Subject: Tempo.
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, first session, August 2

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

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

(1) break in tempo

Result: 4 by North, making six, plus 170 for N/S.

Facts: The director was summoned immediately following the alleged hesitation by North and determined that the break in tempo was "not as long as 30 seconds" (according to North) . . . possibly 10-15 seconds. The Director adjusted the score to 3 doubled by West, made three, plus 470 for E/W.

The appeal: N/S appealed, disputing the notion that there had been a "major" break in tempo before the double, or "any significant hesitation" (according to North). North acknowledged in her testimony that she had a problem and stated that she did not "take long enough" to solve her problem. The table director appeared before the committee to resolve the dispute over the length of North's break in tempo and it was confirmed that the initial finding was correct.

The committee determined that N/S were both experienced players, that there had been a significant break in tempo, and that the break in tempo suggested that it would often be better for South to bid than to pass. The committee considered the possibility that North's double was cooperative rather than penalty, an argument not made by the appellants. There was no evidence to suggest that this might be so.

The committee's decision: The Committee was unanimous in upholding the director's ruling: 3 doubled by West, making three, plus 470 for E/W.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig
Committee members: John Solodar, Mike Huston

Subject: Unauthorized Information.
Event: Life Master Pairs, 2nd qualifying, August 2

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

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

(1) Alerted by East, but not explained since neither North nor South requested clarification.

Result: 3 doubled by North, down two, plus 300 for E/W.

Facts: After East Alerted West's 2 and took out to 2, South doubled for penalty. West, who had heard East's Alert, retreated to 3. North asked no questions about West's 2 or 3 and competed with a natural 3, counting on South for spade length for his penalty double of 2. East doubled and North went down two for a 300-point set. The Director determined that West had received unauthorized information from East and relied on this information when she escaped to 3.

The Director ruled that for E/W, West's 3 bid would be canceled and E/W would be awarded the score for 2 doubled: minus 300. For N/S, however, the Director ruled that the table result would stand: 3 doubled: minus 300.

North was aware (he examined the E/W convention card after West bid 3 and drew the right conclusion) when West bid 3 that she did not have the hand that her partner had described, but he elected to bid 3 nonetheless. He took his chances that South would have the support (for his double of 2) required to make 3 a good contract. In so doing, he had relinquished his right to redress for damage accruing to N/S from West's infraction.

The appeal: North appealed, claiming he was put in the position of deciding whether or not to bid 3 by a call that was later deemed by the directing staff to have taken advantage of unauthorized information from East's Alert. To say that N/S should be given the score for 3 doubled is to say that North's 3 call was completely unreasonable. With a full maximum, very good spades and a well-placed club holding, 3 is a clear cut action.

The committee's decision: East Alerted West's 2 bid but no questions were asked. The E/W convention card indicated that 2 was takeout for the majors, with better clubs than diamonds. North testified that he knew when West bid 3 she had forgotten their methods. He believed that West was an inexperienced player while he knew East to be a top-flight player (in fact, East has more than 10,000 masterpoints).

South testified that the double of 2 was for penalty, not a "values" double. North stated that he was attempting to be ethical when he bid 3. He assumed that if the Director were called, he would instruct that play continue and that an adjustment would be made later if appropriate. He thought that if West had committed an infraction, he shouldn't have had to face this problem.

North felt that West had long clubs and figured to be minus 100 in 3 doubled, while his side could make at least 140 in spades. The committee considered that West had dealt and passed non-vulnerable and so was unlikely to hold very long clubs. North had failed to call the director over 3, and South had made a penalty double of 2 with an unusual hand (an action that had given North the wrong impression of his hand).

The committee determined the damage to N/S was caused not by the E/W infraction but rather by N/S's actions. Although the Committee members: were somewhat sympathetic to North's problems, the committee decided by a 2-1 vote that the N/S score would be 3 doubled, two down, minus 300.

Chairperson: Peggy Sutherlin
Committee members: Abby Heitner, Carlyn Steiner

Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Pairs, 1st qualifying, August 2

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

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

(1) pronounced break in tempo.

Result: 2NT by West, making two; plus 120 for E/W.

Facts: East bid 2 after considerable thought (about 12 seconds) and West converted to 2NT. North led a small club. Declarer won in hand and led a low diamond toward the jack. North played low and the jack won. Declarer took a spade finesse and was able to build a heart winner, South having no direct link to North's winners before declarer could come to eight tricks.

The Director was called after the play had been completed. The Director ruled that West's 2NT was an action that might have been suggested over other logical alternatives (pass and 3) by East's break in tempo (Law 73F1). He canceled West's 2NT bid and assigned E/W an adjusted score of minus 50, the likely result in a contract of 2.

Although it was possible to assign N/S plus 50 on the same basis, the Director (pursuant to ACBL regulations) ruled that N/S could easily have been plus 100 against 2NT after the actual club lead (if North had taken the K, cashed clubs for one down, and then led a heart to the ace), and therefore awarded them the result achieved at the table: minus 120.

The appeal: N/S appealed, claiming that North's duck of the K could not lose if West had two or three spades, and would gain if South held the Q. Although playing the K would ensure a one-trick set, at pairs it might have been important to extract the maximum on defense. North's play, while perhaps not best, was certainly not unreasonable under the circumstances, and was not sufficiently bad to deprive N/S of the right to redress. E/W had also appealed the Director's decision, but withdrew their appeal before the committee convened.

The committee's decision: The committee first considered the question of unauthorized information. They agreed with the Directors that the slow 2 bid suggested that it would be more successful for West to bid 2NT than to pass (without reference to the prospects for 3 as an alternative). Thus, West's 2NT would not be allowed and E/W would be assigned minus 50, the most probable result in 2.

For N/S, the question before the committee was whether North's play was sufficiently egregious to deprive N/S of the benefit of an adjusted score. Although some committee members felt the duck might be wrong, there was general agreement that it would not allow the contract to be made and might gain. From North's vantage point, West was unlikely to hold four spades or a 20-count (2NT=20+-22 HCP).

Given that North's defense was not irrational, N/S were entitled to redress under Law 12C2, with the non-offending side to be assigned the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, Therefore, N/S were assigned plus 50 also, the likely result in 2. E/W were advised about their responsibilities when unauthorized information was made available to them, and the notion of "logical alternative" was explained fully.

Chairperson: Howard Weinstein
Committee members: Ralph Cohen, Mary Jane Farell, Bill Passell, Eric Kokish

Subject: Is that how we play it?
Event: Life Master Pairs, 2nd qualifying, August 2

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Pass	1NT(15-17)	Pass	Pass
Dbl(1)	Pass	2(2)	Pass
Pass	Dbl	Pass	Pass
2	Dbl	All Pass

(1) Both majors, or clubs, or diamonds.
(2) Semi-forced.

Result: 2 doubled by West, down two, plus 300 for N/S.

