Case One Subject: Misinformation Event: NABC Open Pairs I, March 7, First Session   Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North WEST NORTH   A 8 5   Q 10 9 6 3   Q 9   9 7 3 EAST   K J   K J 2   10 7 5 4   A 10 6 4 SOUTH   Q 10 9 7 6   A 7   J 8 3   K 8 5   4 3 2   8 5 4   A K 6 2   Q J 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - Pass Pass 1 Pass 1 1 Pass 1) 1NT Pass Pass 2 All Pass 1) Alerted; N/S played support doubles; no explanation requested.

The Facts: 2 made two, plus 110 for N/S. South stated that their methods did not require that a support double be made with any hand that had three trumps.

Director's Ruling: The director ruled the table result would stand and that there had been no infraction.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling.

The N/S pair revealed to the Committee that they were not a regular partnership but they had agreed that the failure to double was either less than three-card support or three-card support with a terrible hand.

The Committee Decision: Since there was no evidence that South forgot their agreement (and that the Alert woke South up), the Committee accepted the N/S explanation of their agreement. Therefore, the failure to double was not a violation of the partnership agreement and there was no reason to conclude that the Alert procedure influenced the actions at all. The Committee thought South's bidding was more than aggressive, but that was not a reason to take the result away. Therefore, the table result 2 made two, plus 110 for N/S, was allowed to stand.

There was some discussion of the merit of the appeal. Some Committee members thought that E/W made an effort to win through the appeal process what they could have achieved at the table if West had simply bid 2. The prevailing opinion was that the appeal had merit since their opponents' agreement was more detailed than they had thought it may have been.

Chairperson:Mike Huston
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell, Carlyn Steiner, M. Rahtjen, Mary Beth Townsend

Case Two Subject: Disputed Claim Event: Charity KO, March 7, Morning Session   Board 2 N/S vul. Dealer West WEST NORTH   K Q 10 7 4   A 3   K J 10   A 8 7 EAST   -   10 9 8 6 4 2   A 7 6 2   K 4 2 SOUTH   A 9 8 6 3 2   J 7   9 5 4   Q 9   J 5   K Q 5   Q 8 3   J 10 6 5 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1 Pass 1NT Dbl Redbl Pass Pass 2 Pass Pass 3NT All Pass

The Facts: The opening lead was a heart that was won in the dummy with the ace. Declarer then played a low spade toward the jack. While West was thinking, declarer claimed, facing his hand. Law 68C states that a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards should be played. Here the declarer said he was going to win four spades, three hearts, two diamonds and one club (clearly an error) without stating a line of play. E/W immediately contested the claim.

Director's Ruling: The Director was called and ruled that the contract would be 3NT by South, down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. E/W pointed out that if declarer played a low spade at trick three, East would win the ace and play a heart. In the discussions between the players and the Director at the table, after all the players had faced their hands, declarer said he would play diamonds if the play took that course.

The Committee Decision: In the analysis of the hand, the Committee decided that the only way the contract could go down was if West discarded two minor suit cards on the spades and declarer cashed the third heart prior to playing diamonds. Declarer's statement that he would play diamonds if the defense played another heart after winning the A was deemed to be a new statement of play rather than an expansion of the existing line, and as such, was discounted.

Law 70D states that no successful line of play should be accepted after a claim if there is an alternate normal line of play that would be less successful. Normal is defined as including play that would be careless or inferior for the level of player involved, but not irrational. Here, since declarer did not state this winning line of play at the time of making the initial claim, the claim is considered a new claim and declarer is now to be held to a very high standard of care; if there is any possibility of a normal and unsuccessful line of play declarer would be considered to have made it. The Committee believed that this decision revolved solely around the issue of whether playing the third heart prior to playing diamonds was careless or inferior as opposed to irrational.

The Committee, after long deliberation unanimously decided that the play of the Q (the third round of hearts) prior to playing diamonds would be irrational for this declarer or his peers. The Committee changed the contract to 3NT made three, plus 600 for N/S.

