Appeal Case One

Olympiad Open Teams, Round Three Argentina versus Croatia

Board 16 East/West Game Dealer West WEST	NORTH   Q 10 9 4   Q   Q J 10 9   Q 9 5 3	EAST
A K 6   J 9 4 2   A   J 10 8 6 2	SOUTH	8 3 2   A K 10 7 6 5   8 3   A 7
	J 7 5   8 3   K 7 6 5 4 2   K 4

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

(1) After a hesitation

Facts: 6 by East made six, plus 1430 for E/W. North called the Director to the table at the end of the play and explained that there had been a break in tempo before East's 4 bid. He questioned West's 5 bid in light of this. All four players agreed to the break in tempo. E/W were playing a Standard American system. West stated that he intended 5 to ask for good trumps and a club control, while East said that 5 asked only for good trumps. West said his 1 bid was a tactical bid and that 3 was game forcing. E/W both agreed that 4 was a cue-bid, and denied club control. West also stated that he thought 5 was a safe bid because it would be impossible to go down at the five-level. The Directors ruled that due to the unauthorized information from East's hesitation, pass by West was a logical alternative to 5. The contract was therefore changed to 4 by East made six for both pairs, and the score adjusted to plus 680 for E/W.

The Appeal: At the hearing E/W repeated their statements made to the Director at the table. West added that he thought that an immediate raise to 2 at his second turn would have been an underbid, while 3 would have shown 17+ points. He therefore chose 1 as a tactical bid to show where his points were, and intended to follow that up with a jump raise in hearts later to show strong support.

When East jumped in hearts West cuebid 4 in an effort to "catch up," and then invited with 5 which, he thought, was safe since it would require an unlikely East holding to be at risk at the five level. When asked by the committee what minimum suit quality East needed for his jump to 3, E/W stated that KQxxxx would be adequate.

The Committee's Decision: The committee first decided that East's hesitation could have suggested that he held a club control and was interested in bidding on, thereby making West's 5 bid more attractive. Further, it was decided that East could easily have held a good hand consistent with E/W's testimony which would have made 5 either risky or given it no play (SQ J x K Q x x x x K Q Q x, for example). In addition, West had already indicated his interest in going beyond game with his 4 cuebid, and most importantly was under a special ethical obligation to bend over backwards not to take advantage of his partner's hesitation. The contract was therefore changed to 4 made six, plus 680 for both pairs, as the Directors originally ruled. Finally, E/W were educated about their ethical responsibilities when there is unauthorized information. While the committee would have retained the E/W deposit had the team been more experienced in international competition, in the present case the deposit was returned in favor of simply educating the E/W pair.

Committee: Richard Colker, chairman; Steen Moeller, Denmark; Ron Andersen, USA; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan, and Dan Morse, USA.

Appeal Case Two

Canada versus Sweden, Open Teams, Round One.

Board 4 Game All Dealer West WEST	NORTH   K Q 4   J 6   9 6 5   Q 10 9 6 4	EAST
A J 9 8 6 3   A 7 3   J 3 2   5	SOUTH	10 2   Q 9 2   A K Q 10   8 7 3 2
	7 5   K 10 8 5 4   8 7 4   A K J

West	North	East	South
Pass	Pass	Pass	1
1	1NT	All Pass

Facts: 1NT by North went down one, minus 100 for N/S. The Director was called to the table at the end of the play. The play had gone: Opening lead K (explained as a big lead), small from dummy, J from West, (when asked by declarer what E/W's methods were on the lead of the king, East replied "count" when in fact the E/W methods were "unblock or count") small from declarer. At trick two East shifted to the 10, small from dummy, A from West, Q from declarer. At trick three West returned a low diamond, after which East cashed his diamonds and exited with a spade, declarer making only six tricks for down one. Declarer contended that given the proper information he would have had an alternative play option.

The Directors adjusted the score for both pairs to 1NT by North made one, plus 90 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, stating that, while North had made a thoughtful play of dropping the Q at trick two, there was no possible lie of the cards which would allow the play to work. He pitched a spade winner in the hope that he would be permitted to make a heart trick in its stead. However, if East had started with five diamonds, then West would still have a diamond to return after winning the A (still down one), while if East started with three diamonds then declarer had seven tricks by just not throwing the Q at trick two. Also, the E/W card was marked most clearly. "Rather than ask and risk a silly result, he [North] should have tried to protect himself to the maximum possible."

The Committee's Decision: The committee did not appreciate East's careless (and incomplete) answer to declarer's question at trick one. However, neither did they appreciate North's explanation of his rationale for playing the Q at trick two. The score was adjusted for both pairs to 1NT down one, minus 100 for N/S.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, chairman; Joan Gerard, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; John Wignall, New-Zealand; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Virgil Anderson, USA.

Appeal Case Three

Open Teams, Round 1.

North/South Game Dealer East WEST	NORTH   Q J 9 7 6 5 3   K 3   A 6 5 3   -	EAST
A K 8 2   Q   Q J 4   A K J 5 2	SOUTH	10   6 4 2   K 10 7   Q 10 9 7 6 3
	4   A J 10 9 8 7 5   9 8 2   8 4

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

(1) Shows 6+ in any weak minor or 8 tricks in S or H.
(2) Explained by West to South: "Roman Key Card Blackwood (?)" Explained by East to North: "Show your suit!"
(3) West altered his statement and now said that he thought that his partner was showing his suit.

The final contract went 4 down: -1100.

The TD: TD was called to the table after the play by North, due to the different explanations of the 4 NT bid. North claimed that if he had known that 4 NT could have been RKCB, he would not have bid 5.

TD's Ruling: TD adjusted the contract to 5 making 11 tricks and the score to -400. In addition TD awarded E/W a procedural penalty of 3 IMPs for not knowing their system. E/W appealed.

E/W's arguments: West admitted having meant the 4 NT bid as RKCB, with diamonds as the agreed trumps. East maintained that it could not be RKCB, as no suit had been agreed upon, and therefore his explanation was the right one. West had altered his explanation after his partner's 5, as he suddenly realized that what he had believed to be the suit was not at all established.

N/S's arguments: South had difficulties in seeing how 4 NT could be RKCB, so he even asked West (on paper) if it was RKCB against any suit, which was confirmed with a nod. Accepting this answer the bidding went on, and only after the board had been played was it discovered that East and West had given different explanations.

The Committee: The committee found that 4 NT was a nonsense bid, as the 2 NT opener could hold any suit, and because E/W admitted that also 5 from West would mean "Reveal your suit, partner!". In no way could 4 NT be RKCB, as there was no denomination agreement. Consequently, East's explanation to North had to be correct, and North's action (5S) was based upon correct information.

The final result: The committee reinstated the original score of -1100 (E/W). E/W were fined one VP for West's wrong explanation and for the damage which any mis-explanation (Convention Disruption) always does to the game. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Bill Pencharz, Great Britain; George Retek, Canada; Naki Bruni, Italy, & Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe)

Appeal Case Four

Olympiad Open Teams, Round Six; Venezuela versus Hungary

Board 19 East/West Game Dealer South WEST	NORTH   A K Q 10 9 7 3   10 4   K   A 5 4	EAST
J 8 5   8 3   A J 9 4   10 8 3 2	SOUTH	6 2   A Q 7 6 5   Q 10 8 7   Q 7
	4   K J 9 2   6 5 3 2   K J 9 6

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

(1) Explained by North to East as strong, with 6+ spades; no explanation by South.

