41st Spring North American Bridge Championships
March 19-29, 1998
Reno, Nevada

APPEALS

Appeals Case One

Board 32 E/W vul. Dealer West WEST	NORTH   Q 8 7 4   10 5 2   10 6 3 2   Q 9	EAST
A K 9 5   A 7 4   Q 9 7 4   K J	SOUTH	J 6   K Q 9 8 3   A K   A 10 8 4
	10 3 2   J 6   J 8 5   7 6 5 3 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
John	Ai-Tai	Jim	Jim
Rengstorff	Lo	Krekorian	Houghton
1NT(1)	Pass	2(2)	Pass
2	Pass	3(3)	Pass
3	Pass	4(4)	Pass
4(4)	Pass	4NT(5)	Pass
5(5)	Pass	5NT(6)	Pass
6(7)	Pass	6(8)	Pass
6(9)	Pass	6NT	All Pass

1) 15 - 17 HCPs
2) Transfer [Announced]
3) Natural and Game Forcing
4) Cue bids
5) Roman Key Card : 2 keys without Queen
6) Shows all 5 keys
7) Shows K
8) ambiguous
9) break in tempo

Result: Made 7, E-W +1470

The Facts:
There was an agreed break in tempo before West bid 6. The Director ruled there was no violation of Law 16A. ("the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another") The 6NT bid was not suggested by the unauthorized information.

The Appeal:
N/S appealed the ruling. They suggested the break in tempo showed further interest, and that pass was a logical alternative for East after the break in tempo.

The Decision:
The Committee decided the table result would stand. West showed maximum values when he took his side beyond game. East knew the partnership had a combined 33-34 HCPS, and the heart suit was likely to produce five tricks. The form of scoring (matchpoints) made 6NT an attractive choice. This authorized information justified East's bid. Secondarily, the break in tempo did not "demonstrably suggest" a 6NT bid over a pass. West already showed extra values. The only value West did not already show was possible club shortness. That shortness might "demonstrably suggest" a 7 bid from East. Because 6NT was not "demonstrably suggested", there is no reason to prohibit that action.

Committee: Jay Apfelbaum, chair, Steve Goldstein and Ralph Katz

Appeals Case Two

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gord	Ed	Aidan	Henry
McOrmond	WEST	Ballantyne	Bull
-	Pass	Pass	2
Pass	2 (1)	Dbl (2)	2
2	4	Pass	6
All Pass

1) Positive [Alerted]
2) Spades & minor [Alerted]

Result: Down 1, E-W +50

The Facts: After observing the dummy, South commented that North did not have the values for his 2 bid. Later, South called for the Director. South said he bid 6 because the auction indicated North would be short in spades. The Director asked East about the meaning of his double, and he replied he was not certain of their agreement. The Director ruled that E/W did not meet their burden to show a misbid instead of a misexplanation (Law 75B) and changed the contract to 4, making five.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, and were the only ones who appeared. They stated the double of 2 showed spades and a minor, and East had misbid. In support, they produced two identically filled out convention cards and system notes explicitly stating this double showed spades and a minor. (Note: E/W did not show their system notes until the hearing.)

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. They accepted that West correctly explained the double showed spades and a minor. East misbid when he doubled 2. That did not violate Law 75B. ("if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference . . . , they are not entitled to redress.")

The Committee did not assess any penalty against E/W for the misbid. Some members believed that North's 2 misbid, not East's double, was the primary reason for South's 6 bid.

Committee: Jay Apfelbaum, chair, Steve Goldstein and Ralph Katz

Appeals Case Three

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gail	Dave	John	Bob
Stanhope	Ruderman	Lowenthal	Klein
1	1	4	Pass(1)
All Pass

1) Extended pause

Result: Down 1, N/S +50

The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo before South passed 4. The 2 opening lead was won with dummy's A. Declarer next played a heart to South's Ace, who then led the 5. North won the Ace, declarer playing the six, and returned a diamond. At this point E/W called the Director, who allowed play to continue. After the play the Director returned and ruled the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the ruling. They suggested the break in tempo promised high cards and suggested South would not have a singleton Spade. This made the defense of returning a diamond much easier.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. If East held three spades and at least two diamonds, then it was probable he would try for discards on the clubs before playing a trump. The low diamond lead from South (the J, 10 and 9 are missing) indicated he held the K. If South wanted to ruff a spade, he would have led a high diamond. Finally, if East had a 3-6-2-2 distribution, South could lead a club after winning the K. This would lock declarer in dummy, and North would still win the K.

