1996 USA ITT - Appeals

ITT APPEALS

Central to our thinking is the concept of Active Ethics: was a player trying to do the ethically proper thing at the table. In other words, was the player's "heart in the right place." To be Actively Ethical is the expected norm - not the admired exception.

We consider the filing of an appeal to be a serious matter, reflecting a belief on the part of the appellants in the rightness of their cause. It is not an action to be undertaken lightly or capriciously, in the hopes that some possible advantage may be gained. Consistent with this belief any appeal, once filed, may be heard, at the discretion of the Directors or the Appeals Committee, even if an attempt is made later to withdraw it due to the state of the match. The players and teams involved will thus remain liable for possible penalties and/or score adjustments.

Partnerships are expected to know their system, conventions and treatments as they apply in all reasonably foreseeable situations, and to properly Alert and disclose them to their opponents. Failure to do so will result in warnings and possible procedural penalties. Repeated infractions will be subject to more severe penalties including, but not limited to, barring the players from using the offending methods for the duration of these trials.

Players using either special carding or unusual or obstructive bidding agreements have a special ethical responsibility to make sure that their opponents aren't disadvantaged by the lack of full disclosure or improper tempo variations in either the bidding or the play. Violations will be dealt with especially harshly.

The ITT Appeals Committee hopes that everyone enjoys these trials, and that the bridge is rewarding and congenial. We look forward to seeing and greeting all of you socially or at the bridge table, but not in an appeal session. The best of luck to all.

Rich Colker, ITT Appeals

Appeals Case One

Board 12 N-S Dealer W WEST	NORTH   K Q J 9 4   7 4 3   4   J 8 6 4	EAST
10 8   J 10 9 6 2   A Q 9 6 5   Q	SOUTH	7 6 3 2   K   K J 10 8 7   A K 3
	A 5   A Q 8 5   3 2   10 9 7 5 2

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

(1) West told South fit-showing (correct); East told North majors (incorrect)

Result: 5 made five, plus 400 to E-W

Director's Ruling: North called the Director when dummy appeared, and stated when asked (privately) that he might have bid 2 over 2 had he been properly informed of the 2 bid's meaning. Had E-W then arrived at 5, South would have led ace and another spade defeating the contract. The Director adjusted the score to 5 by E-W down one, plus 50 to N-S. E-W appealed.

Committee's Decision: The Committee determined that, although 2 by North might not have been the choice of some players, enough would have chosen it to make it a reasonable action. And while it was not possible to say exactly how the auction would have continued after 2, it was again reasonable that E-W might have reached 5. E-W were therefore assigned the score for 5 down one (minus 50), as prescribed by Law 12C2 . The same result was also judged sufficiently likely to assign N-S the reciprocal result of 5 down one (plus 50).

Appeals Case Two

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

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

(1) Explained by North to East as a Jacoby-like spade raise, later corrected to "natural" after the bidding tray had been passed under the screen to S-W; explained by South to West as natural

(2) Heart raise with diamond values (lead directing)

Result: East won the 6 lead and, not wanting to get tapped out if he drew trump and the K was offside, played a heart toward dummy. The defense subsequently obtained a heart ruff to beat 4 one trick, minus 50 to E-W.

Director's Ruling: The Director was called to the table when North corrected his explanation of 2NT. However, by then the bidding tray had already been returned to the N-E side of the screen with South's pass and West's 4 bid, so it was too late to back up the auction to 2NT. East told the Director that he would have bid 3 over 2NT if he had known that West thought that 2NT was natural (3 would then not have shown a heart fit). Had this happened, East contended that West would simply have bid 4 (which was cold). The Director adjusted the score to 4 by E-W made four, plus 420 to E-W.

Committee's Decision: The Committee members were nearly unanimous in their opinion that East was largely responsible for his side's poor result by not correcting 4 to 4. This figured to play as well or better than 4, since West could have held only three-card support for his raise of East's (presumed) non-forcing 3 bid. Some Committee members also questioned East's claim that he would have bid 3 over 2NT (rather than pass) had the misexplanation been corrected in time. Although there was no consensus on what score to assign E-W (the likely contract was too difficult to determine), no Committee member felt that E-W should be allowed 4. It was finally decided to assign both sides the score for 4 down one (N-S plus 50, E-W minus 50), but to further assess a 3 imp procedural penalty against N-S for North's failure to properly explain the meaning of 2NT to his screenmate.