Facts: West led the 4, after which 3NT by North made four, plus 430 for N/S.At the end of the play East called the Director, explaining that his partner (West) had made a wrong lead due to South's failure to Alert West as to the two-way meaning of North's 3NT bid (a strong balanced hand or solid spades). South denied any such agreement, and said that this was the first time that he had seen North hold this type of hand. Given the apparent lack of any N/S agreement that 3NT showed a solid suit, and the difficulty of West's finding the A lead, the Directors ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed. At the hearing E/W stated that on the N/E side of the screen North had described his 3NT bid as showing a solid six-card (or longer) spade suit, but West was not given this same information on the S/W side of the screen. HadWest been told about this "gambling-bid" possibility, he might have chosen the attacking lead of the A, after which 3NT would have been set. West stated that he called the Director when he first saw the dummy because he had not been told about the systemic meaning of the 3NT bid.

The Committee's Decision: The committee determined that N/S had no agreement that 3NT in the present auction showed a solid suit. Rather, it was the judgment of the committee that North, in an effort to provide full-disclosure to the opponents, had inappropriately described his bid as showing what he actually held instead of (more properly) what his partnership's agreements were. The result at the table was allowed to stand, as the Directors ruled. North was admonished to refrain from offering gratuitous information to the opponents and to confine his explanations to descriptions of his systemic understandings. The E/W deposit was returned.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, chairman; Robert Wolff, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; Joan Gerard, USA; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; Grattan Endicott, Great Britain; Barbara Nudelman, USA.

Appeal Case Five

Olympiad Ladies Teams, Round Five; Italy versus Turkey

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

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

(1) Described by N/S as slow.

Facts: 6 by West made six, plus 1370 for E/W. North summoned the Director when East bid 6, complaining that the tray had been on the S/W side of the screen for a long time before being returned following West's 5 bid. East stated that she believed that the tray had been on the S/W side of the screen only a "normal" length of time. After the play the Director determined that both West and South confirmed that West had taken a longer than normal amount of time before bidding 5, West stating that she "had many problems with the bid." The Directors ruled that East's 5 bid could have been suggested by the unauthorized information from West's hesitation, and that pass was a logical alternative to 6. The contract was therefore adjusted for both pairs to 5 by West made six, plus 620 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors' ruling. E/W testified that 4 had shown a diamond control (not necessarily the ace) and 4 a heart control. East contended that West's 5 bid denied a spade control and that she bid 6 because she had the missing control. However, in response to committee members' questions the E/W team captain confirmed that West could have cuebid 4 holding the same hand but with K Q x instead of A K x. It was also determined that 4NT by West over 4 would have been RKCB.

The Committee's Decision: The committee determined that West's break in tempo could have suggested East's 6 bid, and that pass was a logical alternative to 6. The contract was therefore adjusted for both pairs to 5 by West made six, plus 620 for E/W. Although there was some strong sentiment for retaining E/W's deposit, it was finally returned.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, chairman; Richard Colker, USA; Steen Moeller, Denmark; William Pencharz, Great Britain; Ron Andersen, USA; and George Retek, Canada.

Appeal Case Six

Olympiad Open Teams, Round Eight; Croatia versus Ukraine

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

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

(1) Any two-suiter, five-five, 11-15 HCP.
(2) Explained as a signoff effort, pass or correct.
(3) Alerted by East and explained as pass or correct to 4.

Facts: 5 by South went down one, minus 100 for N/S. The Director was called to the table and South stated that, had he been Alerted that East did not need to have spades for his 3 bid, he (South) would have bid only 4.West's failure to Alert 3 gave him the impression that West held hearts and clubs, hence his 5 bid.

West stated that East was trying to sign off at all times, and that it was obvious in light of East's previous bidding that 3 was meant as pass or correct. The Directors ruled that South's 5 bid was made on his own bridge judgment, and that there had been no damage due to E/W's explanations or lack thereof.The table result was therefore allowed to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Directors' ruling. N/S stated that E/W came to the table with no convention cards, and when one was later retrieved N/S had to share it. N/S thus had no chance to prepare for E/W's 2 convention. South stated that North's double of 3 placed his heart values behindWest's suit, but that East's 3 bid suggested at least a six-card suit behind North. Thus he bid 5. Had he known that 3 was pass or correct he would have bid only 4. West stated that he would then have bid 4, and North said he would have doubled that contract. When asked by the committee about the defense to 4 doubled North admitted that it could only be beaten double dummy.(A trump lead by North followed, after getting in with a heart, by one high club and a club ruff by South, with North retaining his club control.When asked about their carding methods N/S said that they played standard carding, thus making South's 8 on the first round of that suit not clearly interpretable as a singleton.) East pointed out that he could have passed West's 2 opening with the long spade suit South claimed he thought he held, and that his 3 bid which was clearly explained to South as pass or correct and his later 3 bid made it clear that 3 was also intended as pass or correct.

The Committee's Decision: The committee agreed with the Directors that East's auction made it clear that 3 was pass or correct and not a long suit, that N/S were not damaged by E/W`s explanations (or lack thereof), and that South was on his own when he bid 5. The table result was therefore allowed to stand.

E/W were admonished for their failure to have two convention cards available promptly at the start of the match, and were informed by the Directors that any future failures would be met with disciplinary penalties. Although some sentiment was expressed for retaining N/S's deposit, it was returned.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, chairman; Richard Colker, USA; Steen Moeller, Denmark; William Pencharz, Great Britain; Ron Andersen, USA; and George Retek, Canada.

Appeal Case Seven

Olympiad Open Teams. Round Ten. Kenya versus USA.

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

The auction was immaterial; South declared 6.

Facts: West led the 3 against South's 6 contract, 6, 7, 8. South then played the A and exited a club to East's king. East returned a diamond to South's ace and declarer ran his remaining trumps. On the last trump West, who was guard squeezed, had to save his K and pitched the Q. Declarer then pitched dummy's Q, coming down to KQ87 10 in dummy and the five major suit cards in his hand; West held 9 5 4 3 K, while East kept J 2 K 9 2.

At trick nine declarer cashed the A, played the 10 to the king in dummy, and cashed the Q. With two cards left and the lead in dummy declarer then said, "Spade."

As dummy touched the 8 declarer said, "No, a heart."

At that point the Director was called to the table. South claimed that he had corrected his inadvertent call of a spade in the same breath, while West claimed that there had been a definite break before the heart call was made. The Director ruled that the 8 had been played, and the board was scored as 6 down two (West taking the last two tricks with the 9 and K), minus 200 for N/S.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling, reaffirming in the hearing that declarer had corrected his call "in the same breath," before East had played a card to the trick. South stated that his spade utterance had been a slip of the tongue rather than a change of mind caused by his calls for spades on the previous three tricks. E/W testified that declarer's call was not changed in the same breath, and that East's card was played so that South could have seen it even if he didn't actually see it because of the screen.

The Committee's Decision: The committee decided that, since dummy had actually begun to play the 8, the delay between declarer's original call and his correction must have been significant, and therefore the correction could have constituted a change of mind. The score was adjusted for both pairs to minus 200 for N/S, as the Director had originally ruled at the table.

Committee: Steen Moeller, chairman; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; and Jean-Claude Beineix, France.

Appaels Case Eight

Olympiad Women's Teams. Round Six.