The Committee then considered whether the appeal had substantial merit. The 5 lead at trick three strongly implied holding both a high diamond honor and spade length. This is a standard carding agreement that many players have and all experts assume. East is a player of such skill that he should have looked at the hand before bringing it to Committee and realized that there was no bridge logic to the appeal. Therefore, the Committee decided to retain the deposit.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Dick Budd, Corinne Kirkham, Judy Randel, and Nancy Sachs.
Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum

Appeals Case Four

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jim	Bob	Gregg	Dan
Sundlin	Thomson	Van Dyke	Molochko
Pass	Pass	1	1
Dbl(1)	2(2)	2(3)	2
3	3(2)	Pass	3
Dbl(4)	Pass	4	All Pass

1) Negative
2) Cuebids
3) Does not promise extra values
4) Break in Tempo

Result: Down 2, N-S +100

The Appeal: N/S appealed the ruling. They suggested East’s hand had enough defense to make pass a logical alternative to bidding 4.

The Decision: The Committee changed the contract to 3 doubled, making three, for N/S +730. Law 16A prohibits a player from choosing from among logical alternatives one that could be demonstrably suggested by extraneous in-formation. West’s break in tempo before doubling 3 demonstrably suggested doubt about defeating the contract, and was extraneous information. East had no reason to believe 4 would be more successful than 3, doubled. He earlier chose not to compete to 4, so pass must be a logical alternative. In 3, doubled, it was clear that declarer would take nine tricks (4 spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 club ruffs).

The Committee discussed the appropriate time to call the Director in hesitation cases. Laws 9A and 9B require the Director to be called when attention is drawn to an irregularity. The issue was whether the hesitation or the bid that possibly used the information from the hesitation is the irregularity. The Director and one committee member felt the hesitation is the initial irregularity. The majority believed Law 16A makes using the extraneous information the irregularity.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Jay Apfelbaum, Lou Reich, Ellen Siebert and Brian Trent

Appeals Case Five

Board 26	NORTH
N/S vul.	J 8 6 4
Dealer West	A K 6 3
	A 5 4 3
WEST	7	EAST
K 9 3 2		A Q 10
Q 9		J 7 5
9		K Q J 6 2
A Q 5 4 3 2	SOUTH	10 6
	7 5
	10 8 4 2
	10 8 7
	K J 9 8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Bruce	Robert	Reynold	Jane
Ruskin	McIlrath	Wong	Rivell
-	-	1NT(1)	Pass
2	Dbl(2)	2(3)	Pass
2NT	All Pass

1) 12 - 15 HCP, will not have both major suits
2) Showed cards, for takeout
3) Tends to deny clubs

Result: Made 2, E/W +120

South led the 8, won by East with the 10. The Q was won by North’s Ace, who led three rounds of hearts. East cashed the K and J (discarding clubs from dummy), then led the A, Q and 10. North later won a spade and heart. The Director was called when play was completed. West told the Director he would have bid 3NT if he knew the double did not promise clubs. The Director ruled there was a failure to Alert the double of 2. The violation affected the auction and may have affected the play. The Director ruled Average Plus to E/W and Average Minus to N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They suggested there was no agreement about the meaning of the double. The poor result was a product of poor play, and not from any failure to Alert.