Appeals Case Three

Board 7 Both Vul Dealer S WEST	NORTH   2   A K J 6   A Q 7 5 3 2   J 3	EAST
Q J 10 7 6   Q 8   8   A Q 7 4 2	SOUTH	9 4 3   10 9 3 2   K 6   K 10 6 5
	A K 8 5   7 5 4   J 10 9 4   9 8

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

(1) Not Alerted or explained on the N-E side of the screen; South pointed to his 3 bid after placing it on the tray to indicate an Alert, but West did not notice this action

Result: East led a spade and 5 made five, plus 600 to N-S.

Director's Ruling: This was the penultimate board of the segment. East learned from West after the score comparison that West had asked about South's 3 bid and was told that it was artificial. E-W then approached the Director, stating that had East been informed that South's 3 bid was not natural he would have been more likely to have led a club against 5 and defeated the contract. After due consideration and consultation the Director determined that N-S had, in fact, failed to properly Alert and explain the meaning of 3. However, the Director also judged that the effect of this infraction (for this E-W pair, at this level of play) was not sufficient to warrant an adjusted score. The ACBL Alert procedures state that "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." It was felt that the use of 3 as an artificial bid in this sequence was a common enough practice that East should have suspected, or been aware of, its possible meaning, and could have inquired about it. The Director ruled that the table result would stand for both pairs.

Committee's Decision: The Committee heard testimony from the four players at the table. South stated that when he placed his 3 bid on the tray he pointed to it to inform West that it was not natural. He then began pushing the tray under the screen, believing that West had passed. West, noticing the tray's movement but not South's attempted Alert (pointing), rushed to halt the tray's movement as he had not made his bid yet. South then volunteered the additional information to West that 3 denied five spades. West subsequently passed and the auction continued. North testified that he did not Alert South's 3 bid, nor did he offer East any explanation of its meaning.

East testified that he had no reason to believe that 3 was anything other than natural, since it hadn't been Alerted, and since it was played as natural both in his partnership and in most others that he was familiar with. Torn between leads in either black suit, and although he still considered the club lead attractive, he finally decided on a spade lead. When asked why he hadn't asked about the 3 bid's meaning East replied that he did not want to ask a question which might reveal his thought processes to declarer. When asked why he hadn't doubled 3 for the lead (since South had told him that 3 had merely denied five spades) West replied that he didn't interpret South's explanation to mean that the bid had been artificial, that he didn't think that his clubs were good enough to double the presumedly natural bid (he said that he would have needed at least AQ10xx), and that if N-S were headed for 3NT he would rather his partner led a spade than a club.

After evaluating all of the evidence and the testimony the Committee reached several conclusions. First, N-S failed to properly implement the Alert procedure in that, (1) South failed to make sure that West, his screenmate, was aware of his Alert ("pointing to his 3 bid card"), and (2) North failed to either Alert or explain South's Alertable 3 bid to his screenmate, East. Second, N-S may have obtained an advantage on the hand because of their infractions to which they were not entitled. The Committee therefore adjusted their result to 5 down one, minus 100 to N-S. Third, while E-W may have been slightly disadvantaged by N-S's infractions, the Committee (like the Director) did not feel that this made the club lead substantially more attractive than it already was. E-W were therefore assigned the result for 5 made five, minus 600 to E-W.

According to Law 86B (Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play) the Committee directed that the scores assigned to each pair be imped against their respective teammates' results at the other table, and the imps thus arrived at averaged to determine the final result on the board for both teams. The Committee also assessed an additional 3 imp procedural penalty against N-S for their failure to follow the proper Alert procedure, and the problems which this created.

