69th Summer North American Bridge Championships
Albuquerque, New Mexico
July 24-August 3, 1997
APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISIONS
|
CASE ONE
Subject: Misinformation
Event: Life Masters Pairs, 25 July 97, Second Session
Board: 28 Allan Siebert
Dealer: West S A9
Vul: N-S H 52
D T986
C KQ986
Ervin Pfeiffle Dick LeClaire
S J8632 S 74
H 9843 H AQT76
D 732 D AK
C 5 C T432
Joe Kivel
S KQT5
H KJ
D QJ54
C AJ7
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Pass Pass 1H Dbl
1S (1) 2C 2H 3C
All Pass
(1) Alerted; showed three or more hearts and
nothing about spades.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
3C made four, plus 130 for N-S. North asked about the 1S
Alert and was told it promised at least three hearts and
said nothing about spades. When North asked what the
difference was between bidding 1S or 2H, he was told that
1S showed a better hand (4 to 7 points) than a 2H bid did.
Before the opening lead was made E-W clarified that with
three-card heart support and zero points, West was required
to bid.
The Director was called after the opening lead was made and
the dummy was put down. The Director ruled the E-W
agreement had not been explained properly. During the
twelfth round the Director informed both pairs that the
result would be changed to Average Plus for N-S and Average
Minus for E-W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
E-W appealed the Director's ruling. North, South and East
attended the Committee. East stated that he did not believe
that N-S should be entitled to a double shot for a good
board because they had failed to bid 3NT.
North stated that had he known the West hand could be as
weak as it was he would have bid 3C. He chose to bid 2C
because he thought his partner's hand could not produce
enough for game with the opening bid and raise. North
stated that it was not known that West had to bid with any
hand containing three-card heart support until the opening
lead was made.
The Committee determined that the E-W partnership agreement
was that any hand with three-card heart support had to bid
and that 1S, 2C or 2D all showed heart support, 4 to 7
points, indicated a lead preference but did not promise
length in the suit bid. 2H would have been weaker.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided that misinformation was present and
had likely affected the N-S result. With a full
explanation, North may have chosen a 3C bid and South would
likely have bid 3NT. Since it was also likely that nine
tricks would be taken, the Committee changed the contract
for both sides to 3NT made three, plus 600 for N-S.
The Committee decided to educate E-W about their
obligations regarding full and complete disclosure of
partnership agreements rather than retain the deposit.
E-W were also warned that psyching this conventional
agreement was not permissible.
The Committee did not agree that N-S had taken a double
shot at a good result because they could not possibly know
what the full E-W agreement was from the information they
had been given at the table.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Jon Brissman
Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Henry Bethe, Brad Moss,
Irma Sands
===========================================================
CASE TWO
Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Life Master Pairs, 25 July 97, Second Session
Board: 29 Brad Moss
Dealer: North S A82
Vul: Both H KJ4
D QJ43
C K97
Kumar Bhatia Phil Becker
S K7 S QJ964
H A73 H QT8
D 98 D A752
C AQ8642 C T
Elizabeth Reich
S T53
H 9652
D KT6
C J53
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- 1NT(1) Pass Pass
2C Pass 2S All Pass
(1) 15-17; could be 14+
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
2S made three, plus 140 for E/W. West fumbled with the Pass
card and then bid 2C. The Director ruled that the table
result would stand because the fumble did not suggest the
2S bid over any other alternative.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South, East and West
appeared before the Committee. On the first board of the
round, the auction came fairly quickly to West, who was
still distracted by a bad result on the previous round.
He somewhat absentmindedly reached to the front part of the
bid box and fingered the Pass card, lifting it a bit, but
not out of the box. East said he could not see which card
West fingered. West asked about the range of the 1NT bid.
The 2C bid was natural. South maintained that pass was a
logical alternative for East and that the infraction should
limit East's choice of bids.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee believed West's statement that his actions
with the bid box were those of a player who had not yet
considered his bid. This was an infraction. Acting in such
a way may transmit considerable information.
The Committee evaluated the infraction, the information,
and East's action. The Committee believed the infraction
was bad. The information transmitted by the infraction,
however, was minimal. The Committee and the players agreed
the 2C bid was clear-cut. If fingering the Pass card
suggested bidding over 2C, then West's hand did not comport
well with that suggestion.