The Decision: The Committee decided that the table result (E/W +120) would stand. There was no violation because N/S had no agreement about the meaning of the double. The Committee felt that South’s club lead indicated she expected her partner to have clubs. North doubled to show cards, but the Committee felt he would have doubled if his and the West hands were interchanged.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Jay Apfelbaum, Lou Reich, Ellen Siebert and Brian Trent

Appeals Case Six

Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs
First Qualifying Session, March 22, 1998

Board 19 Dlr: South Vul: E/W	J 5 J 8 6 4 Q 8 5 K 4 3 2
A Q 9 Q 10 2 J 10 9 7 4 Q 6		K 6 4 2 A 9 5 6 2 A 10 7 5
	10 8 7 3 K 7 3 A K 3 J 9 8

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

1) Limit Raise in Clubs [Alerted]

Result: Made 4, E/W +630

The Facts: West's 2NT bid was properly explained. The players used bidding boxes. West did not notice South's double at the time she bid 2NT. She did notice it after East's 3 bid, and realized she had misbid. North led the J to West's queen. On the 9 lead, North played the queen and South the king. South continued with the A and 3. West eventually came to 10 tricks. N/S called for the Director when they learned of West's doubleton club. The Director ruled that E/W receive Average Minus based on a violation of Law 16A, as the unauthorized information demonstrably suggested to West that 3 was not the correct contract. Because of the line of defense, the ruling left N/S with the score earned at the table.

The Appeal: Both pairs appealed. West did not realize South doubled the opening bid, and admitted the Alert awakened her. N/S stated their defense was predicated on West's "known" club fit. South overtook the diamond to avoid blocking the suit because on the play so far and the bidding West was "known" to have 3-3 in the majors with at least four clubs.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result, 3NT making four, would stand for both pairs. The Committee explored the law and determined that, although the Alert may have awakened West to her misbid, this was authorized information since it could be derived from a review of the auction and did not need partner's Alert. Further, as a matter of law, West is under no obligation to inform the opponents as to her misbid and she is permitted to attempt to rescue herself. Any damage consequent to the misbid and misinformation is not addressable. (Law 75B)

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Dick Budd, Corinne Kirkham, Judy Randel and Nancy Sachs

Appeals Case Seven

Subject: Tempo
Event: Stratified Open Pairs
Second Session, March 23, 1998

Board 6 Dlr: East Vul: E/W	9 7 5 3 7 6 5 5 2 K J 6 3
A 2 J 2 A Q J 9 8 8 7 5 4		Q A K Q 10 9 8 4 3 10 10 9 2
	K J 10 8 6 4 K 7 6 4 3 A Q

West	North	East	South
		4 1	4
5	Pass	Pass	Dbl 2
Pass	5	Pass	Pass
6	Dbl	All Pass

1) Strong Heart preempt [alerted]
2) Break in Tempo

Result: Down 2, N/S +500

The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo before South doubled. The Director ruled that under Law 16A the break in tempo demonstrably suggested 5 as an alternative to pass. He changed the contract to 5, down one, N/S +200.

The Director considered the play would be the same at the five level as actually happened at 6.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They suggested that pass was not a logical alternative when South doubled 5.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. Law 16A does not allow a player to choose from among logical alternative actions one that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information. However, the information North observes in his own hand is authorized. The three small hearts make it clear South doubled on playing values rather than trump tricks. And the four spades strongly suggest South will have little defense in that suit. North's pass after West's 5 bid does not suggest defending. North may be waiting to learn if South has a strong hand. It is difficult to maintain an even tempo in high level auctions such as these. Finally, a 5 bid is not nearly so risky as a pass. Bidding figures to be a poor score only if both contracts go down, and then N/S figure to have plenty of company. The Committee decided North did not violate Law 16A, and Pass was not a logical alternative to bidding 5. Therefore, it had no reason to adjust the score.

Committee: Michael Huston, chair, Dick Budd, Doug Heron, Judy Randel and Ellen Seibert

Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum

Appeals Case Eight

Board 8 Dlr: West Vul: None	Harry Steiner A K J 4 2 J 10 2 8 7 6 4 9
Sidney Brownstein -- A 3 A Q 10 5 2 A K 10 8 7 6		John Potter 10 8 5 Q 8 5 K J 9 3 Q J 4
	Ross Rainwater Q 9 7 6 3 K 9 7 6 4 -- 5 3 2

West	North	East	South
1	1	Pass	4
4NT 1	Pass	6	6
7	All Pass

1) Minor suits with longer clubs

Result: Made 7, E/W +1440

The Facts: Against East's 7 contract, South led a low heart. East tabled his hand and claimed 13 tricks, but made no statement. N/S did not protest, and the board was scored E/W +1440. This was the final board of the set. After a few minutes, North called for the Director and expressed doubt about the claim. The Director ruled that N/S had acquiesced in the claim (Law 69A), but he would consider the matter because the correction period had not expired (Law 79C). Law 69B allows a player to withdraw acquiescence, but only "for tricks that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." Normal play "includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." The Director ruled that any line of play that would fail to take thirteen tricks would be less than normal, and awarded E/W +1440.