Facts: West asked South for his partnership agreement on North's double of 2. South said that North's double was for penalty. In fact, they had not discussed this type of auction. South maintained that they have a principle that would make this a penalty double. The directors did not feel that the information received by West significantly affected West's decision to bid 2 and ruled that the table result would stand: N/S plus 300.

The appeal: E/W appealed. West claimed that he ran from 2 doubled because on the information he had been given, trumps figured to be stacked behind him. In his estimation, 2 doubled would not have been two down.

The committee's decision: West was the only player at the table to appear before the committee. He stated that it was not his style to run out in such situations, but here he bid 2 when he was told that North's double was "always penalty." The committee determined that South's explanation of North's double was misinformation; there was no evidence that N/S had a firm agreement that this double was penalty. Since the committee could not determine with confidence the result that would have been achieved on the board if West had not been given the misinformation, the committee decided to award E/W Average Plus and N/S Average Minus.

N/S were advised that the correct explanation in situations that were not specifically defined should be: "no firm agreement." If there were "principles" or experiences pointing in one direction or another, disclosing this information would be the proper approach.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committee members: Marlene Passell, Barry Rigal, Bruce Reeve, Phil Brady

Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Pairs, Aug. 3

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
3	4	5	Dbl(1)
Pass	5	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 5 made 5, plus 650 for N-S. N-S agreed there had been a 10 to 15-second hesitation before South doubled 5. The Director changed the contract to 5 doubled, down three, plus 500 for N-S (Law 16A).

The Appeal: N-S appealed the Director's ruling. E-W did not appear before the Committee. N-S is an experienced regular partnership and play a standard system. They had no specific agreements about forcing passes.

North stated that he thought the double showed values and since he had ten tricks in his own hand and was vulnerable, he needed to try for plus 650 in order to get a good result on the board.

The Committe Decision: The Committee believed that a double in this auction did suggest that North should not bid and that the hesitation suggested it was correct to bid. However, the facts in this case were not completely clear since the Committee was inclined to accept N-S's statements that in the absence of specific agreement South's double was more likely just to be values rather than a suggestion of a bad hand.

Since East had passed in first seat and West had preempted, the Committee decided it was overwhelmingly clear-cut to bid. The contract was changed to 5 made five, plus 650 for N-S. The Committee agreed with the Director's ruling to change the contract to 5 doubled, down three, plus 500 for N-S. It was the exceptional nature of North's hand that allowed the removal of the double to 5.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committe Members: Barry Rigal, Dave Treadwell (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Pairs, Aug. 3

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
3	4	5	Dbl(1)
Pass	5	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 5 made 5, plus 650 for N-S. N-S agreed there had been a significant tempo break before South doubled 5. The Director changed the contract to 5 doubled, down three, plus 500 for N-S (Law 16A).

The Appeal: N-S appealed the Director's ruling. E-W did not appear before the Committee. N-S are not a regular partnership, but have played together in the past. They play a strong club system. They did not have an agreement that this was a forcing pass auction, but South thought that common sense dictated it was. North thought the double showed values and stated that to bid was clear-cut, because he knew his partner was short in clubs and was therefore likely to have at least two hearts. (He was concerned that 6 might even be the correct contract.)

The Committe Decision: The Committee believed that a double in this auction did suggest that North should not bid and that the hesitation suggested it was correct to bid. The Committee noted that N-S's argument that the double of 5 was value showing, rather than indicating possession of a bad hand might be self-serving. However, since East had passed in first seat and West had preempted, the Committee decided it was overwhelmingly clear-cut to bid. Part of the (largely unspoken) rationale behind the Committee's decision was that it considered that the 4 bid was significantly atypical. Normally one might expect eight and one half playing tricks or so, as opposed to ten playing tricks. Accordingly, North had significant extras. It was for that reason that the contract was changed to 5 made five, plus 650 for N-S.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committe Members: Barry Rigal, Dave Treadwell (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Subject: Serendipity
Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, Aug. 3, First Session

Board 29 Both vul. Dealer N	NORTH   Q 10 9 3   A 4   A 10 7 4   Q 9 7
WEST   7 2   8 5 3 2   9 8   J 10 6 5 3		EAST   A 8 6 4   Q J 6   K Q J 6 5 3   -
	SOUTH   K J 5   K 10 9 7   2   A K 8 4 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	1	Dbl	Rdbl
All Pass

The Facts: 1 redoubled went down 2, plus 1000 for E-W. The hand was played before N-S asked any questions. When West was asked what the double meant, he replied "takeout, promising 4-3 in the majors". North then called the Director and stated he would have bid 1NT after the redouble if he had known that it was possible for East to have so many diamonds. The Director changed the contract to 3NT made four, plus 630 for N-S.

The Appeal: E-W appealed. East stated that if her partner bid clubs after her takeout double she would bid Notrump or correct to diamonds. When West was asked why he did not bid his four-card heart suit (with partner promising hearts) or his five-card club suit, he stated that he did not want to bid with only one jack in his hand. If his partner bid hearts, he planned to pass and if she bid spades, he planned to bid clubs. He stated he was amazed to hear his partner pass.

The Committee asked West how he would have interpreted a diamond bid by East if he had bid clubs. West replied that a subsequent diamond bid by East would have been a cuebid.

N-S observed that this was a highly unusual double and since West had passed when he had a four-card major, thought that this may have been a partnership understanding that should have been Alerted.

The Committee examined the E-W convention cards and compared the written information with E-W's statements regarding their requirements for overcalls, takeout doubles, doubles with the rebid of a suit and direct cuebids (which they play as strong).

The Committe Decision: The Committee decided that even though E-W were an established partnership of two and one half years, the hand was extremely unusual. The Committee members thought that a pass by the West hand was an acceptable although not unanimous choice for the reasons he stated. It was agreed that E-W needed more information on their convention cards regarding their possible shapes and point ranges for various competitive actions and the opponents should be Alerted to any unusual understandings. E-W were cautioned about their responsibilities to disclose agreements that are part of partnership experience. The Committee allowed the table result, 1 redoubled, plus 1000 for E-W to stand because they believed that this hand was an aberration and that N-S had been "fixed".

Chairperson: John Solodar
Committe Members: Karen Allison, Mary Jane Farell, Bruce Reeve, Jon Wittes (scribe: Karen Lawrence)

Subject: The Part They Didn't Reveal
Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, Aug. 3, First Session

Board 29 Both vul. Dealer N	NORTH   Q 10 9 3   A 4   A 10 7 4   Q 9 7
WEST   7 2   8 5 3 2   9 8   J 10 6 5 3		EAST   A 8 6 4   Q J 6   K Q J 6 5 3   -
	SOUTH   K J 5   K 10 9 7   2   A K 8 4 2

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

(1) Alerted; could be as few as zero diamonds, limited hand
(2) Alerted; 16+ points, said nothing about distribution

The Facts: South asked West the meaning of the double and was told it promised 16+ points and said nothing about distribution. That was the E-W agreement. When the play was over, South asked to see the East hand. When asked why he doubled, East said he was unprepared for the 1 opening bid and thought that the best solution was to double and then bid diamonds. The Director ruled the result would stand.