Obviously this incident should never have occurred. The Committee strongly admonished South for making this claim regardless of any reasons he may have had such as attempting to speed up play. The Committee hopes that others will learn from this unnecessary fiasco and refrain from making unclear or unfounded claims, while realizing that this hope is wildly optimistic.

Chairperson: Ed Lazarus
Committee Members: Abby Heitner, Doug Heron, P. Lieberman, Barry Rigal

Case Three Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: NABC Open Pairs I, March 7, First Session   Board 5 N/S Dealer North WEST NORTH   8 5   10 6 2   K Q 10 7   A K 7 5 EAST   A 9 6   A 4   A 8 6 4 2   10 9 8 SOUTH   K J 10 7 4 2   Q J 9 8   5   Q 2   Q 3   K 7 5 3   J 9 3   J 6 4 3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - 1 1 Dbl 2 1) Pass 2 Pass Pass 2) 3 3 Pass 4 All Pass 1) Explained as "good" (constructive) raise with three trumps. 2) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 4 made four, plus 420 for E/W. East Alerted West's 2 bid and explained that it showed a "good" (constructive) raise with three pieces of trump. In fact, the bid, according to West and later confirmed by East, showed a limit raise or better with three-card support. West stated he did not think he was entitled to bid over 2 because of the unauthorized information that was present from partner's explanation. He admitted he had broken tempo to arrive at that conclusion. North, aware of the hesitation by West, felt justified (at matchpoints) to bid 3, vulnerable, even though his partner had taken no action over 2 (surely a questionable decision.) Now, when East, because of his extra trump competed to 3 ("The Law"), West thought he was now entitled to do what he really wanted to at his previous turn, bid again, this time by raising to four.

Director's Ruling: The Director decided that although North had chosen to ignore the break in tempo by bidding 3, he might have chosen to pass if he had been given the correct explanation. The Director changed the contract to 2 made four, plus 170 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. The N/S pair did not appear before the Committee; no explanation given. E/W, though experienced players and an experienced partnership, explained that they had recently added this 2 bid to their system, which accounted for East's misexplanation.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the misexplanation and inadequate agreement as to what in fact was a "good raise" influenced North's decision to bid 3. Though aware that West was clearly considering taking some action over 2, the Committee decided North was sufficiently damaged to entitle him to protection.

While the Director had changed the contract to 2 made four, plus 170 for E/W, the Committee was divided as to what the final contract should have been. Some thought that the Director's ruling was correct, others that both the 3 bid and 3 bid should be allowed. The Committee unanimously agreed that the 4 bid should not be allowed. Since E/W would receive plus 170 in either case and the matchpoint result would be the same, the Committee was unanimous in its decision to award E/W plus 170 and N/S minus 170.

The Committee decided that the appeal by E/W did not have substantial merit based on their admitted misexplanation and inadequate agreements as what constituted a "good raise". The $50 deposit was retained.

Chairperson: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Bob Glasson, Bruce Reeve, Gerald Seixas

Case Four Subject: Unauthorized Information Event: Stratified BAM Teams, March 8, Second Session   Board 26 Both vul. Dealer East WEST NORTH   K 10 8 3   A 7 5 2   A 2   A J 4 EAST   A Q 9 7 6 4   K 6 4   J 7 5   K SOUTH   J 2   Q 8   K Q 10 8   10 8 7 6 3   5   J 10 9 3   9 6 4 3   Q 9 5 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - Pass Pass 1 1NT Pass 1) Pass 2 Dbl All Pass 1) Alleged break in tempo.