Board 30 Love All WEST	NORTH   A K 3 2   -   Q 6 5   Q 9 8 7 5 4	EAST
Q 10 8 7 6   J 9 4   3   K J 6 3	SOUTH	J 5 4   A Q 8 5 3 2   J 10 7 2   -
	9   K 10 7 6   A K 9 8 4   A 10 4

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

(1) Multi
(2) 14 + HCP, says nothing about distribution
(3) To correct
(4) Alerted by South: "Asking for a spade stopper." North did not Alert 3 S

5 doubled made 11 tricks = 550 N/S.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of play, East complaining that she had led the A, allowing the contract to make, because North failed to Alert 3 (= natural bid).

TD's ruling: The TD let the score stand. E/W appealed.

The parties involved: East claimed that if she had had the same information as her partner, that 3 asked for a spade stopper, she might have led something else, but when questioned by the Committee, she didn't know exactly what. She felt she had been damaged by the wrong explanation.

South believed that 3 would ask for a stopper, since this might be the opponents' suit. North, on the other hand, maintained that they had no special agreement, and that they had never discussed this sequence.

The Committee: The Committee found nothing wrong in North's explanation to East, and believed that N/S had no prior agreement as to this sequence. North had taken the consequence of her non-Alert and raised 3 to 4. Thus, East had no real case.The Committee would like to state that even if there are different explanations on both sides of the screen, this does not automatically give you the right to an adjusted score when you make an unfortunate lead.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: 5 x making 550 N/S. The deposit was returned with two votes against.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Barbara Nudelman, USA; Virgil Anderson, USA; Dan Morse, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Steen Moeller, Denmark, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe)

Appeal Case Nine

Olympiad Open Teams. Round Seven.

Board 15 North/South Game Dealer South WEST	NORTH   Q 10 6 5 3   K Q J 4   6   10 5 3	EAST
J 7 2   A 10 8 5   Q 9 3   Q J 4	SOUTH	9   9 6 3   K J 10 5 4 2   9 7 6
	A K 8 4   7 2   A 8 7   A K 5 2

West	North	East	South
-	-	-	1(1)
Pass	2(2)	Pass	2NT(3)
Pass	3(4)	Dble	4NT(5)
Pass	5(6)	Pass	5/6
Pass/Pass	Pass	Pass

(1) Natural
(2) Both majors; 5-9 HCP
(3) Asking for singleton
(4) Singleton diamond
(5) RKCB (6 aces)
(6) 1 or 4 of the 6 aces

6 made 12 tricks = 1430 N/S.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table because South stated that he had made the inadvertent bid of 5 and then changed it to 6. TD found the change in order, according to Laws 25 A and 15.2 in the General Conditions of Contest (Screen Procedure). At the end of the hand, TD was recalled to the table, West stating that he had passed and asked South what the meaning of 5 was, and got the reply "0", then changed it to "1 out of 6 aces". South then changed his bid to 6.

Due to language difficulties and differences of opinion, it was from then on impossible for the TD to establish the exact sequence of events.

TD's ruling: Due to the time elapsed before the change of call and the general confusion as to the sequence of events, TD reverted the contract to 5 with 12 tricks = 680 N/S. N/S appealed.

The parties involved: E/W claimed that a long time had elapsed before the change of call was made. South maintained that he had meant to bid 6 all the time, and that he was very surprised when he suddenly saw only 5 on the bidding tray. When asked why he did not object to the TD's original ruling, West said that he was inexperienced. It was still impossible to establish the sequence of events.

The Committee: The Committee first looked into Laws 25 A and 15.2 in the General Conditions of Contest, and established that such a change as had occurred is permitted only if the call made was inadvertent. The Committee unanimously agreed that it was not an inadvertent call, but a change of mind. There was a time lapse here that was not acceptable as far as the Committee was concerned.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: 5 making 680 N/S. As for E/W, the Committee discussed their score too. Had 6 gone off, the matter would never have reached the Committee, and the question is whether this gave E/W an undeserved double shot. Since TDs have not been instructed to ask E/W (in private) whether they wanted to defend against 5 or 6 before the play started, E/W were regarded as innocent and the score, 680 N/S would be the final score for both parties.

The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Barbara Nudelman, USA; Virgil Anderson, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; Naki Bruni, Italy; Nissan Rand, Israel, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe)

Appeal Case Ten

Olympiad Open Teams. Round Eight. Austria versus Czech Republic.

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

West	North	East	South
1	Pass	Pass	3
3	Dble	3	Pass
Pass	Dble(1)	Pass	3NT
All Pass

(1) East indicated that North's double was slow, which North did not dispute

Facts: 3NT by South went down three, minus 300 for N/S. The Director was called to the table by E/W who stated that North's slow double could have influenced South's pull to 3NT. The Director ruled that the result at the table would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, stating that North's break in tempo conveyed the dubious nature of his double to South, making it easier for that player to take it out. E/W believed that pass by South was a logical alternative to 3NT.

The Committee's Decision: The result at the table was allowed to stand for both pairs but was adjusted procedurally under Law 90 to reduce, N/S's equity in the match result by 1 VP.

Statement from the Chairman: As so often happens in cases of this sort, N/S's actions led to a situation which was impossible to adjudicate fairly and equitably for all concerned. North knew when he doubled 3 that E/W were in a scrambling mode, which would likely necessitate his making some tough decisions later in the auction about whether to double other contracts (such as 3) for penalty. It was incumbent upon him to consider his possible future actions when he made his "easy" double of 3. Failing this, when 3 came around to him it was then incumbent upon him to either not double, make his double in tempo, or live with the final contract once he created the impossible situation by doubling slowly. South as well was obligated not to take advantage of his partner's tempo by overriding his decision once he hesitated. South could have avoided the problem situation earlier by either asking North for a spade stopper directly over 1 (as by jumping to 3, for example) or by bidding 3NT himself at his first or second turn to act. Having done none of these, and having appeared to be satisfied with his description of his hand as a 3 bid to this point, he was under a special ethical obligation to pass his partner's slow double. It was for these reasons that the result at the table was adjusted slightly to reduce N/S's match result by 1 VP.

Committee: Robert Wolff, chairman; Joan Gerard, USA; John Wignall, New Zealand; Nissan Rand, Israel; and Barbara Nudelman, USA.

Appeals Case Eleven

Open Teams. Round 9.

Board 1 Love Dealer N WEST	NORTH   A 10 8 7 3 2   5 2   8 7 2   K 10	EAST
6   Q 10 6 4   A K J 4   Q 7 6 5	SOUTH	K J 9 4   A 8 3   Q 10   A 8 4 2
	Q 5   K J 9 7   9 6 5 3   J 9 3

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

(1) Multi
(2) Takeout double with four spades. Alerted by East; a disputed Alert by West

Table result: 8 down = Plus 2000 E/W

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the conclusion of the play. South maintained that West had not Alerted the 2 bid. There was an agreement as to the 2 bid: minimum of four spades if take-out, longer spades if natural.

TD's ruling: The result stands. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: West claimed that he in fact had Alerted the 2 bid. The Alert procedure had not been processed properly by any of the parties throughout the round. North/South had been tapping on the edge of the table, while East/West made some sort of gesture with their hands in the direction of the tray. In this particular case, West's gesture had been perceived by South as a question about the 2 opening. Consequently South wrote down some info about the opening, and no other questions were asked. South furthermore claimed that if he had known that East's 2 call could have been made on a four-card suit, he would not have been so sure that his partner had a weak 2, and he wouldn't have bid 4. South did admit that his 4 was of a gambling nature.

