and uncompromising manner of their carding exceptions. In addition, the team was required to discontinue the use of varied carding methods until an acceptable plan for informing the opponents of the exceptions was devised and approved. Other players at these trials using similar carding methods should recognize that they will be held to the same standards as those involved in this case.

It is suggested, at the minimum, that opponents need to be thoroughly familiarized with the existence and nature of any exceptions to players' general carding methods before the play on any stanza begins. In addition, the declarer's screen-mate might remind him of the exceptions before the screen is raised after the opening lead (perhaps simply by pointing to a pre-alert card), or, alternatively, the declarer could be informed of an exception by either defender once the lead has been made and dummy appears (when the combination of both is necessary to define the exception). AT THIS LEVEL OF PLAY it is probably reasonable to assume that players know their carding methods sufficiently so that any information conveyed by the defenders at trick one would primarily benefit declarer.

However, if a method of informing declarer could be devised which would not provide unauthorized information to the informer's partner on defense it would clearly be preferred. If you have a recommended solution or comment on the above suggestions, let me know about it as soon as possible. I will report any discussion of this issue, or potentially helpful ideas, here in the daily bulletin and in any future publication dealing with the appeals from these trials.

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

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

East led the Club Ace (playing A from AK), 9, 4, 5 (cards played to the trick) and shifted to the Spade 2, 9, 3, 5 (E-W playing standard carding). Declarer next led the Diamond 4, 2, 10, J, and East paused for thought. At this point North asked East for his convention card and looked at the opening lead/defensive carding section. East then led the Club 3, J, 6, 2, and declarer proceeded to make 4.

East later called the Director (Moran) claiming that North's asking for his convention card had disrupted his concentration, and that North's looking at the "opening lead" section of the card induced him to think that West, not North, held the club king. Until that time, he had intended to lead the club queen, but North's action induced him to lead small. The Director ruled that the score stood, and E-W appealed this ruling.

The Appeals Committee (Chairman: Colker) interviewed the players and determined the facts as reported above. The Committee ruled that even if East had led the club queen at the point in question, declarer would still have made the contract by normal play, given East's double of 2 and West's 1NT bid. The score at the table was allowed to stand

While technically players are supposed to wait until their turn to play before examining the opponents' convention card, or asking questions, in actual practice this procedure is rarely followed to the letter, given the extra time demands imposed by screens. The fact that East's convention card was not handy for his screen-mate to inspect as needed, made him at least partially responsible for the problem.

In addition, it was pointed out that East took his inference from North's inspection of the carding section of his convention card at his own risk. East's connection of North's action with the opening lead, several tricks earlier, was tenuous at best.

Finally, it was pointed out to East that he should be more careful in the future before filing appeals, especially when the protested action cannot realistically affect the outcome of the hand. East claimed that he was not good at away-from-the-table hand analysis, and had relied on one supplied by his teammates. For this reason the appeal was not judged to be frivolous.

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

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

(1) Strong, artificial and forcing
(2) Natural, positive
(3) East told North this was forcing (East's hand was still unlimited)
(4) Quantitative
(5) One ace (E-W responded aces when accepting a quantitative invitation)
(6) West told South this was "pick a contract;" East told North it asked for specific kings
(7) West told South this was an offer to play; East told North it showed the spade king

When dummy was tabled declarer peered under the screen and said something to his partner about being cold for 7NT; then immediately rescinded his statement and proceeded to play the hand. The opening lead of the diamond queen was won in dummy by the king (Q, K, 6 ,2). The 7 was then led to declarer's king of spades (7, 4, K, 5), and the 2 led toward dummy.

Having to make a critical pitch at this point, South discarded a diamond and the contract was made. When the conflicting information from the auction was discovered, the Director (Weinstein) was called.

South claimed, that East's statement about being cold for 7NT, had induced him to think that the contract was cold and that they were just defending for the overtrick. In addition, the information West had provided, about the auction (6 & 7 above), had led him to believe that East held four spades.

Not knowing what to pitch, and thinking the contract was cold in any event, South decided to retain his cards in E- W's suits and pitch a diamond. With two diamonds lower than his partner's 6 still out, and East known to hold at least five clubs and four spades, North figured to hold the diamond 10. South stated, that had he known that East's 6 bid had simply shown the spade king, he might have analyzed the situation differently and worked out to hold his diamonds. After consultation with the Director (Patrias), it was ruled that the result stood, and N-S appealed this ruling.

The Committee (Chairman: Colker; Kaplan, Rosenberg, Woolsey and Martel) determined that E-W had clearly divergent opinions about what the auction meant (beginning with East's 3NT call) and no partnership notes to document their agreements one way or the other. In such situations, the laws state that a misexplanation of any questioned bid should be assumed, rather than a misbid. It was therefore concluded that West had misinformed South as to the meaning of East's 6 bid.

The Committee then discussed whether this misinformation might have damaged South. It was felt that South would have had a greater chance of defending successfully had he been properly informed of the meaning of East's 6 bid. In fact, several Committee members felt that the diamond discard was clearly the best defense GIVEN THE MISINFORMATION. It was therefore concluded that South had been damaged by the misinformation.

Finally, the Committee adjusted the result for both sides to 6 down one (+50 to N-S; -50 to E-W), E-W because of the misinformation and their failure to correct it, and N-S because of the chance that South might have defended better without the misinformation.

E-W were informed of their obligation to correct any misinformation given during the auction. East knew, when he was unexpectedly dropped in his "king of spades cuebid," that misinformation was possible (likely!) on the other side of the screen. It was therefore incumbent upon him to inquire about and correct the situation at the end of the auction, before the opening lead. In other words, even behind screens, East had sufficient clues to have avoided the problem and was obligated by law to do so.

While South might have had clues that something was wrong with E-W's auction, it was proper for him to act on the information (confidently) provided by West in order to preserve his right to be protected from damage.