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They agreed that the contract could always be made by ruffing two spades in the closed hand, but that this was not obvious.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. East listed some of his previous accomplishments, and the Committee was convinced that he is a player of considerable skill. It is easy for a player of his skill to ruff two spades in dummy and draw trump (two ruffs, one heart, four diamonds and six clubs). A player this skilled would have to adopt an irrational line of play to go down in 7.

The Committee then considered whether to keep the deposit. Because it took some time to recognize the winning line of play, the Committee decided there was substantial merit to the appeal. The deposit was, therefore, returned.

Committee: Doug Heron, chair, Dick Budd, Michael Huston, Judy Randel and Ellen Seibert

Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum

Dissenting Statement from Michael Huston: I believe the appeal lacks substantial merit. This Committee accepted the claim in less than one minute. N/S, an experienced pair, did not present a bridge reason not to accept ruffing two spades in dummy and drawing trump. They showed no careless-but-not-irrational error that East could make. The only apparent reason for the appeal was N/S did not understand the Laws covering claims. Lack of knowledge of the Laws by experienced players playing in a major national event should not constitute substantial merit for the appeal.

Appeals Case Nine

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jean Johansson	Bob Etter	Paul Gabalis	Alan Strauss
-	-	2	Pass
2(1)	Pass	2	Pass
4NT(2)	Pass	5(2)	Pass
5NT(3)	Pass	6(4)	Pass
6(5)	Pass	7	All Pass

1) Not negative
2) Key Card, 0 or 3 controls
3) Promises all 5 controls
4) One king
5) Break in tempo

Result: Made 7, E/W +1510

The Appeal: E/W appealed. They first stated there was no hesitation, but West admitted she did take a moment to count the kings before bidding 6.

The Decision: The Committee decided the final contract would be 6, making seven for E/W +1010. E/W were relatively inexperienced, and West stated he had to show his kings before he could bid 7. The Committee determined there was a break in tempo, and that the break demonstrably suggested interest in bidding a grand slam. Pass was a logical alternative for East, as he did not bid a grand slam at his previous turn. The play in either contract would be the same, so the Committee could determine the number of tricks East would take.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Mark Bartusek, Doug Doub, David Treadwell and Michael White

Appeals Case Ten

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

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

1) Explained as transfer to clubs, but not promising clubs

Result: Down 2, N/S +500

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They stated the explanation was correct as far as South knew at that time.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. Law 40C states if “a side has been damaged through its opponents’ failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, [the director] may award an adjusted score.” Even if South’s explanation of the cuebid was not complete, E/W created their own problem. East could not have spade support, or he would have doubled North’s 2 cuebid. West had to know that either North or East had some heart length. Finally, either East or West could have asked another question if they were not certain what the cuebid showed.

Committee: Barbara Nudelman, chair, Dick Budd and Riggs Thayer

Appeals Case Eleven

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Liane Turner	Loretta Bromberg	Joan Remey-Moore	Zoe Hutchins
-	-	-	3(1)
Pass(2)	Pass	3NT	All Pass

(1) Alerted as 3-5 HCPS with 6+ spades
(2) Questioned 3 before passing

Result: Made 4, E/W +630

The Appeal: E/W appealed, and were the only ones who appeared at the hearing. West stated she asked one question of North and then passed in tempo.

The Decision: The Committee decided the final contract would be 3, by South, down 3, E/W +150, and kept the deposit. This was not a tempo case, as suggested by E/W. West's question suggests she has values, and this information is unauthorized for East. The Committee felt pass was a logical alternative for East. She has 14 HCPS and no obvious source of tricks. The Committee also felt this should have been clear to E/W, if not when the hand was played, then by the time they appeared before the Committee.