The Committee: The Committee agreed that there had been an infraction (West's improper Alert). West should have realized that South had not understood his attempt to Alert (since South replied to quite another question), and should have made it quite clear that his gesture was, in fact, an Alert. However, the Committee was of the unanimous opinion that South's action and subsequent bad result were more a result of his own gambling than a result arising from the dubious Alert.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: -2000 E/W. Both parties had applied improper Alert procedures, but since West's questionable Alert actually brought the case to the Appeals Committee, E/W were given a penalty of 1 VP for the infraction. The other side were to be told by the TD to apply the correct Alert procedure for the rest of the tournament. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; Naki Bruni, Italy; Nissan Rand, Israel; George Retek, Canada, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Case Twelve

Women's Teams. Round 7.

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

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

(1) Artificial: 12-15 HCP Balanced or 16+ with any distribution (Polish Club)
(2) Explained by East to North: "Any two-suiter" Explained by West to South: "the majors"
(3) Explained by East to North: "Two majors". Explained by West to South: "Forcing + control"

Table result: 6 doubled by East +1 = Plus 1860 E/W

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table after the play. North complained that the explanation of both 4 and 5 had been different from one side of the screen to the other. North had doubled 6 for a heart lead as a result of East's explanation of the 4 and the 5 bids. South led a club instead of a heart, and the contract made.

TD's ruling: The result stands. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: South claimed that if she had had the same information as her partner, that West had both majors (5D), the heart lead would have been her choice after her partner's Lightner double. Now, she thought that it would be more likely that her partner could ruff a club. Therefore she led a club. West denied having said that 5 showed control. There may have been some language difficulties here, for East claims that she never said "two majors" but "to my choose" (= she wants me to choose between the majors).

The Committee: The Committee, well aware of the language difficulties that existed, came to the unanimous conclusion that 4 in reality would always mean both majors. Therefore, South was unfortunate in her choice of a lead since she should have been able to deduce that North's void had to be in hearts.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: The table result stands. E/W were penalized 1 VP for their mistaken explanation. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; Naki Bruni, Italy; Nissan Rand, Israel; George Retek, Canada; Dan Morse, USA, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Case Thirteen

Women's Teams. Round 7. Board 7.

Love All Dealer South WEST	NORTH   3   A J 10 8 7 4 2   7   K 10 7 5	EAST
Q 10 9   Q 5   K J 10 9 5   Q J 2	SOUTH	A 8 5 4   K 6   Q 6 4 3 2   A 8
	K J 7 6 2   9 3   A 8   9 6 4 3

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

(1) Sputnik
(2) Explained by South to West: "I suppose it is natural - it has not been discussed" Explained by North to East: "I suppose it is lead-directing, asking for a black suit lead"

Table result: 4 NT by West down 2 = +100 North/South.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table after the play. The defense against 4NT was a spade led to the king and a club switch to the queen, king and ace. The continuation was another club to the jack. The declarer misguessed the spade position and went two down. East/West complained about the different explanations.

TD's ruling: The score stands. East/West appealed.

The parties involved: Juanita Chambers, East, and Lynn Deas, West, of the United States believe that the Israeli South did not inform West properly as to the meaning of the double succeeding 3NT, and this caused damage both in the bidding and in the play. They did, however, not appeal the case in order to rectify the score, but only to ask the Committee to punish their opponents.

The Committee: The Committee had the understanding that this case was merely a quarrel that started at the table, and which the appellants wanted to continue. The committee further found absolutely no reason for this appeal whatsoever, as the questions asked by East and West were not the same. One of them had asked (on paper): "What does the double mean?" The other one: "x asks what lead?" East/West thus could not expect to receive the same answer to two different questions. Since "natural" may mean different things in different countries, West should have made some effort to clarify.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: The table result stands. The Committee feel that appeals of this kind are only damaging to the game of bridge. The Appeals Committee is certainly no place to continue an ongoing quarrel. TD was instructed to inform E/W not to bring any more appeals of this kind to the committee. The deposit was forfeited.

Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (chairman); Bill Penchartz, Great Britain; John Wignall, New Zealand; Naki Bruni, Italy; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeals Case Fourteen

Open Teams. Round 15

Board 12 North/South Game Dealer West WEST	NORTH   10   A K J 5 3 2   9   A K J 9 3	EAST
K J 8 4 3   4   A 10 7 6   10 8 2	SOUTH	Q 6 5   Q 10 8   K Q J 8 5   6 4
	A 9 7 2   9 7 6   4 3 2   Q 7 5

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

(1) Either 5 + 4 or 5 + 4, 5-9 HCP
(2) Alerted as "Force" from South to West. Not Alerted by North.

Table result: 4 x by North +1 = +990 North/South.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the hand. East claimed that he was damaged by North's failure to Alert.

TD's ruling: TD ruled that the bad score was not obtained as a result of the infraction. The score therefore stands. East/West appealed.

The parties involved: East claimed that he had to believe that, since 3 was not Alerted on his side of the screen, it would have to be natural. This led him to believe that his partner held five hearts and four clubs. He therefore doubled 4, which he believed to be a step on the way to 4, in which case he would like his partner to lead a heart. North just plainly forgot to Alert his own bid, thinking that what was obvious to him would also be obvious to his partner and opponents.

The Committee: The Committee was split on this issue. The minority of two felt that there had been an infraction (the failure to Alert by North) and that East had been damaged. He could not ask about the meaning of the 3 bid without revealing an interest for the suit, and had thus been led into "tunnel thinking". Once you have been led astray like this, it is hard to dive out of it again, even though you can smell that there is something wrong with the bidding.The minority therefore wanted to give the non-offending side the benefit of any doubt and remove the double.

The majority were of another opinion. First, they felt that East should have asked about the bidding before he doubled because something did not quite add up. Second, they believed that the double itself was not a proof of good judgement. Third, though they realized that East was a victim of North's infraction, they took the view that experienced players from great bridge nations playing sophisticated systems and conventions would know that their multi-suit bids would cause problems for their opponents from time to time. So, when facing less experienced opponents they should feel a special ethical responsibility to ensure that the opponents are not disadvantaged. They should also take extra care not to end up in a situation like this.

It was the opinion of the majority that East had done nothing to protect himself, and consequently he shared the blame for what happened.

The final result: The Committee upheld TD's decision: The table result stands The Committee, however, awarded North/South 1 VP procedural penalty for North's failure to Alert. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, USA (chairman); Bobby Wolff, USA; Richard Colker, USA; Naki Bruni, Italy; Nissan Rand, Israel; Grattan Endicott, Great Britain, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Case Fifteen

Olympiad Open Teams. Round Ten. Tunisia v Brazil

Board 29 Game All Dealer North WEST	NORTH   7 6 4 3   A Q J   A K Q 8   8 4	EAST
9 2   K 10 9 7 2   5 2   A K J 3	SOUTH	A Q 10   8 4 3   J 9 6 4   7 6 2
	K J 8 5   6 5   10 7 3   Q 10 9 5

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

(1) Correctly Alerted; hearts and another suit
(2) Alerted; pass or correct
(3) Alerted by North (not South) as showing cards (not strictly for penalty)

Facts: 2 doubled by West went down three, minus 800 for E/W.West called the Director at the end of the hand and stated that, having not been Alerted by South that his double of 2 was not for penalty, he (West) had misjudged the positions of the cards in the N/S hands when he could have played differently to go down only one. North had led the A followed by the K, and then shifted at trick three to the 7, Q, K, spade. Thinking that the hearts (at least honor-third) were on his right, and having seen South show up with the K, South had no room to also hold the Q. So when South then exited with the 10 (could be from 10-9 or from a higher honor) declarer went up with the ace. Declarer then played a spade to dummy's ace and a heart to his 10 (in case South had the QJx). When North won the jack and exited a third spade, declarer ruffed and played North for AJ exactly by leading a low heart from his hand, with the result of down three.