The Committee decided the information conveyed by the
infraction was incidental and not substantive. The
Committee allowed the table result, 2S made three, plus 140
for E/W to stand. The Committee was ambivalent about
whether this type of decision should be based on the
quality of the 2S bid. 2S was a good bid and had a very
good matchpoint rationale to support it.
There was some division within the Committee about whether
2S would have been allowed if the unauthorized information
present was more substantial. The standards for permitting
such a bid are high.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Bobby Goldman, Bill Laubenheimer, Carlyn
Steiner, Jon Wittes
===========================================================
CASE THREE
Subject: Misinformation
Event: Life Master Pairs, 26 July 97, Second Session
Board: 12 Michael Kamil
Dealer: West S QT9842
Vul: N/S H 5
D KT62
C 98
Mark Itabashi Linda Lewis
S 763 S K
H AT8732 H KQ9
D 87 D AQJ954
C T6 C AQ4
Michael Becker
S AJ5
H J64
D 3
C KJ7532
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
3H Pass 4C (1) Pass
4H (2) Pass 6H All Pass
(1) Keycard asking; not Alerted; announced before
the opening lead
(2) Showed one keycard without the HQ
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
6H made six, plus 980 for E/W. The opening lead was a low
diamond. The 4C bid required an immediate Alert. After the
announcement and prior to the opening lead South told the
Director that he would have made a lead-directing double of
4C had he known it was artificial.
The Director ruled that the auction was unusual enough that
South should have asked about the 4C bid if his call
depended on knowing the meaning of the bid. The Director
ruled (Law 40C) there was no damage and allowed the table
result to stand.
(Note: The Directors made their ruling based on their
understanding that the opening bid had been 2H. The
Directors pointed out that their ruling was more likely to
have been in favor of the non-offenders if their
understanding of the auction had been correct.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. North, South, and East
appeared before the Committee. South stated that after the
4C bid he paused briefly and waited for an Alert from the
opponents. The N/S agreement was that if 4C was natural,
double would have been takeout and if 4C was artificial,
double would have been lead directing. South felt
uncomfortable about the possibility of asking, finding out
the bid was natural and then passing. South stated he would
have doubled had he been told 4C was artificial. He was not
sure if the Laws placed him in jeopardy for asking the
meaning of a call that had not been Alerted in this
situation. He was unsure to what degree he was required to
protect himself.
East stated if South had doubled 4C, West would have passed
denying first or second-round club control (they were not
playing DOPI because they were using a five-step system to
show zero, one or two keycards). East further stated that
she would then not bid slam because she would now have
known that a club would be led and an ace was missing.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee unanimously agreed that there had been a
failure to Alert the 4C bid. In order to determine if there
was damage as a consequence of the infraction, the
Committee had to decide if South was required to protect
himself. The Committee was divided on this issue. One
member believed South should have asked about the meaning
of 4C if he needed to know. One member believed the pause
to wait for a possible Alert met his obligation. Three
members believed it was reasonable for South to assume the
bid was natural (his clubs were just bad enough that this
was possible). The Committee therefore decided that there
was damage as a consequence of the infraction.
The Committee decided that South would have doubled a
properly Alerted 4C bid. The Committee thought it was
probable a slam would be bid. If West had seven hearts and
diamonds were favorable, 6H would be a reasonable contract.
After analyzing the play, the Committee decided the best
line of play to make the contract would be: CA, HK, heart
to the ace, diamond to the queen, diamond ruffed by South,
SA, spade. Unfortunately, this would have led to down
three. The Committee changed the contract to 6H down three,
which was plus 150 for N/S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting Opinion:
(Ron Gerard). South was required to protect his side by
asking about the meaning of 4C. His hand suggested that 4C
was not natural and he was considering making a lead-
directing double that depended on the non-natural meaning
of 4C. In fact, bridge logic would also suggest that 4C was
not natural, since it is unlikely to get out of partner's
suit without bidding game. Since South did not inquire
about the meaning of 4C, he cannot get a second chance to
do so because of the failure to Alert.