Committee: George Dawkins, chair, Nell Cahn, Abby Heitner, Riggs Thayer and Michael White

Appeals Case Twelve

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

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

(1) 12-14 HCPS (announced)
(2) Promises some values (not Alerted)

Result: Down 1, N/S +100

The Appeal: E/W appealed. East stated he would not bid 4 if he was told North's Pass promised values.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. East's statement he would not have bid 4 if South alerted North's pass did not convince the Committee. East knew South promised 12-14 HCPS for his 1NT bid. Even though North's pass was not alerted (promised moderate values), East should not be surprised by North holding 6 HCPS. His hand was well within East's expectations. The Committee also determined that the N/S agreement allowed North to have zero points with a long minor suit. Finally, East could have protected himself by asking a question. The Committee decided the lack of disclosure about North's pass did not affect the auction.

Committee: Jon Brissman, chair, Michael Rahtjen and Diane Siebert

Appeals Case Thirteen

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

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

1) Explained as a transfer to hearts -- actual agreement is waiting

Result: Made 5, N/S +660

The Appeal: N/S appealed. North stated that South's 3 bid showed solid hearts and a good hand. He showed the Committee system notes to prove this. North chose to bid 3NT because the hand would play as well in notrump. He added that 4 would probably make.

The Decision: The Committee decided the final contract would be 4, down 2, for E/W +200. 3NT, rather than 4, is strongly suggested by the unauthorized information. Law 16A ("may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another") requires the contract be 4. The probable club lead would lead to down one or two on most lines of play.

The Committee decided that down two was the most probable result. Because this happened in a Continuous Pairs, the Committee decided to explain to North his obligations under Law 16A rather than consider a procedural penalty.

Committee: Barry Rigal, chair, Mark Bartusek, Jerry Gaer, Chris Moll and Michael Rahtjen

Appeals Case Fourteen

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Stan Subeck	George Pisk	Suzi Subeck	Ron Feldman
Pass	1NT(1)	2(2)	Dbl
Pass	2	Pass	3NT
All Pass

1) 13-17 (not announced)
2) Single-suited hand (Alerted)

Result: Made 4, N/S +630

North said he was taking it as Stayman. When East asked South about the double, he said the partnership had no agreement. The Director ruled there was no violation of Law 40C (“If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents’ failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.”), and the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed. They stated if they were properly informed, then East would have led a club and beaten the contract. North said that 3NT can be made by winning the third round of clubs and playing on hearts.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand. N/S have an obligation to know their partnership agreements, but this is a relatively rare sequence. The Committee felt N/S were not required to have an agreement for the meaning of South’s double. East’s assumption that South’s double was based on a club suit was the key factor in E/W’s poor result. The Committee felt that as this double is normally played as either Stayman or general values, North’s explanation of the double was adequate. There was no violation of Law 40C.

Committee: Barry Rigal, chair, Lowell Andrews, Judy Randel, Dianne Siebert and Brian Trent

Appeals Case Fifteen

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Ole Godefroy	Howard Einberg	Julie Godefroy	Nick Martino
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1(1)	Pass	1(2)
1	1NT(3)	Pass	2(4)
Pass	2	Pass	3(5)
Pass	3NT	All Pass

1) Artificial and forcing
2) Negative
3) 16-19
4) Stayman, does not promise a major suit
5) Natural

Result: Made 5, N/S +660

The Appeal: N/S appealed. They stated their only way to invite game in notrump was first to bid Stayman. It was also the only way for them to show a maximum negative hand with a diamond suit. North was not aware that a rebid of 2NT on this auction required an alert.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table result would stand, and assessed N/S a 1/8 th board penalty for failing to properly alert the 3 bid. The Committee decided that West had the means to show both major suits over South’s 1 response. West’s failure to show his heart suit was the reason East led the 4, not North’s failure to explain that South might or might not have a heart suit.

Committee: George Dawkins, chair, Nell Cahn, Abby Heitner, Riggs Thayer and Michael White

Appeals Case Sixteen

Board 15 N/S Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   K 10 6 3   K J 3   K Q 9 8 4   5
WEST   J 9 7 4   10 8 7   7 6   9 8 7 3		EAST   A Q 8 5   Q 5 2   A 10 5   K 10 6
	SOUTH   2   A 9 6 4   J 3 2   A Q J 4 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
John	Bob	Rich	Bob
Stiefel	Morris	DeMartino	Etter
-	-	-	1
Pass	1	1NT	Pass
Pass	Pass	Dbl	All Pass

S: 2	6	Q	A
E: A	2	4	3
E: Q	2	7	K

Declarer now asked about the N/S signaling methods, but did not look at the N/S convention card.