The Director determined that South's double was played as takeout (or cards, but not as penalty) by N/S and should properly have been Alerted by South, North's pass clearly showing heart values.

The Directors ruled that the misinformation from South's failure to Alert could have damaged West by influencing his play of the hand, and therefore adjusted the score for both pairs to 2 doubled by West down one, minus 200 for E/W.

The Appeal: N/S appealed, admitting that South had clearly forgotten to Alert his balancing double which was not for penalty. However, N/S believed that West, having seen the K in the South hand at trick three and later placing the AJ in the North hand, should have known that South's double was not strictly for penalty, and therefore should have inquired as to the double's meaning. They therefore contended that the damage was not due to South's failure to Alert, but rather to West's own failure to take proper precautions to protect himself.

West restated his reasoning in playing the hand the way he did, and stated that he would have played the club suit differently had he been given more accurate information.

The Committee's Decision: The committee believed unanimously that declarer should have suspected the intended meaning of South's double and made additional inquiries about the call. Also, while his line of play was quite reasonable, there were other lines which could have catered to more possibilities and yielded better results than the actual one at the table.

The committee therefore adjusted the result for both pairs to the one which occurred at the table, 2 doubled down three, minus 800 for E/W. The committee also assessed a 3-IMP procedural penalty against N/S (not to accrue to E/W) for their failure to Alert properly on both sides of the screen.

Committee: Richard Colker, chairman; Edgar Kaplan, USA; Steen Moeller, Denmark; John Wignall, New Zealand; Mazhar Jafri, Pakistan; and Ron Andersen, USA.

Special Appeals Committee report

This appeal has caused quite a bit of discussion here. Here is the full report from the Committee, including special comments from Committee Chairman Bobby Wolff.

Argentina vs. Indonesia. Open Teams. Round 18.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Dan Morse, USA; Virgil Anderson, USA; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Ernesto d'Orsi, Brazil; Richard Colker, USA; Naki Bruni, Italy; Steen Moeller, Denmark; Grattan Endicott, Great Britain, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Board 30 Love All Dealer East WEST	NORTH   A Q 6   A Q 10 8 6 5 2   10 4   8	EAST
9 8 5 2   9 4   J 9 6 3   9 3 2	SOUTH	7 4   J 7   Q 8 7 5 2   A J 10 4
	K J 10 3   K 3   A K   K Q 7 6 5

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

(1) Strong
(2) Alerted and explained byWest to South: "Spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs". Explained by East to South: "Two suits of the same color (spades and clubs or hearts and diamond)"
(3) Pass or correct
(4) West confirming to South: "spades and diamonds". East confirming to North: "hearts and diamonds"

Table result: 13 tricks = 510 North/South.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the play. All the facts of the bidding were confirmed by everybody. According to their partnership agreements, East's explanations to North were found to be correct. West's explanations to South were wrong, but he had indicated his real holding: spades and diamonds. North complained that if he and his partner had both been given the correct information, they could have reached the slam.

TD's ruling: The result stands. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: West claimed that he thought he had bid 1 and not 1, and thus the explanation he gave to South was in accordance with the 1 bid. He had not seen the wrong bid at all during or at the conclusion of the auction, and consequently, he had not altered his explanation.

North admitted that he had made no slam try due to the fact that he thought that he was bidding a heart contract opposite partner's void. 4 was a signoff, while 3 would have been slam inviting, as 2 is a game force.

The Committee : The Committee determined that East had given North the right explanation. Thus the action taken by North could not be altered, as the Laws state that you may bid wrongly, but not explain wrongly.

South, on the other hand, had the wrong explanation. In a split decision the Committee voted that North/South would enjoy the full benefit of any doubt, and gave them the full slam (1010 North/South).

As to West's explanation, the Committee found it self-serving, and it was hard for the Committee to imagine that West had not at all been able to see that his bid was other than what he had intended. The Committee was of the opinion that West, at the time he made the bid, could have been aware of the fact that this bid could damage his opponents and be to his advantage. It is a fact that East, who could have jumped to 4 or even 5, didn't do so. This kind of partnership understanding may make this type of destructive defense one that is without risk for West who can enter the auction on practically nothing. Such bids are damaging not only to the other side in this case, but also to bridge in general.

Furthermore, there was not one single HCP reference on E/W's convention card which could denote that the bid of 1 could be made on such a balanced distribution and no high cards. The Committee therefore regarded the 1 bid as a psychic bid, and did not at all take it kindly that the psychic was magnified through incorrect explanation.

The final result: The Committee decided to change the score to 6 making 13 tricks = 1010 North/South. East/West were furthermore given a procedural penalty of 4VP for their lack of full disclosure, the misleading description on the convention card and the failure to explain a psychic bid correctly.

The deposit was returned.

The Committee Chairman's comment: Our Committee realizes that the procedural penalty of 4 VPs is a substantial one and could be looked upon as harsh. We based our decision on the particular offenses committed.

Pairs are allowed to play "destructive" defensive conventions. In return for their privilege, we MUST and do require the following Special Ethical Responsibilities:

1. NEVER allow "careless" misbidding which, if intentional, usually results in the favor of the misbidders.

2. NEVER allow incorrect explanations on either side of the table.

3. NEVER allow less than full disclosure at the table concerning the details of the convention or the tendencies of the players.

4. NEVER allow less than comprehensive disclosure on the convention card.

If ever ANY ONE of these requirements is not fulfilled, the opponents (particularly naïve or inexperienced opponents) are at too much of a disadvantage.

Here, all four of these caveats were violated. Remember, we on the Appeals Committee, particularly in anything but a straight knockout event, represent the whole field, not just the opponents. Allowing a team to psychologically intimidate another is unfair to all teams in particular and to bridge in general.

Our responsibility is to have a level playing field so that all our teams have an equal chance for the result to be decided by bidding, play and defense, which are the cornerstones of our game.

Appeals Case Sixteen

Olympiad Ladies Teams. Round 8. Denmark v Great Britain

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

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

(1) Playing four-card majors.
(2) Alerted and explained by West as hearts and a minor; not alerted by East.

Facts: 3NT by North went down one, minus 100 for N/S. The Director was called at the end of the hand.

While East did not alert West's 2 bid, North said that when she asked about the bid's meaning East replied that E/W had no specific agreement, but that it may be showing the minors. North then stated that her later 3 bid, while intended as natural, was interpreted by South as asking for a heart stopper. Had North been given the proper information she would not have tried to bid hearts naturally, and N/S would have stayed out of notrump. The Director decided that South knew from North's double of 2 that she "could" have held five spades, and could have bid 4 based on her major suit holdings in any case. The result at the table was therefore allowed to stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North stated that had she been correctly informed that West's 2 bid showed hearts and a minor she would have had no reason to try to bid hearts naturally.