Appeals Case Four

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

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

(1) Drury (invitational spade raise)

Result: North led the 4 (low from odd). After studying the dummy for some time declarer (West) called for a low diamond, South played the ace, and declarer detached a card from his hand (the 10) and then paused, holding it unexposed and motionless in front of him, for (perhaps) two seconds while he contemplated . . . something . . . and then played the card. South, believing that a diamond return at trick two would be safe if declarer held three of them and necessary if he held five of them (partner having led a singleton), and convinced from the tempo of declarer s play to trick one that he couldn t hold a singleton, returned a diamond, thus insuring declarer's contract (plus 620 to E-W). The director was called at the end of play.

Director's Ruling: After determining the facts as described above, and following consultation, the Director carefully reviewed the Law most directly relevant to his ruling. Law 73F2 states that two conditions must be met before the Director should adjust the score in such a situation. First, the action in question must be judged deceptive in nature. Second, the Director must determine that the player who committed that action could have known at the time that the deception could work to his benefit. While the second condition was clearly met, the Director felt that the first condition was questionable. In his judgment declarer's act of detaching the 10 from his hand, holding it in a position appropriate for a card about to be played, making no motion to retract it or to otherwise suggest that its play was ever in doubt, but merely pausing a few moments before placing it on the table (arguably) did not constitute a deceptive action. South's inference was thus primarily of his own making rather than having been induced by declarer s action. The Director therefore ruled that the table result (4 making, plus 620 to E-W) would stand. N-S appealed this ruling.

Committee s Decision: The Committee heard testimony from South and West. Although there were some minorpoints of disagreement, there was general consensus that, after South played to trick one, declarer did detach a card from his hand and then pause, holding it motionless above the table for a moment before placing it on the table. When asked what he had been thinking about during the pause West could not say precisely, except that it had been a last- moment reflection on what he would do on the subsequent trick, and had nothing to do with his play to trick one. South then testified that he recognized, when considering what to play to trick two, that any play could be dangerous. He reasoned that it would be necessary to give partner a ruff if he had led a singleton, and safe to play a diamond if they were (originally) 3-3-3-4, but that a diamond return could be dangerous if West had started with a singleton. This possibility, however, seemed unlikely given Declarer's hesitation at trick one. In the final analysis, it was the hesitation which convinced him that the diamond return was his best play.

The Committee, like the Director, came to the immediate (and unanimous) conclusion that West's hesitation had been inadvertent, and not intended in any way to deceive N-S. Since the Laws do not require intent on West's part to afford N-S redress, that still left open the question of whether the hesitation itself had deceptive value, and whether declarer could have known at the time that it could work to his benefit. Clearly the latter was true, given the level of the player involved. Also, like the Director, the Committee was divided (even conflicted) about whether the hesitation had deceptive value. Some members felt that South should never pay attention, or give credence, to how declarer played his card at trick one, and did so at his own risk. In addition, it was pointed out that West's card, if from length, would have required no thought (since it would have been selected from among equals) and, in fact, it would have been to West's distinct disadvantage not to play the card in tempo if it had been from a five-card holding. Certainly a player of South's calibre should have worked this out. Others on the Committee felt that West s action could have planted a seed in South s mind that might have been hard to ignore. Given the uncertainty surrounding South s proper continuation at trick two, the hesitation could have increased the likelihood of the diamond return by some reasonable amount.

After much discussion it was decided to afford N-S some partial protection against the possibility of their having been damaged. Even without West s hesitation a diamond return by South was a distinct possibility, and even on a non-diamond return the contract could still have been made. Although space considerations prevent the presentation of a detailed analysis here, the Committee judged the likelihood of the contract making (had there not been a hesitation by West) at about 60%. The Committee therefore assigned the N-S team 60% of the IMPs they would have received for 4 making (minus 620, imped against the result at the other table), and 40% of the IMPs they would have received for defeating 4 one trick (plus 100, IMPed against the other table).