The Facts: 2 doubled made three, plus 870 for E/W. After the 1NT call, East inquired about the range, counted her points again and decided to pass after a few seconds. The length of the pause was disputed. The players were sorting their cards on the next hand when N/S called the Director and stated that they believed West's 2 bid may have been suggested over other logical alternatives after the alleged break in tempo.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that West's 2 bid was a violation of Law 73F1 when pass was a logical alternative without the unauthorized information. The Director changed the contract to 1NT but since the result of that contract could not be determined, assigned N/S Average Plus and E/W Average Minus.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. N/S, an experienced pair (about 16,000 masterpoints between them) did not appear and no explanation of how they won only four tricks was presented. West was adamant that he would always bid 2. The Committee asked East what action she would have taken had she held the South hand and heard her partner open 1 and her RHO overcall 1NT. She stated that she would just pass and would not even inquire about the opponents' range. East also stated that she needed to know North's range in order to decide her appropriate action, but also admitted that she would still have passed even if she had been told that the 1NT call was a weak takeout of the 1 bid. E/W, a regular but not very experienced partnership (about 350 masterpoints between them) thought that N/S's double and misdefense were the causes of N/S's poor result.

The Committee Decision: The Committee assigned Average Plus to N/S and Average Minus to E/W. Unfortunately, E/W did not graciously accept the Committee's decision. (West had walked out after hearing the first few sentences of the decision.)

The Committee spent much time explaining its rationale and attempted to educate East. The time spent talking to East probably was a wasted effort. She remained unwilling to accept or unable to understand that her responses to the Committee's questions demonstrated that she had conveyed to her partner by her inquiry and tempo that she had some values and that it was this presence of unauthorized information that made West's reopening decision easier. She still believed she was being punished solely for a hesitation. The Committee attributed the E/W attitude to inexperience.

The Committee was greatly troubled by the timing of the Director call. The Committee believed the appropriate time to call the Director was immediately after the hesitation occurred so the facts could be established and the Director could disclose to E/W their ethical responsibilities. There was some discussion about allowing N/S to retain their minus 870 result. However, the Committee recognized that N/S was in a likely position to be plus 90 until the unauthorized information facilitated the 2 call. Once West bid 2, N/S's best possible result was minus 110. The Committee decided that N/S should not be saddled with a negative score when, but for unauthorized information, they may have obtained a plus score. Nevertheless, the scenario smacked of "double-shot" tactics.

Chairperson: Jon Brissman
Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Phil Brady, Rich Colker, Ed Lazarus

The Facts: 4 doubled made 5, plus 610 for N/S. The Director was called at the end of the auction and was told that N/S had paused for thought before the original pass in third seat.

The Director ruled that Law 16A2, which relates to unauthorized information, would disallow the double of 2 by South because North's 10 to 15 second hesitation made that action easier to find. The Director changed the result to Average Plus for N/S and Average Minus for E/W.

The Appeal: South contended that although North might have hesitated for 10 to 15 seconds before passing, this slowness was consistent with her normal tempo. However, when asked about North's tempo on subsequent rounds of bidding, South maintained that for the rest of the auction, everyone bid without noticeable pause. When questioned, North said that she was unaware of a noticeable hesitation (10 to 15 seconds at most) and that if her partner picked up on a hesitation she surely would not have bid. She further maintained that she never considered opening 2 (which would have been weak in their system) because their opening two bids are very disciplined.

E/W indicated that North's tempo on all other bids on this hand and on the companion board was not slow but quite normal. N/S have played regularly over a period years at North American tournaments and are experienced Flight A players.

The Committee Decision: The Committee was inclined to believe that there was a noticeable hesitation by North at her first opportunity to bid. Although N/S might have gotten into the auction even had South passed over 2, and although the double of 2 was a bid that many (perhaps most) Flight A players might make even without the hesitation, the Committee thought that the action was far from 100% and, therefore, could not be allowed.

If South had passed 2 there were many possible auctions: 2 all pass; game try by West and rejected by East with N/S never getting into the auction; game try by West and accepted by East with N/S never getting into the auction; North balancing with 3 followed by a competitive 3 bid by West and passed out; or North balancing with 3 followed by a competitive 3 bid by West and a 4 bid by South. Because it was virtually impossible to determine a most likely outcome and because the Committee decided that the E/W pair had not contributed to their own bad result by doubling 4. The result was changed to Average Plus for N/S and Average Minus for E/W.

Chair: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Bart Bramley, Mary Jane Farell, Doug Heron, Bruce Reeve

The Facts: 4 went down one, plus 50 for E/W.