Law 40A states that a player may make any call or play, including one not based on a partnership understanding as long as there is no partnership understanding.

The Appeal: South stated that he asked for an explanation of the double and was told by West that double showed "16 points absolutely" and said nothing about distribution. At the end of the hand, South said, he asked to see East's hand, asked West about their agreements again and was told that the partnership doubled and then bid diamonds to show diamonds over a 1 opening. East, he said, nodded assent. N-S then called a Director and asked for an adjustment. E-W did not appear before the Committee. North stated he would have run to 1 had he been given an accurate explanation.

The Committe Decision: The Committee noted that given a proper explanation, South might well have found a different call, especially because his hand suggested that East had the "Type 2" double of 1, rather than the "Type 1" - 16 points any distribution. While the Committee noted that 1 redoubled was makeable, it further noted that plus 230 for N-S would still be a below average result for N-S.

The Committee decided that N-S had been given misinformation and pursuant to Law 40A awarded Average Plus/Average Minus because the likely result could not be determined. The Committee decided that North's statement that he might have run to 1 was self-serving. The Committee voiced disappointment that E-W did not appear to help clarify the facts.

Chairperson: Howard Weinstein
Committe Members: Phil Brady, Mike Huston (scribe: Bruce Keidan)

Subject: Saved by the Auction
Event: Life Master's Pairs, Aug. 3, Second Session

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

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

(1) South asked about the meaning of 2

The Facts: 3 doubled made four, plus 570 for E-W. Before South passed 2 he asked West what 2 meant. West said, "We don't have an agreement, I'm not passing it", implying that the bid was not natural. The Director determined that there was unauthorized information, changed the result to Average Plus/Average Minus, and told West that he should have said that there was no agreement.

The Appeal: E-W appealed the Director's ruling. N-S did not appear before the Committee. E-W stated that the timing of South's question was not appropriate and that the subsequent auction showed that East did have diamonds.

The Committe Decision: The Committee believed that the auction revealed that West held more than two diamonds. The auction was patently muddy as soon as West ran from 2. West's 1NT bid, then his run from 2 doubled to 2NT reinforced the idea that West had something in diamonds. The Committee believed that East had acted ethically when she passed 2 and 2NT. Although there was unauthorized information, East's bid of 3 was clear based on the auction she heard. The Committee allowed the table result, 3 doubled made four, plus 570 for E-W to stand. The Committee also questioned why South would pass the double of 1, then question East's 2 bid.

Dissenting Opinion: (Howard Weinstein). The question posed by South, though self-serving, was clearly within his rights, and properly phrased as asking whether the opponents had an understanding. Perhaps asking whether this sequence was discussed would have been better. Though it is enormously unlikely a partnership has discussed this sequence, this does not preclude the question although the asker may be groping for information to help his position. West unfortunately added to his reply a comment that clearly implied he was not taking the call as natural. East, after having heard the reply, clearly had available to him the unauthorized information that the 2 call (intended as natural) was assumed to be for takeout. East is now under obligation to bid under the assumption that partner has described the bid as natural and has chosen to play 2NT opposite East's probable 4-4-5-0 maximum passed hand. I dislike the question about 2 as well as the double of 3, and the outcome of 2NT doubled was not clear. However, I believe there is enough doubt about East's action over 2NT doubled that the 3 bid should not be allowed.

Chairperson: Michael Huston
Committe Members: Phil Brady, Jerry Clerkin, Abby Heitner, Howard Weinstein

Subject: I've Got a Splinter
Event: Life Master Pairs, Aug. 4, Second Session

Board 13 Both vul. Dealer North	NORTH   A 9 8 6 2   8 3   Q 7 6 2   10 9
WEST   4   A K 9 7   A K 9 5 3   K Q 3		EAST   K 7 5 3   Q J 10 4 2   10 8   7 5
	SOUTH   Q J 10   6 5   J 4   A J 8 6 4 2

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

The Facts: 5 made five, plus 650 for E/W. N/S stated that 4 could have been a cuebid and that West might have bid 6. 3 was intended as a splinter and was not Alerted. Therefore, West knew 4 was natural. West stated that 4 was not a cuebid in their system because it was ace asking. West stated that she knew from her hand that it was impossible for East to be asking for aces. The Director changed the contract to 6 down one, N/S plus 100.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that he knew the 3 bid was ambiguous because they had no agreement. West thought 3 was a splinter. It did not occur to her that it could be interpreted as natural, exposing a psych. East bid 4 knowing he would have to play the hand at the five-level if West had hearts. East stated that he had figured out what had happened and realized he could have taken advantage of the situation by bidding 4. He thought that once he had put the partnership at risk by bidding 4, E/W should not have been forced to declare at the six-level. North stated that the failure to Alert gave unauthorized information to West. North perceived 4 as a slam try which West should then have accepted. North did not address the fact that E/W's agreement was that 4 was ace-asking and that 4NT would have been a spade cuebid.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee accepted E/W's explanation of their understandings and agreed that West could figure out that 4 was not ace-asking. The Committee changed the contract to 5 making five, E/W plus 650. The Committee noted that East had put himself in more jeopardy than was required in an effort to be fair.

Chairperson: Mike Aliotta
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Bill Passell, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Subject: Saved by the System
Event: Flight A Swiss, Aug. 4, Second Session

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

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

(1) Conventional (Hearts or constructive Spade raise); not Alerted
(2) Break in tempo; also conventional but not Alerted

The Facts: The Director was called when the 4 bid was made and again when the dummy was tabled. E-W agreed there had been a hesitation. There were no Alerts or explanations at the table. Initially, the Director canceled East's 4 and ruled plus 170 to E-W for 3 making four. The Director was called back and E-W explained that although West had failed to Alert 3, the net systemic effect of the sequence culminating in her 3 bid was to show a good hand rather than a bad one (see below). The Directors accepted the belated E-W explanation and changed the score to 4, made four, plus 420 for E-W.

The Appeal: N-S appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that 3 was either a transfer to hearts with a relatively weak hand or a medium spade raise. The E-W convention card has a reference in the "Overcalls" section that reads "cuebid is transfer", but nothing referring to the two-way nature of these transfer advances.

West admitted that she had forgotten the dual meaning of the 3 call. East stated that in their methods, West usually bids 3 over 3 with normal-range hands. The main alternative to 3 is 3, which shows three or more hearts and a maximum (essentially a super acceptance if hearts were trumps). On that basis, East said he had to bid 4.

In reply to a question, East stated that with seven spades and one heart, West might also bid 3, but in that case, the partnership would have to reach 4 for better or for worse. The partnership employs a sound overcall style and was willing to accept this risk. The Committee asked about the meaning of a putative 3 by East over 2. East stated that there was no firm meaning but he believed that this is the way the partnership would look for notrump, East showing a heart stopper rather than a suit (since he had not bid the suit earlier) and looking for a diamond guard. East stated that he did not Alert West's 3 bid because he was afraid to Alert West to the 3 bid. No explanationswere given prior to the commencement of the defense. East stated that the Director was called so quickly after his 4 bid that he got sidetracked before he was able to explain.