The adjudication of this case requires two additional comments. First, West's action, although clearly not intentional, was improper. Players should make every effort to play their cards in proper tempo, and should refrain from detaching cards from their hand prematurely. The fact that the card in question was a singleton only made the action that much more unfortunate, especially given the level of the player involved. Second, South's action, predicated as it was on West's tempo, was not without risk. The fact that some protection was afforded the South player here should not be taken to indicate that future Committees will entertain such appeals favorably. The disposition of this case very much depended on the identities of both of the participants involved, and the Committee would have much preferred had this case not been brought to appeal. Put another way, South's appeal considered in isolation could easily have been viewed, under slightly altered conditions, as being of questionable merit (again, for the level of player involved).

Appeals Case Five

Board 48 E-W Dealer W WEST	NORTH   A Q J 7 4   7 6 2   7 2   Q 7 5	EAST
9 5 3 2   A K Q 9 4   J 4   A 4	SOUTH	K 10 8   J 10   A Q 10 6 5   9 8 6
	6   8 5 3   K 9 8 3   K J 10 3 2

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

(1) After asking for an explanation of the previous E-W bids. South was told that 2 showed 9+ HCP, that 2 was non-forcing, and (incorrectly) that 3 was forcing

Result: North led the 5 and 4 made four, plus 620 to E-W.

Director's Ruling: After the hand South called the Director, stating that he had been misinformed about the meanings of E-W's bids, and would have doubled 4 (to encourage a spade lead from North) had he been properly informed that E-W were "stretching" to bid the game, rather than probing for slam. The Directors decided that a double with the South hand was questionable, as was the lead that North might then have chosen (only the spade lead beats the contract) even had South doubled. They ruled that the result at the table would therefore stand.

Committee's Decision: N-S testified that they regularly made speculative doubles of the sort suggested here on the theory that the occasional cost of the double when the contract made was more than offset by the gain when the contract went down (often extra tricks, when declarer took an unusual line of play because of the double), or when partner altered his normal lead because of the double to make the only one to set the contract. In their partnership, such a double usually showed shortness in partner's bid suit or values in dummy's suit. South stated that he asked about the meanings of E-W's bids after East's 3 bid because he was anticipating doubling 4 if E-W were about to stretch to a thin game, and wanted to ask at a time that would give E-W less information than if he asked at the end of the auction. However, the (false) information that East's 3 bid was forcing deterred him from doubling, since E-W had apparently been probing for slam. North stated that West's club cuebid, together with his heart rebid and failure to bid notrump, suggested that West probably wouldn't hold the K and increased the likelihood that he (North) would have led the A.

Although South recognized that he had been misinformed when dummy first appeared, he refrained from calling the Director until the hand was over because he didn't want to provide his partner with possible unauthorized information during the defense. (And calling the Director required a phone call, or leaving the room.)

West admitted that he had forgotten his partnership agreement, and thus misinformed South. East then testified that a double with the South hand was not only highly unusual, but that finding the correct lead with the North hand was also problematic.

The Committee, after heated discussion (no casualties--only two squad cars), decided that double with the South hand was too unusual an action to warrant adjusting the score. The question asked by South earlier in the auction did suggest that he could have been considering some action, but it did not demonstrate his intent with sufficient certainty. This, together with the extremely unusual nature of the double with the South cards (some Committee members considered it "impossible") and the uncertainty associated with North's lead even if the double were to be allowed all argued against a score adjustment. The result at the table (4 made four, plus 620 to E-W) was therefore allowed to stand.

The Committee also determined that E-W had violated Laws 75 (the Proprieties) and 40C by failing to properly disclose their partnership agreements to their opponents. The present auction was a common enough one to consider E-W's violation serious, especially at this level of play. E-W were therefore assessed a 3-IMP procedural penalty for the problems created by their infraction.

Appeals Case Six

Board 20 both Dealer W WEST	NORTH   K Q 9 6   Q 10 9   9 6   A 10 8 7	EAST
10 8   J 2   A K 7 4   K 9 4 3 2	SOUTH	3   8 6   Q J 10 8 5 3 2   Q 6 5
	A J 7 5 4 2   A K 7 5 4 3   - - -   J

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

(1) West told South (in writing) that his 1NT bid was undiscussed, and that he wasn't sure how his partner (East) would take it. In some other (possibly) analogous auctions a similar bid could be any two of the three unbid suits, so this was not, by definition, minors. East was asked by North what 1NT meant, and he responded by shrugging his shoulders and saying "undiscussed." North then asked, "presumably the minors?" to which North again shrugged.