Over the 4 bid, South broke tempo, pausing for 5 to 15 seconds after the Stop card was removed before passing. There was some dispute over the length of the hesitation.

The Director ruled that North's 4 call could have been based on unauthorized information (Law 16), but there was no damage as E/W were unlikely to make 4. The Director allowed the table result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling, maintaining that North's 4 bid could have been influenced by South's break in tempo and that West would have made 4 had she been allowed to declare that contract.

N/S stated that the hesitation was brief, basically an extension of the skip bid warning and did not convey any meaningful information to North.

The Committee Decision: The Committee determined that there was a break in tempo before South passed 4. The key issue was whether this pause indicated offensive rather than defensive values. There was a likelihood that E/W had a nine or ten-card heart fit (West had incorrectly sorted her hand and thought she had opened a five-card major).

North had excessive offensive values because she was six-four and held the 10. South was known to have some values (because of the preempt) and if South had only the J, North would not be more than down two. If South had two aces, North might make 4.

The Committee, therefore thought the 4 bid was clear-cut. The Committee changed the contract to 4 down one, plus 50 for E/W.

Chair: Rich Colker
Committee Members: Bruce Reeve, John Solodar

The Facts: 2 made three, plus 140 for E/W. South bid 1NT, announced as 12-14 HCP and after two passes East doubled to show a hand of at least the high-card strength of the 1NT bid. West, who had not heard the announcement, Alerted the double and without being asked volunteered that it showed a one-suited hand, the E/W agreement versus a 15-17 HCP 1NT opening. South redoubled as the start of some type of possible runout. West then bid 2 (unnecessarily in view of the redouble) to allow partner to bid his suit. East then bid 2. The Director was called after the hand was over by N/S.

The Director ruled that East had taken advantage of the unauthorized information from the Alert and awarded Average Plus to N/S and Average Minus to E/W.

The Appeal: Both E/W and N/S appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that he knew from the Alert and the volunteered explanation that his partner had not heard the announcement of the range of the 1NT bid. East stated he had every right to keep from being "shot in the foot" and elected to bid 2. N/S stated that they did not think Average Plus was an adequate result for them.

The Committee Decision: The Committee quickly decided there was no bridge reason for not passing partner's 2 call except for the unauthorized information available from the explanation of the Alert. East, in fact, had stated that was why he had bid 2. The Committee changed the contract to 2 down two, plus 100 for N/S.

It was emphasized to E/W that the Alert procedure was 100% for the benefit of the opponents and that they must never use this information in the subsequent bidding or play. A matchpoint procedural penalty, they were told, would have been applied in addition to the score adjustment except for the fact they seemed totally unaware of their responsibilities in these situations.

They were also advised it is good practice not to explain the meaning of an Alerted call until requested.

Chairperson: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Doug Doub, Bob Glasson, Abby Heitner

The Facts: 4 doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. There was a break in tempo before South doubled 4.

The Director ruled that pass was not a logical alternative for North and allowed the result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. N/S claimed that South's pause before the double was 8 to 10 seconds and E/W thought the pause was 30 seconds. E/W thought pass was a logical alternative for North.

The Committee Decision: The Committee went through several steps to decide this case. First was the length of the break in tempo. The Committee believed the actual break was somewhere between the two estimated times and decided there was a clear break in tempo before the double.

Next was whether the slow double had suggested one action would be more successful than another. The Committee agreed that the speed of the double made it clear that South was uncertain about the decision to double.

Finally, the Committee had to decide if pass was a logical alternative for North. A logical alternative is an action which some number of North's peers would seriously consider without the unauthorized information. The Committee unanimously decided that it was clear from North's initial actions that he was planning on bidding until he got doubled and never intended to defend at the four level. Had the auction continued to the five level things may have been viewed differently. The Committee agreed that passing 4 doubled was not a logical alternative and allowed the table result 4 doubled down one, plus 300 for E/W to stand.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig
Committee Members: Hugh Hillaker, Zeke Jabbour

The Facts: 5 doubled made five, plus 550 for N/S. 4 was Alerted and explained as an eight and one-half trick hand with hearts trump (N/S were playing Namyats). East, prior to his final pass, called the Director. The Director was recalled at the end of the play. The opening lead was the Q.