The Committee Decision: The majority decided after a thorough investigation of E-W's methods to accept East's explanation and his rationale for bidding 4 as a consequence of the systemic meaning of 3, and allowed the result achieved at the table to stand. A procedural penalty of 2 Victory Points was unanimously assessed for East's failure to alert 3, the failure to explain after the auction, and the failure to properly document this complex agreement.

E-W were advised that although there is no room on the ACBL convention card to fully document many systemic agreements, the obligation to disclose all partnership agreements remains. Pairs who use complex methods are under a special obligation to make certain that their opponents are not disadvantaged, and the failure to provide clear evidence of their agreements creates difficulties for the players and officials when something goes wrong.

Dissenting Opinions: Dave Treadwell: East was in possession of two pieces of unauthorized information: (a) West had probably forgotten the specific meaning of the 3 bid although it was possible, of course, that West had merely forgotten to Alert; (b) West's hesitation suggested that West was considering other bids, among which was 4. This combination may have made a 4 call by East more attractive than the logical alternative of pass. Hence, the 4 bid should not be permitted.

Bruce Reeve: West's hesitation, in combination with West's failure to Alert the extremely unusual nature of East's 3 bid, may have delivered a message to East that West did not remember their methods. East stated that he decided not to Alert West's 3 bid even though he knew it was an Alert. Furthermore, East did not explain any of this prior to the commencement of the defense. These failures suggest that East was unsure of West's actions and might be indicative of the possession of unauthorized information. The table result should have been changed to 3 made four, plus 170 E-W.

Chairperson: Dave Treadwell
Committee Members: Mary Jane Farell, Eric Kokish, Marlene Passell, Bruce Reeve

Subject: Trouble With Redouble
Event: Flight A Swiss, Aug. 4

Board 33 None vul. Dealer North	NORTH   K   A 10 8   9 5   K J 9 8 6 4 2
WEST   A 10 7 6 4   K J 7 3   J 2   A Q		EAST   5 3 2   Q 6 4   Q 10 6 4   7 5 3
	SOUTH   Q J 9 8   9 5 2   A K 8 7 3   10

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

(1) Alerted by South after East had passed.

The Facts: 3 doubled went down three, plus 500 for N/S. After East passed 3, South produced his Alert card. East tapped the Pass Card that was on the table. At his turn to bid, West asked for an explanation and was told that 3 was a weak jump shift. After the hand was over E/W called the Director and stated they thought that North had received unauthorized information from the explanation of the Alert which facilitated North's redouble. The Director ruled the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. Only East appeared before the Committee. E/W thought that the redouble, while attractive, might be considered redundant if North had already shown his hand. Whether or not North realized the implications of his action, the redouble would serve to alert South that the North hand might not be the one he had described in response to West's inquiry at his second turn.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there was a good chance that North meant his bid as a maximum pass and was reminded of his partnership agreement (weak jump shifts in competition) by the explanation. The Committee thought that redouble would normally be a valid call. However, after the explanation of the Alert the redouble had become particularly attractive since North had been made aware that South was expecting him to hold a weak hand rather than the strong one he held. The Committee removed the redouble that had precipitated the double of 3. East stated that South had said he would not have doubled without the redouble. The Committee changed the contract to 3 down three, plus 150 for N/S.

Chairperson: Mike Aliotta
Committee Members: Phil Brady, Bobby Goldman, Bob Gookin, Bill Passell

Subject: Transfer of Responsibility
Event: Flight A Swiss, August 4

Board 24 None vul. Dealer W	NORTH   -   J x x x x x x   K x   J x x x
WEST   Q J 10 x   A K 9   Q x x x   A x		EAST   K 9 x   -   A 10 9 8 x   Q 10 9 8 x
	SOUTH   A x x x x x   Q x x   J x   K x

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

(1) Alerted: transfer to spades

Result: : 5 by East, down two, N/S plus 100.

Facts: The Director was called when the 5 bid was made. West believed that the 4 bid was a transfer to spades (Texas), even over the interference (E/W's actual agreement). East forgot his partnership agreement and intended 4 to simply show a good hand, but not promising any specific suit or suits. The Director ruled that unauthorized information was available to East from West's Alert of 4, and that East's 5 bid could have been influenced by that information. The contract was reverted to 4 by West, down two: N/S plus 100.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. E/W did not appear at the hearing. South testified that she would have doubled 4 had East not bid 5, and had she known that there was unauthorized information available to East (which she believed would have barred East from pulling 4 doubled to a better contract). N/S believed they were entitled to the score for 4 doubled, down two: N/S plus 300.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee decided that East had unauthorized information available from West's Alert and explanation of 4 as a transfer. (E/W were playing Texas through overcalls as high as 4.) It was also decided that East bid 5 as a "safety play" to avoid the difficulties which would likely arise following a 4NT bid (which would likely be intended as a "pick a minor," although some players might play it as Keycard for spades), and that this could not be permitted after the unauthorized information became available. The Committee believed that East was a good enough and experienced enough player to have bid 4NT over 4 to elicit a minor suit preference from West (had there been no unauthorized information).

The issue of what the final contract would have been had East bid 4NT was investigated. West would have interpreted 4NT as Keycard for spades, and responded 5 (two keycards with the queen of trump). East might then have passed 5, recognizing from West's "impossible" 5 bid that there had been a misunderstanding and bailing out in the first reasonably playable contract (5 in the 4-3 fit, since West's 4 bid had been natural), or he might have corrected to six of either minor.

Play analysis revealed that results of down two and down three were possible, depending on the final contract and play variations. In accordance with Law 12C2 the Committee assigned the offending side (E/W) the most unfavorable of these scores (minus 150 for down three).

It was felt that the non-offenders were not entitled to the reciprocal score of plus 150, since a result of down two could happen several ways while a result of down three occurred in only one scenario; nor were they entitled to double 5. In addition, the Committee took an unfavorable view of N/S's use of 20/20 hindsight to argue for adjustments in their favor, of their attempt to hang, draw and quarter E/W, and of their prolonged attempts to teach the Committee how to make rulings. N/S were therefore assigned the score for down two (plus 100).

Finally, a procedural penalty against East was considered for the egregious nature of his 5 bid over 4. One member felt that such a penalty could be appropriate, but the view that the assigned score of minus 150 for E/W adequately conveyed the serious nature of East's infraction prevailed.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committee Members: Rich Colker, Barry Rigal

Subject: Five Alive
Event: Senior Pairs, Aug. 3, Second Session

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	Pass	1
5	Pass(1)	Pass	5
Pass	5	All Pass

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 5 made five, plus 650 for N/S. All players at the table agreed that North had hesitated significantly over 5. The Director ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: East/West appealed because they felt that the acknowledged hesitation had made it easier for South to take action.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee allowed the table result to stand. North-South were assessed a procedural penalty of three matchpoints.