Systemically she had available an immediate jump to 3NT over 2 to show a strong (18+ HCP) hand with a five-card spade suit and notrump playability. South could then have evaluated her three-card spade support more accurately. East very graciously apologized for losing her focus and misexplaining her partner's 2 bid. E/W played opening two-level bids of 2 through 2 as weak five-five two-suiters, and the fact that West was a passed hand confused her and kept her from offering the "hearts-and-a-minor" explanation (E/W actually played 2 as Michaels; West had simply considered her six-five shape too good in playing strength to open with a two-bid, preferring to try to show her extra distribution later in the auction.) Confused, East had told North that E/W had "no specific agreement" about 2, but that it could be for the minors (since E/W played that the cheapest cuebid showed the minors in some other auctions).

After West bid 3 East retracted her statement to North that 2 could have been for the minors, but still affirmed that 2 was undiscussed. North then proceeded to show her hearts (she believed) naturally, and then to show her minor suit stoppers by finally bidding 3NT. South made a judgment to pass this thinking that North had a strong hand with four spades needing "some help" in hearts (her singleton queen) for 3NT.

The Committee's Decision: This was a difficult case, and the committee was clearly divided between two defensible positions. One group (the minority) believed that North should have suspected the true meaning of West's 2 bid in spite of East's uncertainty as to its meaning. Further, North's decision to bid 3NT with a singleton A after West had bid the suit (and East was virtually certain to find that lead) was an error which was itself the direct cause of N/S's poor result. This group believed that N/S deserved no protection, and that the table result should therefore be allowed to stand, perhaps with a small procedural penalty on E/W for their failure to accurately disclose their agreements.

The other group (the majority) believed that East's explanation had deprived North of the opportunity to accurately describe her hand with a single bid (a jump to 3NT directly over 2) which would have solved N/S's problems entirely. While neither North nor South's subsequent actions were above reproach, they were reasonable enough not to jeopardize their rights to redress. The committee therefore voted to protect N/S.

A majority of the committee members believed that N/S would have reached 4 had there been no misinformation, but that E/W might also have found the profitable sacrifice in 5, which might have gone down either two or three tricks. These three results were then weighted equally in determining the adjusted score (equity) on the board, with both sides assigned the score of plus 470 for N/S.

Committee: Richard Colker, chairman; Dan Morse, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Nissan Rand, Israel; George Retek, Canada; Barbara Nudelman, USA; and Virgil Anderson, USA.

Appeals Case Seventeen

Olympiad Open Teams. Round 21. Venezuela v Estonia

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

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

(1) 14+ to 17- HCP.
(2) Alerted by North to East as a transfer; not Alerted by South.

Facts: 2 doubled by North made three, plus 870 for N/S. The Director was called to the table and informed by E/W that North's 2 bid had been Alerted by North as a transfer but not by South. As a result East, who had been misinformed of the meaning of 2 (but given an accurate description of North's actual hand) had misinterpreted the meaning (and implications) of West's double of 2, inducing him (East) to double 2.

The Director decided that East's decision to double 2 "without hearts and without points" was his own, and ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that he believed during the auction that West had been alerted (as East had) that 2 was a transfer, and that South had (probably) passed the bid holding a diamond suit of his own. West's double of 2 therefore showed not only a willingness to penalize 2, but also a willingness to penalize 2 (although perhaps not without East's input). When North retreated to 2 East, holding the useful K and additional defensive help in clubs, doubled cooperatively for his partner (based on the above inference, induced by North's misalert).

North stated that he had forgotten that he did not play transfers after doubles with this partner (the actual N/S agreement) although he did with other partners. North believed when South passed 2 that South had forgotten their agreements, and was never aware until the hand was over that he was the one who had misbid.

Thus, he did not correct the misinformation to East. In fact, when the tray returned after South's pass of 2 and North bid 2 he once again affirmed to East that he really held hearts.

The Committee's Decision: The facts were determined as presented above. In a split decision the committee voted to remove East's double, which the majority of the members thought would never have been made without the misinformation, and adjust the score for both pairs to 2 by North making three, plus 140 for N/S.

Dissenting Opinion: Two committee members believed that there should be no score adjustment for several reasons. First, East should have known that both South and West knew that 2 was natural because: (1) if North was known by South to hold a weak hand with hearts, and South held a strong notrump with diamonds, then South's hand would prove more valuable in a heart contract than North's hand would be in a diamond contract; and (2) South could not have known that North didn't hold a good distributional game-going hand with hearts planning to bid again after the transfer. So South would never pass if he believed 2 was a transfer. Second, East's double of 2 was at best poorly judged.West's penalty double of 2 opposite South's presumed length (for his pass of 2, according to East), together with East's own diamond length, left North with no diamonds. Thus, much of West's defensive strength would be wasted defending a heart contract. Without heart length or additional values East's double should have figured to be at best a gamble at IMP scoring.

Third, East made a statement during his testimony which considerably weakened his position. He said that he had never seen a pair play transfers after a penalty double of 1NT, and so was puzzled by North's alert of 2. If he was really skeptical of the meaning of North's 2 bid then South's pass should have been a significant occurrence to him and had a greater influence on his later actions.

The dissenters therefore believed that E/W's poor result, although subsequent to the misinformation, was the consequence of poor judgment on E/W's part, and thus mostly of their own making.

Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark, chairman; Tommy Sandsmark, Norway; John Wignall, New Zealand; Naki Bruni, Italy; Richard Colker, USA.

Appeal Case Eighteen

Olympiad Open Teams. Round 21. France v Japan

Board 16 Game All Dealer West WEST	NORTH   A K Q 10 9 8 6   A Q 9 7   -   A 2	EAST
3   8 6 5 4   Q 9 8 2   Q 10 5 3	SOUTH	5 4 2   - -   A 7 6 5 3   J 9 7 6 4
	J 7   K J 10 3 2   K J 10 4   K 8

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

(1) Game forcing, any pattern
(2) Either two kings or 8+ HCPs
(3) Asks for a diamond lead

Facts: The opening lead was the A, after which declarer claimed 13 tricks. At that point South called the Director. N/S stated that North had been damaged by East's failure to alert his double of 7. Although there were some language problems the Director determined that the double in question was not alerted by either of the E/W players, but that West had written for South that it asked for a diamond lead. East then explained that he had intended his double of 7 as a tactical bid hoping that N/S would run to 7NT. East then indicated to the Director that the double asked for a diamond lead and apologized for failing to alert. N/S stated that North would have redoubled had he known what the double meant.

The Director ruled that North would have had no reason to run from 7 doubled had he known the correct meaning of the double and he might well have redoubled. In accordance with Law 12C2 the contract was changed for both pairs to the most favorable result likely for N/S, in this case 7 redoubled by North made seven, plus 2940 for N/S.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Directors' ruling. The Japanese team captain (Takashi Maeda) supplied a written statement to the committee containing the following. East's double was of the Lightner variety which, according to an Albuquerque Appeals Committee decision, is never alertable. The Director's statement that East's double asked for a diamond lead was incorrect. It asked for an unusual lead which, in this situation, was judged by West to be a diamond lead. East risked that N/S might play in 7 doubled in exchange for the hope of creating a false impression of a spade void in his hand, hoping that North would run to 7NT.

West, in response to South's inquiry, had made an unfortunate comment that he would lead a diamond (because his partner's double asked for an unusual lead, and his spade singleton made it unlikely that his partner could have a spade void, and neither a heart nor a club lead was considered unusual in this auction). This "gratuitous" comment derived from his personal judgment based upon his own cards and not any E/W partnership agreement, and contained information to which N/S were not entitled. North did fall into East's trap by running from 7 doubled, but ran to the safe contract of 7 rather than 7NT as East had hoped. For these reasons it was believed that the table result of 7 making seven, plus 2210 for N/S, should be allowed to stand.