The Director awarded N/S Average Minus and E/W minus 550.

The Appeal: Both sides appealed the Director's ruling. N/S thought that West should have known what had happened and passed 4 for a good result. N/S stated they were aggressive preempters and that a hand did not exist that 4 could be bid naturally that had not bid some number of hearts earlier in the auction. South thought that this information with regard to opening style allowed him to act on what he thought was authorized information and bid 5.

West did not think that once 4 was passed to him that there was a likelihood that South would run from 4 doubled. West thought the double of 4 was a reasonable bid and that South should not be allowed to bid 5.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that South was in possession of unauthorized information from the Alert procedure. While the Committee had a great deal of sympathy with South's dilemma, it considered the statements South made about their aggressive bidding style to be self-serving and that there could have been some hands with long hearts that North may not have chosen to open. South had to act as if he had not heard partner's Alert.

The Committee decided that the final contract should have been 4 doubled. The Committee changed the contract to 4 doubled, down three, plus 500 for E/W - for the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity had not occurred and for the offending side the most unfavorable result that was at all probable (Law 12C2).

Since this was a National event, both sides were required to pay a deposit of $50 prior to the appeal. The Committee decided that both appeals had merit and both deposits were returned.

Chairperson: Rich Colker
Committee Members: Bruce Reeve, John Solodar

The Facts: 3NT made four, plus 430 for N/S. The Director was called after the opening lead of the 6, but waved away. The Director was again called at the end of the hand. The 2NT bid had not been Alerted and was intended to show the minors. SOUTH did not advise the opponents before the opening lead that he had intended his bid to show the minors. NORTH did not believe they had an agreement.

The Director ruled there had been no damage and allowed the result to stand because WEST had led fourth best from the suit he had opened and his partner had supported.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. WEST stated that if he had been properly informed about the N/S agreement the defense might have been different. N/S had only one completed convention card and their agreement was not on it.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided N/S had the agreement that 2NT showed the minors since SOUTH had stated he thought 2NT showed the minors. Therefore, SOUTH had the responsibility to inform his opponents that there had been a failure to Alert before the opening lead. The Committee decided that, in compliance with Law 12C2, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for N/S was to take nine tricks on the lead of the K and EAST ducking the first round of hearts. The most favorable result that was likely for E/W had the irregularity not occurred was that N/S would take ten tricks. The Committee changed the contract to 3NT made three, plus 400 for N/S and 3NT made four, minus 430 for E/W. In addition, N/S was assessed a one-quarter board procedural penalty.

Chairperson: Rich Colker
Committee Members: Ralph Cohen, Doug Heron, Steve Onderwyzer, Judy Randall

The Facts: 4NT made five, plus 460 for E/W. The Director was called because there was a break in tempo before EAST bid 4NT.

The Director ruled that there had been no use of unauthorized information and allowed the result to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. There was an agreed break in tempo before the 4NT bid. E/W have been playing together for about 20 years. This sequence had not occurred previously in their partnership. They play no special agreement for the forcing 1NT bid. Rarely does a 1NT bid have game-forcing values. 2NT over one of a major would be forcing and balanced and 3NT would be 15 to 16 balanced. 2NT after the reverse was forcing.

N/S contended that the break in tempo suggested bidding over 4NT was a logical alternative for WEST. N/S suggested the contract should be 5 down one, plus 50 for N/S.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the break in tempo did not suggest one action over another. Even if bidding was a logical alternative, the Committee agreed that pass was clear. The Committee allowed the table result, 4NT made five, plus 460 for E/W to stand.

The Committee found the appeal lacked substantial merit and thought the appeal was egregious. The Committee retained the $50 deposit and assessed a 5.5 matchpoint procedural penalty against N/S for abuse of the appeals process.

Chairperson: Mike Huston
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Mark Bartusek, Ed Lazarus, Bruce Reeve