Chairperson: George Pisk
Committee Members: Mary Hardy, Steve Lawrence

Subject: What it Might Have Meant
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, Aug. 5, First Session

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

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

(1) Alerted, no questions asked
(2) Break in tempo of "several seconds"

Facts: 4 doubled made four, plus 590 for N-S. The Director was called after the 4 bid. Although this was the first time that North and South had played together, they had a mutual partner and were playing that common system. Without interference, a response of 3 would show an eight-loser hand with one top trump honor, 3 an eight-loser hand with two top trump honors, 3 a 7-loser hand with one top trump honor, etc. After the auction, South explained his double as showing an eight-loser hand with one top spade honor. Although they were not sure about these agreements, both North and South were in agreement that the double could not be for penalty. Both North and the Director felt that the double had to show extra values in any case. The Directors believed that with North's hand, the hesitation did not rule out 4 as a logical alternative and allowed the score achieved at the table to stand.

The Appeal: East-West appealed the Director's ruling.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee felt that pass was a logical alternative for North at this vulnerability and form of scoring holding only a doubleton spade. The Committee ruled that the 4 bid was made more attractive than a pass by the agreed-upon hesitation. The score was adjusted to 3 doubled, plus 200 for N/S. There was no discussion about the defense against 4.

Chairperson: Mike Aliotta
Committee Members: Abby Heitner, Karen Allison

Subject: Can't Do That
Event: Flight A Pairs, Aug. 6, Second Session

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

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: : 4 made four, plus 130 for E-W

Facts: Both pairs agreed that there was a hesitation. Pursuant to Law 16, the Director ruled that East's 4 was an action suggested over other logical alternatives by West's break in tempo. He canceled the 4 bid and assigned an adjusted score to both pairs of 3 by North down one, plus 50 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, claiming that the East hand was strong enough to merit a further bid.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee determined that there was no disagreement about the facts in the case. The Committee found that the hesitation suggested competing further in clubs. Since pass is clearly a logical alternative, the Committee ruled that the 4 bid would be disallowed and pass imposed on East.

Two issues remained to be determined: the result in 3 by North and the use of unauthorized information by East. The Committee decided that the defense against 3 would most likely start with two clubs and East would exit with a diamond or a spade. West upon winning the A would return a heart and the defense would win two clubs, one spade, one heart and one diamond for plus 50 E/W.

The Committee considered East's 4 bid a serious infraction, but chose to deal with it by educating E/W about their ethical obligations rather than assigning a procedural penalty. As to the merits of the appeal, the Committee decided that it may have been motivated in part by the table Director's initial decision to permit East's 4 bid (which was changed after consultation with other members of the Directorial staff) to stand.

Chairperson: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Mike Huston, Nell Cahn

Subject: Did You Hear Me?
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, first session, August 5

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

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

(1) Three-card heart raise; not Alerted, but revealed to E/W by North before the opening lead.

Facts: 3 by South, making five, plus 200 to N/S. Although North explained to E/W before the opening lead that his redouble was intended to show three-card heart support, the Director was called because South had not Alerted when the bid was made. Play continued and the Directors elected to let the score achieved at the table stand. (West led the 4 to the king and ace. Spade to dummy. Heart to the king. Diamond switch, queen, heart ducked by East, third heart. Eventual club finesse).

The Appeal: E/W appealed, claiming that they might well have competed to 3 had they been aware of the meaning of the redouble. At the screening stage, the Directors felt that North's 2 bid might have been influenced by unauthorized information (South's failure to Alert the Support Redouble, with this omission suggesting that South was unaware of North's three-card support). The screening staff assigned an adjusted score to both pairs, 3 by North, making four, plus 130 to N/S. E/W withdrew their appeal but now N/S appealed, claiming that they were entitled to the result achieved at the table.

The Committee's Decision: North testified that her hand had improved after West's 2 bid and that she wanted to compete to the three-level if necessary, intending to double if her opponents competed that high. She stated that she believed that her partner had forgotten to Alert but that South knew the partnership was playing support redoubles. North claimed that she bid as though South had Alerted. Having opened in third seat, she wanted to confirm that she had a full opening bid and not simply a marginal hand with three- card support. South claimed that she thought North's redouble showed honor-third.

E/W, who had withdrawn their original appeal, stated that they thought they would have competed to 3 if they had known N/S were on a 4-3 fit. E/W thought the redouble showed extra values. When West was called away from the table by the floor director, he said that he would have bid on to 3 if there had been an Alert and proper explanation by South. West stated that he did not understand the rationale behind North's 2 with no values in hearts or clubs.

The Committee felt that pass was a logical alternative to 2 and that the 2 bid should not be permitted since it was suggested by South's failure to Alert North's redouble. The Committee concluded that South knew all along that the redouble showed three hearts. The limited 2 call indicates that South knew that North's redouble was not a natural, strength-showing call.

Without North's 2 bid, it was unlikely that N/S would have played the hand in hearts. The Committee decided that N/S would normally have played in 3 and made four, plus 130 for N/S. E/W had not stated that they were unhappy because N/S had arrived at a higher-scoring strain. They had stated that if they had been properly informed and the auction had been the same through 3, then West would have bid 3. Pursuant to Law 12C2, the Committee decided that if the redouble had been Alerted, 3 would have been the most probable contract, and the most favorable result for the non-offenders (E/W) in that contract would have been down two undoubled, minus 200 to N/S.

Therefore the Committee assigned E/W the matchpoint score for minus 200. The Committee discounted West's argument that the auction would have had to be identical (but with the Alert) in order for him to bid 3. The only significant argument for not bidding 3 presented by West was that the redouble deterred him because it was, ostensibly a power bid.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig
Committee Members: Bart Bramley, Mike Huston, Bruce Reeve, Ralph Buchhalter

Subject: Thanks, I Don't Need Your Help
Event: Stratified Senior Pairs, first session, August 6

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

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

(1) Negative.
(2) Alerted; explained as a raise denying a high spade honor.
(3) While North was deliberating at her third turn, South demonstrably folded her cards, prompting East to call the Director.
(4) Clear break in tempo.

Facts: 4 by South, making four, plus 130 for N/S. When the Director was called to the table to deal with South's folding her cards while North was considering his next bid, South stated that she was unaware that her action might convey unauthorized information. The Director was called back after South's break in tempo after East doubled 3. Play was permitted to continue and South took ten tricks in 4, the final contract. The Director ruled (following a request by E/W) that no adjustment would be made. North bid not pass 3, as South's folding of the cards might have suggested. Instead he showed his fifth heart. When East doubled for penalty, North retreated to a known fit.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, believing that N/S were not entitled to land on their feet in 4 after all the unauthorized information conveyed by South.

The Committee's Decision: North's 3 clearly took no notice of South's cards-folding actions. North's 4 was an action based on bridge logic (South bid clubs before voluntarily introducing diamonds and could not be 4-4 in the minors for this sequence). There was no basis for changing the score. South was admonished for her card-folding, and the Committee advised N/S to avoid hesitating during the auction.