(2) At this point, before making his bid, South took East (his non-screenmate) away from the table and asked him what he had told North about West's 1NT bid. East said that he had told North that the bid was undiscussed, but then volunteered to South the information that North had clearly intended his 2 bid as a good spade raise.

Result: 7 doubled went down four, plus 1100 to N-S.

Director's Ruling: The Director was called at the end of the session, after the score comparison. The sequence of events which had occurred at the table was recreated by both pairs. The Directors determined that E-W had given N-S the proper information as to their agreements (that they had none about 1NT in this auction), and had properly refrained from implying that 1NT had been specifically for the minors when other two-suited holdings might have been possible. In addition, South's actions following East's 5 and 7 bids were questionable. The Directors therefore ruled that the score at the table would stand. N-S appealed this ruling.

Committee's Decision: N-S's and E-W's testimony confirmed the information presented in footnotes (1) and (2) to the auction, above. In addition, South stated that he was not sure of E-W's legal obligations in this situation, but thought that it might be illegal (or improper) for them not to have an agreement about this auction, or that it might have been proper for West to have told him what he had intended his 1NT bid to show. South was quick to admit that his actions at the end of the auction were quite poor (especially his final double), but said that he was simply trying to make the most practical bids in the face of uncertain information. He did not want to make a 6 cuebid over East's 5, for example, if his partner might possibly take it as natural (since North's 2 would have been natural had he been told that 1NT showed any two suits, not necessarily the minors). Had he (South) known at his second turn to call (after East's 3 bid) that North's 2 had been intended as a spade raise he would have bid exclusion Blackwood immediately, and the problem he later faced in the auction would never have occurred. North stated that when he asked East about the meaning of 1NT and got a shrug, and then said "presumably the minors," he understood East's second reply as confirming that his "minors" interpretation was appropriate. East did not specifically remember North's second question, or his own reply, but believed that he had done nothing more than shrug to all of North's queries, and certainly never intended to imply a confirmation to the "minors" interpretation.

E-W were questioned carefully about their agreements. Both reaffirmed that 1NT in this auction had never been discussed, nor had it ever come up before to the best of both of their recollections. Both thought that 1NT could have shown any two suits, since other similar auctions (such as Pass - Pass - 2 - Pass, Pass - 2NT and Pass - 1 - Pass - 2, 2NT) would have shown any two suits. In fact, in the actual auction West stated that he would have made the same 1NT bid had he held four hearts and five clubs. West thought that he had clearly informed South (1) that this auction was undiscussed in E-W's partnership, (2) that he (West) did not know how East would interpret his bid, and (3) that the basis for East's possible confusion came from the other "similar" auctions which could have shown any two unbid suits (not just the minors). Further, West felt that he was not obligated to inform South what his actual holding was, but rather only what information was available to his partnership from their agreements and past experience. East felt that he had tried his best not to mislead either opponent by consistently asserting that the auction was undiscussed, and that he wasn't sure how to take the 1NT bid. He felt that he went beyond his obligations in disclosing to South (after his own 5 bid) that North's 2 call had been intended as a good hand with spade support. Both E-W players felt that South's continuation over 5 placed any N-S claim for protection in serious doubt.

The majority of the Committee believed that E-W had done everything that they were obligated to do, and more, to inform N-S of their agreements relating to West's 1NT bid and to protect N-S from possible misinformation. The Committee determined, and the Directors confirmed, that West's 1NT bid was definitely not Alertable (it was, in essence, self-Alerting). They also believed that E-W had accurately characterized their partnership agreements (the auction was "undiscussed"), appropriately disclosed the fact that West could not be sure how East would interpret the bid, and described the basis for this uncertainty (that other similar auctions were played as showing any two unbid suits). It seemed probable to most Committee members that North had misinterpreted East's response to his inquiries as confirming that West presumably held the minors. In essence, it seemed that North saw East's reluctance to confirm that West probably had the minors as reflecting (appropriate) caution due to E-W's lack of explicit discussion, but that minors was the only plausible interpretation of the bid's meaning, when in fact East's reluctance was based on the possibility that West could have had two-suited holdings other than the minors. This interpretation on North's part seemed to be of his own device, and was not seen by most of the Committee members as directly attributable to anything that East said or did.