The reply was "standard." Play continued.

N: 8	10	J	7
S: 3	3	K	5
N: 9	5	4	7
N: 4	6	6	8

When North now played a club, the defense had the rest of the tricks. The only tricks declarer had won were his two aces.

Two boards later in the same match, signalling methods were again asked about. This time, N/S replied "standard count and attitude, with odd even discards". East now realized this explanation was different from the one he had received when he declared 1NT doubled and found out that the correct explanation of the N/S agreement was the current complete explanation.

The Director was called to the table, and confirmed that misinformation about signalling methods had been given to East during the play of 1NT doubled. East stated that when he saw the 2 he mentally placed the A in the North hand. The Director ruled that with complete information declarer might not have pitched a club. Therefore, the contract was changed to 1NT doubled down four, plus 800 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All four players and both team captains attended the hearing. N/S stated that they had made an error in explaining their signaling methods and it was agreed by both sides that there was absolutely no attempt to mislead. The response to the question had been automatic and the omission accidental.

N/S also stated that they believed the declarer error was subsequent to rather than a consequence of the misinformation. The play of the 2 was a negative signal. In standard methods, the 2 is low, and therefore, discouraging. In odd-even methods, (the missing part of the explanation), the 2 is an even card, and therefore, discouraging. The bidding and play so far, indicated the A was much more likely to be in the South hand.

East stated that using odd-even signalling, the lowest even card may be encouraging if no odd cards are available. South stated that his primary goal was to get partner to continue diamonds.

The lowest even card had clear suit-preference connotations. South did agree with the club-positive aspects of the 2. N/S were not a regular partnership, and had not discussed this treatment.

East conceded that it was the end of a long week, he was tired, and he had not completely analyzed all possible layouts at the time he pitched a club.

The Decision: The Committee began by considering whether an infraction had occurred. It was clear from the statements and admission by the team captain, as well as the players, that an incomplete explanation of the N/S signalling methods had been given at an important point in the play. Therefore an infraction had occurred.

The second question to be considered was whether or not the infraction had caused or might have caused the declarer to go wrong in the play of the hand. The Committee considered that the declarer was an expert player with a great deal of experience, playing in the final session of an NABC Event. The Committee believed that although the declarer was entitled to protection, he was not protected if he made an egregious error. In other words, a declarer or defender must continue to play bridge commensurate with his or her skill level. Therefore, the analysis of the play of the hand was important to this decision.

Whether East was damaged could be determined by doing the reconstruction that East had not done. The distribution in the North hand was known to be exactly five diamonds, exactly four spades, and either three or four hearts (South could not hold five hearts). This left room for zero or one club so South must have at least five clubs. South's 6 discard on the fourth diamond precluded AKJx so the best reconstruction of South's hand without the A would be x AKxx J42, QJ542. This would have been a marginal opening, and East had not inquired about N/S's opening style. North's cashing of the 9 ahead of the 4 could be construed as suit preference, if the opponents signals were to be believed.

The crux of the matter was East's club discard on the fifth diamond. South had already thrown a heart, so a heart discard at this point would still allow declarer win at least one more trick when the A was offside, and two tricks when onside. The actual club discard by East was deemed an egregious error, breaking the link between the infraction and the play.

The Committee therefore allowed the table result, 1NT doubled down five, plus 1100 for N/S to stand for both sides.

The Committee also decided that it was a serious infraction for N/S to have given an incomplete explanation of their signalling methods, at an important stage of the play, even though they had done so inadvertently. The Committee assessed a 3 IMP procedural penalty against the offending N/S pair. The E/W pair got the actual imp score on the board but the N/S pair imped the board against the other table result, and then subtracted 3 imps from the result. The Victory Points did not have to add up to the total available for the match.

Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey Brody, Barry Rigal, Steve Weinstein