Chairperson: Arnie Fisher
Committee Members: Ralph Cohen, Harold Feldheim

Subject: Just Enough Unwanted Assistance
Event: Flight A Pairs, second session, August 6

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

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

(1) Hearts and a minor
(2) Break in tempo

Facts: 3NT by North, making four, N/S plus 630. The double of 2 was not made in tempo. North pulled it to 3NT. The Director was called. He considered Law 16 and ruled that North's 3NT bid was not indicated over other logical alternatives (pass, or perhaps 2NT or 3) by South's clearly out-of-tempo double. He thought that North's action was based on his cards, the auction, and the vulnerability (North contended that he bid 3NT because he felt that if his partner held cards in hearts and a few points, he was likely to make 3NT and less likely to score plus 800 against 2 doubled) and ruled that there had been no infraction. He allowed the table result - 630 for N/S - to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed, alleging that the double of 2, made after 30-40 seconds, allowed North an attractive chance to gamble on a jump to 3NT. Passing the double would have been a very reasonable alternative. If the double had been in tempo, N/S would have had no problem understanding it.

The Committee's Decision: There were three issues before the Appeals Committee. First of all, was there a clear hesitation prior to the double? There seemed to be clear evidence that this was the case. Secondly, did the hesitation suggest that one action by North might be more successful than another?

Law 16A states "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."

On this issue, the committee was split. South was a Flight player and it was the committee's opinion that there were several possibilities that would cause South to have a problem prior to doubling. While it was agreed that not all of these problems would make 3NT a good contract, the committee decided (Le Bendig dissenting) that there was a significant suggestion from the hesitation (the unauthorized information) that 3NT would be the winning call.

Finally, the committee had to determine whether a pass of 2 doubled was a logical alternative. The committee was unanimous in deciding that it was.

Once it was decided to roll the auction back to 2 doubled, the committee had to assign a result for that contract. This seemed to be totally dependent on the lead. If South leads a diamond or an honor in spades, the result might well be down two. A club or a heart lead would usually allow the contract to be made. After much discussion, it was decided that a result could not be determined because of the uncertainty of the lead (given the player involved). The committee then decided to award Average Plus to E/W and Average Minus to N/S.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig
Committee Members: Larry Cohen, Phil Becker

Subject: The Weight
Event: Flight B Pairs, Afternoon of August 6

Board 24 None vul. Dealer W	NORTH   K 9   A 10 8 7   10 6 5 4   K 10 9
WEST   Q 7 5 4   4 3   K J   Q 8 6 4 2		EAST   J 10 8 6 2   Q 9   A 3   A J 7 3
	SOUTH   A 3   K J 6 5 2   Q 9 8 7 2   5

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

(1) Agreed break in tempo

Facts: 4 by South, making four; plus 420 for N/S. North broke tempo before doubling West's 3. When South retreated to 4, the Director was called. After play had been completed, the Director applied Law 16 to the situation at hand. He ruled that since passing 3 doubled was a logical alternative to bidding 4 and since the tempo break pointed toward bidding 4, the 4 bid would be canceled. He assigned an adjusted score for both sides of 3 doubled, by East, down one, plus 100 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. South stated that her 5-5 offensive hand dictated a pull to 4. North's double showed that she was at the top of her range, but with South's poor defensive hand and extra offense, it seemed wrong to sit for the double.

The Committee's Decision: The N/S players were inexperienced, with a total of 500 masterpoints between them (over less than two years). Both were very forthright and truthful about North's hesitation. South testified that she knew that 5-5 hands were good for offense and not usually for defense. She felt that her partner had doubled on values rather than a trump stack, given her own spade holding.

North explained that she didn't know how to show a maximum raise to 3 but concluded (after hesitating) that double might get the idea across to her partner.

The Committee explained to N/S that after the hesitation by North, a significant number of their peers would have had to bid 4 in order for a committee to allow such an action. There was a heavy burden on a player receiving potential unauthorized information to avoid choosing among possible reasonable actions the one suggested by the tainted information. The Committee decided to make no adjustment: 3 doubled by East, down one, plus 100 for N/S.

Chairperson: Peggy Sutherlin
Committee Members: Lynn Deas, Robb Gordon

Subject: Should Have Known Better
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, first session, August 7

Board 31 N/S Dealer S	NORTH   A 6 2   9 8 4 2   -   A K Q J 8 7
WEST   J 9 7 5 4   K Q 7 5   A 5   3 2		EAST   10 3   A J 10 6   K Q 10 6 4 3   4
	SOUTH   K Q 8   3   J 9 8 7 2   10 9 6 5

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

(1) Intended as responsive, but not Alerted

Facts: 4 by North, making six, plus 170 for N/S. West doubled 2 in the belief that his partner would interpret it as a responsive double. East thought the double was for penalty and so did not Alert it. North did not ask about the double but introduced his hearts as a long-suit game try. East doubled for penalty and South retreated to clubs, a suit that in theory had already been doubled for penalty. North tried for game with 3 and then retreated to 4 after East doubled, South taking no further part in the proceedings. North took 12 tricks.

The Director was called when it was discovered that West had intended his double as responsive. The Director discovered that E/W (a pickup partnership) had agreed to play responsive doubles, but that each partner was under a different impression about the situations in which the treatment should apply, with the case in point being the classic area for disagreement. Since there had been a failure to Alert and since N/S's actions might have been influenced by the belief that West had doubled for penalty, the Director ruled Average Plus for N/S, Average Minus for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, claiming that N/S had not been damaged by the failure to Alert the responsive double and that it was impossible for East to Alert a treatment that she had good reason to believe was not part of the partnership methods.

The Committee's Decision: South admitted that she was sure when North bid 4 that West's double had not been for penalty, but earlier she had been concerned that North might have had only three clubs. She was somewhat frustrated that she had not been able to describe her promising hand. North had clearly not been concerned about the meaning of West's double since all his actions were geared toward reaching game. The committee determined that there were many clues that should have enabled N/S to do the right thing and that their inadequate result was largely of their own doing. The committee unanimously agreed to restore the table result - 4 by North, making six, plus 170 for N/S - for both pairs.

The committee advised N/S that they should have realized that there was no reason to seek redress. E/W, who claimed that they had spent a full hour discussing their agreements after arranging to play at the partnership, were upset that the Director had chastized them for not knowing their agreements when their misunderstanding had been purely the result of different East coast and West coast variations. East testified that she never knew that responsive doubles might be employed in this situation.

The Committee sympathized with E/W but reinforced the notion that agreeing to play a convention or treatment carried a responsibility to agree on (at least) its basic elements.

Chairperson: Bill Passell
Committee Members: Karen Allison, Bob Gookin, Eric Kokish, Bruce Reeve

Subject: Poor Guy Couldn't Beat Anything
Event: Flight A Swiss, 07 Aug 96, Second Session

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

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

(1) Break in tempo.