West was certainly in no way obligated to divulge his actual holding to South, and to do so might have further compromised his side's rights in the auction since his partner would almost certainly then be giving North different information on the other side of the screen. Had West, for example, told South that 1NT, although undiscussed, implied the minors, and had East told North that West might hold any two suits (as he believed), then E-W would have been in greater jeopardy because of the differing explanations. The Law would have required the Committee to assume that there had been a misexplanation rather than a misbid. Or, to take another example, if East had told North that West probably held the minors (as he might well have assumed, in the absence of any discussion), and if West had actually had held four hearts and five clubs (which, as he testified, he would have made the same bid with), then again E-W would have been clearly responsible for misinformation. The only proper thing for E-W to do in this situation was to do exactly as they did--to clearly and accurately characterize their lack of discussion or experience with the bid, and to suggest what other of their partnership methods might shed some light on the bid's possible interpretations.

The Committee decided, unanimously, that the result at the table (7 doubled down four, plus 1100 to N-S) would stand. When this decision was delivered to E-W they informed the Committee that they had now had a firm agreement on the meaning of 1NT bids in auctions such as the present one.

ITT APPEALS: IN CLOSING

A number of people have asked about the details of the appeals procedure. The first two cases, occurring as they did on the first day of play, were given to a number of expert players (most of whom had not yet begun their play in the event) for blind review. No names of the players involved in these cases were disclosed to the Committee members (including myself). The Committee members were interviewed, and their opinions solicited, in small groups (one or two at a time) due to logistical problems which prevented normal hearings early in the trials. I then made the final decision, using the experts' input to guide me, and I assume full responsibility for those decisions.

I must stress that this procedure was followed only due to the special circumstances surrounding these trials. I have not in the past, nor do I now, recommend or advocate the use of one-man Committees--even when I am the one! I do, however, strongly recommend the blindfold approach that was used here as the first step in any appeal hearing. It can prove of great value in fostering an objective and impartial deliberation process.

Beginning with the third case, appeals were heard in the usual way, with the players involved giving testimony before a Committee whose members were chosen from players who had already been eliminated from the event, or from qualified players not entered in the trials but who were available at the site to serve. Many of these cases were quite demanding and time consuming, and I wish to offer my sincere thanks to all of the players who donated their service on these Committees (many of whom served on more than one of them). In no case was a decision reached without extensive and thorough deliberation as to its consequences and implications, not only for the event being contested, but for the good of bridge in general. In some cases deliberations lasted for hours, and some decisions were such that no possible resolution was completely acceptable to any of us who served (and will perhaps seem even more questionable to those reading them, without the benefit of having participated in the decision making process). Please rest assured that every effort was made to consider the acceptability of each decision from every possible perspective. If a less-than-satisfactory decision seems to have been rendered on any case it was (we believe) because no better resolution was possible, and not because of any lack of will or effort on the part of the Committee members to seek a better resolution.

While I tried in these writeups to convey the facts that were presented to us in each case as completely and accurately as possible, and the sentiments of the Committee members (including those who formed minority opinions), time and space limitations made this a difficult process at best. I will personally be happy in the future to discuss any of these cases (or those from NABCs) with anyone interested, in whatever forum is available, subject to other demands on my time.

Finally, I would again like to add my personal thanks to all of the players who served on cases in this event. They were, in alphabetical order, Karen Allison, Bart Bramley, Dennis Clerkin, Russ Ekeblad, Barry Goren, Chip Martel, Dan Morse, Jeff Polisner, Jim Robison, Danny Rotman, Ron Sukoneck, John Sutherlin, Bobby Wolff, and Kit Woolsey.

Richard Colker , ITT Appeals