South testified that West did not alert East's double which he (South) assumed to be Lightner. When the tray containing South's and West's passes disappeared under the screen West wrote that the double called for a diamond lead. Had South known this he stated that he would have redoubled himself because he knew that his partner was void in diamonds.

North stated that he was convinced that East's double showed a spade void, and that was why he declared 7. Otherwise, he said, he should have redoubled because he was sure to make 7.

The Committee's Decision: The committee decided that Lightner doubles were alertable, although if played in the typical way (asking for an "unusual" lead) it would be difficult to conceive of penalizing a player for failing to alert them because of their almost universal use. However, this E/W pair appeared to be playing them in an unusual manner, calling for the first suit "named" by the dummy and not for an unusual lead (as claimed by the E/W team). Given such a partnership agreement the committee believed that the convention did require an alert. The contract was therefore adjusted for both pairs to 7 redoubled by North made seven, plus 2940 for N/S, in accord with Law 12C2 and as the Director originally ruled at the table. E/W's deposit was returned.

Committee: Edgar Kaplan, USA, chairman; Ron Andersen, USA; Nissan Rand, Israel; Barbara Nudelman, USA; and Virgil Anderson, USA.

Appeal Case Nineteen

Olympiad Open Teams. Round 31. Luxembourg v Sweden.

Board 6 East/West Game Dealer East WEST	NORTH   Q 4 2   A 9 3   A 9 7 4 3   8 5	EAST
A 10   K Q 10 4 2   J 5   A K J 9	SOUTH	K J 9 7   J 6   Q   Q 10 7 6 3 2
	8 6 5 3   8 7 5   K 10 8 6 2   4

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

(1) Strong, artificial and forcing
(2) East to North: game force with clubs; West to South: 5+ spades and 5+ HCPs
(3) East to North: natural, secondary spade suit

Facts: The opening lead was the 4, after which declarer made 11 tricks for plus 650 for E/W. The Director was called at the end of play, all players agreeing to the explanations described in the auction above. It was determined that West's explanation was in error (East's explanations correctly described E/W's agreements). South stated that had he been given the correct information that East showed only four spades (and that E/W could therefore be playing a four-three fit or worse) he would have led a diamond going for the forcing game rather than a club looking for ruff(s). This would have resulted in 4 going down.

E/W stated that even had South known that East had only four spades West's raise would have suggested that E/W were playing a four-four spade fit, and the only chance for beating the contract would still have been a club lead (hoping to find North with the A otherwise East would have five clubs, four spades, and a diamond ruff for ten tricks).

The Director decided that the misinformation from West did not result in E/W gaining an advantage in arriving at a superior contract (4H or 5). Rather, they arrived in an inferior contract which gave N/S a chance for a good result, which they failed to take advantage of. In the Director's opinion South should have known that East held clubs since East had shown five spades, fewer than three hearts (he didn't raise West's suit), and at most three diamonds (given N/S's five-five fit). Therefore, the Director ruled that the table result would stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. The committee determined the facts as stated above. North stated on South's behalf (who was ill and could not attend the hearing) that a diamond lead would be virtually automatic given the correct information, and that South was deprived by the misinformation of the opportunity to properly consider the alternative of a forcing defense.

The Committee's Decision: The committee decided that South would have led a diamond virtually all of the time given the proper information. Had diamonds then been continued a second and third time (even if East pitched a heart on the second round of the suit), as the committee believed N/S would have done, the contract would have failed by at least one trick. Since it was not possible to determine how many tricks E/W would go down on the diamond lead, the committee assigned an artificial adjusted score of minus 100 to E/W and plus 100 to N/S.

Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark, chairman; Edgar Kaplan, USA; Richard Colker, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Naki Bruni, Italy; and Dan Morse, USA.

Appeal Case Twenty

Open Teams. Round 14. Board 14. Lithuania vs. Luxembourg

Love All Dealer East WEST	NORTH   -   A J 7 2   K 4 2   A 10 9 7 6 5	EAST
Q J 8 3 2   Q 4 3   J 10 6   8 2	SOUTH	K 7 6   10 9 8 5   9 8 5 3   Q J
	A 10 9 5 4   K 6   A Q 7   K 4 3

West	North	East	South
Schaaper	Sarkanas	Pino	Vainikonis
-	-	Pass	1
Pass	2	Pass	2NT(1)
Pass	3	Pass	4
Pass	4(2)	Pass	4(2)
Pass	5(3)	Pass	6
All Pass

(1) Game forcing; at least 14 good HCP
(2) Cuebids
(3) Agreed hesitation

Table result: 6 by North made = +920 North/South. TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table after the play. The bidding by North did not show any distribution besides a long club suit.

TD's ruling: The score was adjusted to 5 +1 = 420. N/S appealed.

The parties involved: N/S maintained that 4 was invitational to slam and that South could have gone directly to 6 after the 4 cuebid. The reason why he went on cuebidding was that, since North's hand was unlimited, he thought there might even be a possibility of playing 7. He did not bid 4 NT (RKCB) because he was afraid of getting 5 from North. He did not agree that there was any change in tempo.

E/W stated that the hesitation had been agreed upon at the table, which was confirmed by the TD.

The Committee: The Committee found that there had been a change in tempo even if this change in tempo was challenged later, which may be due to some language difficulties. However, the Committee did not consider this break in tempo a revealing hesitation. South had enough info after the 4 cue to bid at least 6.

The final result: The Committee unanimously reverted the score to the table result, +920 N/S. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Virgil Anderson, USA; P.O. Sundelin, Sweden; Naki Bruni, Italy; Steen Moeller, Denmark; Edgar Kaplan, USA; Dan Morse, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Case Twenty One

Open Teams. Round 15. Board 16. USA vs. Chinese Taipei

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

West	North	East	South
Lin	Garner	Shen	Oest
1	Dble	1	Pass
3	3	Pass	4
Pass	Pass	Dble	All Pass

Table result: 4 by North -1 = +100 E/W

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the hand. North claimed he had been deceived by East's explanation of 3, which had been explained as "Invitational." The explanation was, however , consistent with their convention card. E/W were playing Precision. East led the 5 to the 10, and West then switched to a heart. Declarer misguessed and went one down.

TD's ruling: TD ruled that the table score stands. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: This particular appeal took two Committee meetings, as no representatives from Chinese Taipei were present at the first meeting and the TD was not quite sure that he had ensured that they would be there. At the first meeting, the N/S players insisted that North's screenmate, East had said "top of the range" when explaining the 3 bid. North claimed that "top of the range" for him would indicate 14-15 HCP when the opponents were playing Precision.

Furthermore, North said that "invitational" was inconsistent with both West's hand and with the fact that East failed to bid 4 over 3. North claimed he had been misinformed and as a result misguessed the heart to go one down. This was mostly due to the fact that the A would have to be with East (who had doubled 4), so in order for West to have points enough to fulfil "top of the range," he would surely hold the A.Had he had the right explanation, he would have had a chance to make the right guess and could have won his contract. A number of questions remained unanswered, so the Committee scheduled another meeting to be able to receive the facts from both sides.

The Committee: The second Committee meeting, now with E/W present, revealed that nobody had really said "top of the range," only "invitational." This was consistent with both the TD's explanation and with North's own statement on the Appeal Form. E/W maintained that their idea of "invitational" was that good distribution would compensate for the lack of HCP. They were consistent in inviting game on such hands, and East did not find his hand good enough to bid the game.