The Facts: 4 doubled made four, plus 790 for E-W. There was an agreed break in tempo before West doubled 3.

The Director ruled that the 4 bid was a violation of Law 73F1. The Director changed the contract to 3 doubled, made three, plus 730 for N-S.

The Appeal: E-W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated he did not think 3 would go down, nor did he expect to make 4. He did not think pass of 3 doubled was a logical alternative.

The Committee Decision: The Committee had to determine whether pass of 3 was a logical alternative. The Committee decided that (at IMPs) East could not possibly expect 3 doubled to go down and that 4, therefore, would be a "less minus" position. Obviously, East did not expect to make 4 and so stated in response to a question.

The Committee decided that pass was not a logical alternative for East and changed the contract to 4 doubled made four, plus 790 for E-W.

Chairman: Karen Allison
Committee Members: Bob Gookin, Abby Heitner

Board 29 None vul. Dealer N	NORTH   A K   K 6 4 3 2   A 3 2   K 9 8
WEST   J 7 6 3   Q   K J 8 7 6   A Q 4		EAST   5 2   J 10 8 7 5   10 5 4   5 3 2
	SOUTH   Q 10 9 8 4   A 9   Q 9   J 10 7 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Lea DuPont	Karen McCallum	Benito Garozzo	Cenk Tuncok
-	1NT(1)	Pass	2(2)
Pass	2(3)	Pass	2NT(4)
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
All Pass

(1) 14+ to 17 HCP
(2) Transfer to spades
(3) Denies four spades
(4) Transfer to clubs; invitational or better

Result: The 5 was led (attitude leads). 3NT by North made three, N/S plus 600.

Facts: The Director was called to the table at the end of the play of the hand when North was found to have held five hearts. East said that he had asked about North's 3 bid before making his opening lead, and was told by South that it showed five hearts. North corrected this saying that she did not have to hold five hearts (although she might), but that the bid simply showed heart values and sought direction. East led a heart, allowing the contract to make. East said that he would have led a diamond had North not corrected South's statement, and a diamond lead would have defeated the contract. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation by N/S and adjusted the score to 3NT down two, N/S minus 200.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They testified that at the end of the auction, and before making his opening lead, East asked for a review with explanations. South conducted the annotated review, ultimately explaining North's 3 bid as showing five hearts. At that point North intervened saying that the bid did not show five hearts (although she could have five), but rather showed heart values in search of the correct game. (This interpretation was confirmed by N/S's system notes.) North stated that she felt obligated to correct South's expanation for two reasons, even though her hand coincidentally conformed to the mistaken explanation.

The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled to know the basis on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't have three-card heart support), and the basis on which North had bid 3 (that she was concerned about the N/S diamond holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by her length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W, it could help them to know that North had bid 3 intending to elicit help from South in diamonds. No such inference would be available to E/W if they believed that North's 3 bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would not directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also made it clear that in their methods 3 could never suggest playing in hearts.)

North's second reason for her correction was that the erroneously disclosed (but accurate) information about her heart length might act to deter a reasonable (or even normal) heart lead when, given the poor quality of her heart spots, it was possible that such a lead could prove best for E/W. North also stated that her 3 bid was equally intended to keep alive the possibility of a 4 contract, and that she almost bid 4 over 3NT anyway, taking a long time before she finally passed. This was not disputed by E/W.

E/W testified that the "emotional" nature of North's disclosure gave them the distinct impression that North wanted to avoid inhibiting a heart lead in case that lead proved to be best for E/W, and that North was therefore attempting to act in E/W's best interest. In addition, East stated that although he initially "had his finger on a diamond lead," North's emotional reaction caused him to change his lead to a heart. He reasoned that, since North was sincerely concerned that a heart lead could be best for E/W, the heart lead must therefore be right.

The Committee's Decision: The Committee members strongly agreed on the following points relating to this case.

First, that North acted properly in correcting the misinformation provided by South. In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. Then the misleading aspects of the explanation should be corrected. For example, "I could certainly have the hand that my partner described, but our agreement is that my bid shows . . ." North's statement that she "could have five hearts" was in keeping with this principle.

Second, North could hardly have done any more than she did to make all of the relevant information available to E/W. She disclosed the meaning she intended for her 3 bid (showing heart values and seeking direction for notrump), thus providing the inference that diamonds was of concern to her. (The inference that South's 3NT bid was not necessarily based on diamond values, but rather on the absence of three hearts, was available from his misinterpretation of the 3 bid.) The emotional nature of her reaction made it clear that she was also concerned that hearts could be the winning lead even after she showed heart values, and that she wanted E/W to know it.

And finally, East, by his own admission, based his heart lead wholly on the emotional content of North's statement (that she was concerned that the heart lead could be best). Of course, given who East was, he was correct! But by ignoring the informational content of North's statement, including the intended meaning of her 3 bid and the inferences available from it, the winning alternative of the diamond lead was rejected. East was entitled to draw the inferences he did, but (as suggested by Law 73D1 ) only at his own risk.

Based on the preceeding analysis, the Committee restored the result originally achieved at the table: 3NT making three, N/S plus 600.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig
Committee Members: Rich Colker, Bill Pollack, John Sutherlin, John Wittes

Subject: The Dog Ate The System Notes
Event: Junior Team Trials, August 8

Board 21 N/S vul. Dealer North	NORTH   10 8 5   A 10 2   Q 10 6 2   A J 8
WEST   A Q J 4 3   8   A 8 5   9 7 5 3		EAST   9 7 6   J 3   K J 9 7 4 3   Q 4
	SOUTH   K 2   K Q 9 7 6 5 4   -   K 10 6 2

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

(1) Not Alerted.

The Facts: 4 made five, plus 650 for N-S. 2 was meant as Drury by North,but was interpreted as natural, and therefore not Alerted, by South. The Director was called and he ruled that unauthorized information had been received by North due to South's failure to Alert. The contract was changed to 3 made five, plus 200 for N-S.

The Appeal: N-S appealed. All four players appeared before the Committee. N-S stated that they play the 3 bid as forward going, and that according to their agreements the Drury 2 bid could have been made with as few as 8 HCP. For this reason they believed that 4 was a logical action by North (although he held only three trumps), based on the extra heart length that South had shown. North had a maximum in HCP, no wastage in spades, and values including two aces.

E-W observed that North had received unauthorized information by South's failure to Alert, and noted that South's 3 bid could have been construed as merely competitive had South Alerted 2 as Drury.

The Committee inquired about N-S's agreements regarding the meanings of various possible actions that South could have taken over 2, including Pass, 3, 3 and 2NT (good/bad). N-S were unable to produce their system notes, which they said they had not brought to the tournament.

South stated that 3 showed values in their Drury system; 3 and 3 would have been game tries; 2NT was not used as good/bad; and double was penalty. North would have been allowed to pass 2 had South passed. South stated that he would have jumped to 4 had he remembered 2 was Drury.

The Committee Decision: The Committee observed that N-S had not disclosed to the Committee that their system included a way for South to show a hand willing to compete to 3. For this reason they were not convinced that 3 was a game try and would have been interpreted as such. They then focused on the North hand, and based on the assumption that the system information was correct, i.e. 3 was not "drop dead", considered North's possible actions.

The Committee believed that although North held 11 HCP that included two aces, he could logically have chosen to pass 3 due to his sterile shape and three-card trump support. The Committee determined that unauthorized information based on South's failure to Alert may have influenced North's decision to bid 4, and that system alone did not make the bid automatic. However, it had been made more attractive by the failure to Alert. The Committee changed the contract to 3 made five, plus 200 N-S.

Chairperson: Bill Passell
Committee Members: Mike Huston, Barry Rigal, (scribe: Karen Lawrence)

Subject: But He Wrote The Book!
Event: NABC IMP Pairs, August 8, Second Session

Board 28 N/S vul. Dealer West	NORTH   Q   A K Q 9 6 3   10 8 5 3   K 2
WEST   K J 5 4   8 5   -   Q J 10 8 6 5 4		EAST   10 7 3 2   J   Q 9 6 4 2   A 7 3
	SOUTH   A 9 8 6   10 7 4 2   A K J 7   9

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

(1) Alerted; splinter

The Facts: 6 went down two, plus 200 for E-W. East led a diamond, West ruffed, returned a club, and got a second diamond ruff. N-S called the Director because they thought the diamond lead was unusual since West had not opened 3, had doubled 4 without the A or K, and did not double the final contract for an unusual lead. South had recently read a book written by West that discussed doubling splinter bids to suggest the lead of the lower unbid suit. N-S thought that there had been a failure to Alert the double of 4.

The Director ruled that the table result, 6 down two, plus 200 for E-W, would stand.

The Appeal: N-S appealed the Director's ruling. The Committee determined that the Director was not called while E-W were still at the table, but two rounds later. South was not at the table when the play was completed and did not find out what the result was for the deal until N-S had a break a few deals later. When South realized that West had authored the book that discussed the conventional doubles of splinters, N-S called the Director. The Director informed E-W that he had been called.

N-S reiterated the facts they had stated to the Director. They added that they believed the double did not promise so many clubs, and that when partner doubled for the lead of a suit, that should would normally be led. They stated that they would not have had any concerns had East led the A and shifted to a diamond.

The Committee questioned E-W. West stated that this partnership did not have a "splinter double" agreement; that he had not opened 3 because of the quality of his spade suit, and that he did not double the final contract because he could not double if N-S chose to bid 6NT. When East was asked why she did not lead the A to have a look at the dummy, she replied that she considered it, but decided to lead her best suit.

The Committee examined the E-W convention card and found that a conventional double of splinter bids was not listed.

The Committee Decision: The Committee decided there was no indication that E-W had a concealed partnership understanding. The Committee allowed the table result, 6 down two, plus 200 for E-W, to stand.

The Committee had to determine the disposition of the deposit. The screening Director was questioned and told the Committee that appellants are not advised that their appeal may not have merit, nor do they recommend the Recorder System to appellants when it is thought that might be more appropriate.

The Committee, in what they considered to be a very close decision, returned the deposit.

Chairperson: Ralph Cohen
Committee Members: Martin Caley, Nancy Sachs, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)

Subject: Six Was Enough
Event: NABC IMP Pairs, August 8, First Session

Board 27 None vul. Dealer South	NORTH   10 5 3   8 5 4   A J 9   A Q J 5
WEST   A 9   9   Q 10 8 7 5 4 3 2   7 3		EAST   J 7 6 4 2   K 2   K 6   10 9 6 4
	SOUTH   K Q 8   A Q J 10 7 6 3   -   K 8 2

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

(1) Break in tempo

The Facts: 6 made six, plus 980 for N-S. Everyone agreed that there was a break in tempo before the 5 bid. The Director ruled that there had been unauthorized information (Law 16A) and changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 480 for N-S.

The Appeal: North did not attend the hearing. All parties agreed that there had been a break in tempo of five to eight seconds before North bid 5. South maintained that 4 in this sequence showed 11+ to 13- HCP (4 would have shown 14+). South also said that North was attempting to even out the tempo in a competitive auction, as recommended by Chip Martel in an ACBL Bulletin article. South then challenged the Committee to construct a hand consistent with the jump to 4 which would not make 6 and claimed that he didn't bid 6 directly over 4 because he was investigating seven.

The Committee Decision: The Committee established that there had been unauthorized information from the hesitation, that the unauthorized information suggested that bidding over 5 was more likely to gain, and that pass was a logical alternative. The Committee changed the contract to 5 made six, plus 680 for N-S. The Committee further found the N-S appeal to be without substantial merit and retained the deposit. The Committee also questioned whether the N-S pair's treatment of 4 in this sequence (specifically 11+ to 13- HCP) required an Alert. The Committee also gave serious consideration to an additional procedural penalty for flagrant use of unauthorized information, but decided that the N-S forfeiture of the deposit was sufficient.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen
Committee Members: Abby Heitner, Marlene Passell

Subject: Diamonds are a Guy's Best Friend
Event: NABC IMP Pairs, August 9

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

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

(1) Responsive double
(2) Break in tempo

The Facts: 6 went down one, plus 50 for E/W. The Director was called after the 5 bid. The opening lead was the J. Everyone agreed that West broke tempo after the 5 bid. The Director ruled that there was unauthorized information (Law 16A) and changed the contract to 5 made five, plus 400 for N/S (Law 12C2).

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W were asked about their weak two bid agreements. East explained that they always showed a six-card suit and 5 to 11 HCP. The Committee noted that the point range was not shown on their convention card and told them to correct this omission. East also stated that the 4 bid promised four-card trump support.

West said he would bid 3 when he was asked what he would have bid with three-card support. East said he based his decision to bid 5 on "the Law", with the known ten-card trump fit, and the likely shortage in diamonds in the West hand.

South was questioned about his rationale for bidding 6. He stated that he believed that a pass would have been forcing, but that he thought his was the hand that should make a decision. Partner's responsive double, by agreement, promised fewer than four spades (unless they were very poor), both minors and two or three controls. South hoped to make 6, but had been willing to play in 5 and stated that he could have been put into this position by West's hesitation and East's bid.

The Committee Decision: Despite the acknowledged hesitation by West before he passed 5, the Committee agreed unanimously that East was entitled to bid 5. The Committee decided that the unauthorized information received from West did not influence East's 5 bid. If anything, based on East's shortness in clubs, the break in tempo suggested that West was considering doubling 5 because he probably had length and perhaps wasted values in clubs. East had also stated that it was the suggestion of diamond length by both North and South that pinpointed dummy's shortness and allowed him to visualize the existing crossruff. The Committee allowed the table result, 6 down one, plus 50 for E/W to stand.

Chairperson: Gail Greenberg
Committee Members: Robb Gordon, Bruce Reeve, Marlene Passell, Walt Walvick, (scribe: Karen Lawrence)