The final result: The Committee found no infraction and upheld TD's decision:The table result stands: 4 by North, -1 = +100 E/W. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (chairman); Richard Colker, USA; Naki Bruni, Italy; John Wignall, New Zealand, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Case Twenty Two

Open Teams. Round 30. Board 28. Monaco vs. Kenya

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

West	North	East	South
Masumdar	Seutet	Bharadwaj	Tognetti
1NT	Pass	2	Pass
2	Pass	4	All Pass

Table result: 4 by West -1 = +100 N/S

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the hand,West claiming that he had been deceived by his opponents' convention card, which showed the lead of the 10 to be different from their actual methods. The card stated that against suit contracts, the lead of the 10 would show 10 or 10 9.

At the table TD was assured by both North and South that the lead of the 10 could show: high card 10 9, 10 9 or 10 even against suit contracts.

Table result: North led the 10. Declarer went up with the ace and the contract went one down.

TD's ruling: TD ruled that by N/S's inadequate (improper) filling out of the convention card, declarer's options in the play had been reduced. He therefore adjusted the score to +420 E/W. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: West stated that he was guided by what he saw on the convention card. He admitted to not having posed any further questions to his opponents. He therefore decided that the lead couldn't be from the king, so he played the ace on the tiny possibility that the king would drop.

N/S maintained that declarer had simply played unfortunately, as there was no way of winning the contract without finessing the club at trick one.

The Committee: The Committee did find an infraction (convention disruption), as N/S's convention cards were not properly filled in. The Committee discussed whether this infraction should be penalized by 1 VP or by giving E/W 420. However, as to E/W, the play made by West was so inferior that the Committee were unable to grant them the contract.

The final result: E/W were to keep their bad score (minus 50). The Committee then by a narrow margin took away whatever might have been gained by N/S on the infraction and adjusted N/S's score to minus 420.

The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (chairman); Virgil Anderson, USA; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Naki Bruni, Italy; Steen Moeller, Denmark; Edgar Kaplan, USA; Dan Morse, USA; Nissan Rand, Israel; Richard Colker, USA, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Cases 23

Olympiad Open Teams Quarterfinals Poland vs. Chinese Taipei

Board 21 Love All Dealer N WEST	NORTH   A 3   K Q J 3   10 7 5   K 10 5 4	EAST
Q 10 5 2   9 7 6 4   A K 3 2   J	SOUTH	J 8 7 4   A 10   6   A Q 8 7 6 2
	K 9 6   8 5 2   Q J 9 8 4   9 3

West	North	East	South
Huang	Balicki	Kuo	Zmudzinski
-	1	2	2
Dble	All Pass

Table result: down two = +500 E/W.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the play. South claimed there had been different explanations on either side of the table as to the double of 2. East had explained to North: "Penalty". West to South: "Probably take-out - has not been discussed". North claimed that if his partner had had the same info as he was given by East, he would go only one down. The play went: J to the K and A. Q (heart discard from West) and 2 to the Q (another heart discard fromWest). South then played the 6 to the A, another spade to the K and South's last spade, ruffed with the 5. The K was played and East won the A leaving this position:

WEST	NORTH   -   Q J 3   10 7   10	EAST
Q   9   A K 3 2   -	SOUTH	J   10   6   8 7 6
	-   8 5   J 9 8 4   -

Now followed the 6 from East. South ruffed with the J. West pitched his last heart, and the contract had to go two down, the defense winning two club tricks, four diamond tricks and one heart trick.

TD's ruling: The TD believed the wrong explanation not to be of consequence to the bad score. The result stands. North/South appealed.

The parties involved: South maintained that he thought that West had 5-5 or 5-4 in the major suits and therefore misplayed the hand. He knew that East was likely not to hold more than three diamonds, as West turned out to hold only a single club. E/W stated that they thought South had misplayed the hand at trick eight (diagram). If South simply discards a heart on East's 6, West will have to ruff, and Declarer will have one more trick.

The Committee: The Committee believed E/W when they said that they had no agreement as to the double of 2. This is confirmed by the fact that East did not pull out in spite of his poor diamond holding. In addition,West had told South that he was in doubt himself. West had made a bid which was clear-cut to him, and it didn't matter how his partner would perceive it, as he also held both the majors. The committee agreed with the TD that South's claim of damage was not the cause of the bad score. South misplayed the hand at trick eight.

The final result: The Committee upheld the TD's decision. If you misplay your hand, you should never try the double shot of a replay by the Appeals Committee.

The deposit was therefore forfeited.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Ron Anderson, USA; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Edgar Kaplan, USA; George Retek, Canada, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).

Appeal Cases 24

Women's teams Quarterfinals Germany vs. Canada

Board 11 Love All Dealer South WEST	NORTH   A Q J 9   K 9 8 5   J 9 2   K Q	EAST
10 8 5   Q 3 2   8 6   A J 9 4 3	SOUTH	K 7 3   A 10   A K Q 10 4 3   7 6
	6 4 2   J 7 6 4   7 5   10 8 5 2

West	North	East	South
Gordon	Auken	Reus	von.Arnim
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1NT(1)	Dble(2)	Pass
Pass	2(3)	Dble	Pass
Pass	2	Pass(4)	Pass
Dble	Pass	Pass	Pass

(1) 14-16 HCP
(2) Good one-suited hand (defensive tricks) or a 17-18 balanced hand
(3) Alerted and explained by North to East: "Either D, or if I run, 4-4 in the majors". Not alerted by South.
(4) Forcing

Table result: down one = +100 E/W.

TD's statement of facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the session. E/W claimed that they had been damaged by South's failure to alert the 2 bid. With the right explanation, E/W would have found 3 NT.

TD's ruling: The score stands.

The parties involved: West claimed that the lack of an Alert of 2 made her believe that the bid was natural. In that case, East's D holding could be less, and she expected East to have the strong, balanced type. After the forcing pass by East, she therefore decided to double, whereas she would nearly always have bid 2NT otherwise. North said that she had left the agreed system and only tried to be fair, telling her screenmate what she was actually holding, which she expected her partner to understand.

The Committee: The Committee found proof on N/S's convention card that North had other bids at her disposal than the one she applied to decribe her hand. Thus North had only tried to be ethical when she actually described her own hand to East. It would, however have been more correct if she had stated the facts, that there was no system agreement to the bid she made. Her explanation did, however, constitute convention disruption. This put her partnership in a very disadvantegeous situation, as the TD is obliged to rule misexplanation on both sides of the screen.

As to E/W, the committee unanimously agreed that East had displayed poor bridge judgement when doubling 2. She was sure to know that North would run to the majors, and had nothing to gain by the double. 2NT or 3NT would have been far better. West, on the other hand, could have been misguided by the convention disruption, and nobody can blame her for doubling 2.

The final result: The Committee decided that due to East's poor bidding, the result stands for E/W. However, since there had been a misexplanation that could have damaged West, the committee decided to award N/S a procedural penalty of 2.5 IMPs for convention disruption. The deposit was returned.

Committee: Bobby Wolff, USA (Chairman); Ron Anderson, USA; Virgil Andersen, USA; Barbara Nudelman, USA; Joan Gerard, USA; Edgar Kaplan, USA; George Retek, Canada; Steen Moeller, Denmark, and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway (Scribe).