At this level, players should know that they do not
transmit unauthorized information by asking questions
because the Laws do not allow partner to take advantage
of that information. However, E/W should not profit from
their failure to Alert. The result should have been N/S
minus 980, E/W minus 150.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Martin Caley
Committee Members: Ron Gerard, Bill Laubenheimer, Ed Lucas,
Ellen Siebert, (scribe: Linda Weinstein)
===========================================================
CASE FOUR
Subject: Tempo
Event: Bracketed KO, 26 July 97, Afternoon Session
Board: 17 S JT8
Dealer: North H A432
Vul: None D AJT7
C 53
S 76532 S AKQ94
H 9 H 86
D K986 D 5
C A87 C KQ642
S ---
H KQJT75
D Q432
C JT9
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- Pass 1S 2H
4S 5H 5S Pass
Pass Dbl(1) Pass 6H
Dbl All Pass
(1) Break in tempo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
6H doubled went down two, plus 300 for E/W. At North's
third turn to bid, he considered his alternatives for 15-25
seconds before doubling. The players all agreed to the
length of the break in tempo. East called the Director
immediately after North doubled.
After establishing the facts, the Director allowed play to
continue. At the completion of play, E/W called the
Director and asked him to determine if pass was a logical
alternative to the 6H bid.
After consulting with other Directors, the Director
returned and ruled that pass was a logical alternative. The
decision to bid 6H may have been influenced by the length
of time that elapsed prior to the double. The Director
changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, plus 650 for
E/W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All four players
appeared before the Committee. South explained that their
partnership agreement was to play intermediate strength
jump overcalls. He stated he had to make a simple overcall
with his possibly defenseless hand. South noted his partner
was a passed hand and North made no five-level cuebid to
show a strong raise to 5H. Since South judged that it was
unlikely that North had three defensive tricks, he deemed
it prudent to pull the double.
E/W stated that South's hand may not be defenseless, and
that South may have considered passing had North doubled in
tempo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee conceded that South's arguments were
thoughtful and well reasoned, yet fell short of persuasive.
On the actual hand, if East's red suits were reversed,
passing the double would have been the winning action.
Since passing was a logical alternative for South, the
likely result of that contract was assigned. The Committee
changed the contract to 5S doubled made five, plus 650 for
E/W.
There was no sentiment among the Committee members that
South had unethically taken advantage of the unauthorized
information transmitted by North's hesitation.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Jon Brissman
Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Dave Treadwell
===========================================================
CASE FIVE
Subject: Tempo
Event: Fast Pairs
Board: 2 S 6
Dealer: East H J6542
Vul: N/S D J92
C QT52
S 84 S JT
H AQ3 H K987
D KQT875 D A43
C KJ C 9763
S AKQ97532
H T
D 6
C A84
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- - Pass 2C
3D Pass Pass 4S
Pass (1) Pass 5D Dbl
All Pass
(1) Break in tempo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
5D doubled went down one, plus 100 for N/S. The Director
determined that West considered his action for 20 to 30
seconds after South bid 4S. After consultation, the
Director ruled that unauthorized information was present
and that pass was a logical alternative for East. The
Director changed the contract to 4S made four, plus 420 for
N/S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East stated that she
did not raise diamonds at her first opportunity because the
opponent's may not have bid game. East decided that the
sacrifice of 5D was indicated by her hand. She stated the
slow tempo of her partner's pass did not influence her
choice of actions.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided that there had been a break in tempo
and that unauthorized information was present. The
Committee applied Law 16 which mandates that the Committee
examine the logical alternatives that East had to choose
from and preclude any action that could demonstrably have
been suggested by the presence of the unauthorized
information.
The Committee decided that the tempo break could have
suggested the 5D bid and that pass was a logical
alternative. The Committee imposed the pass on East and
changed the contract to 4S made four, plus 420 for N/S. The
Committee did not believe that East had been consciously
influenced by the unauthorized information.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Jon Brissman
Committee Members: Mark Bartusek, Alan LeBendig
===========================================================
CASE SIX
Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight B Swiss Teams, 27 July 97, First Session
Board: 4 S AKT9642
Dealer: West H 6
Vul: Both D 973
C 83
S 873 S ---
H J3 H AKQ9742
D QT8 D KJ542
C AKT96 C J
S QJ5
H T53
D A6
C Q7542
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Pass 3S 4H 4S
5H Pass Pass (1) 5S
6H All Pass
(1) Break in tempo
----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
6H made six, plus 1430 for E/W. The Director was called by
West before South bid 5S. West thought South had ended the
auction with a verbal Pass. In reality South stated he
thought East had hesitated before East said Pass. The
Director ruled that South had not bid and the auction
continued.
After the hand was over the Director was called back to the
table. The Director ruled that the break in tempo made
doubling 5S a logical alternative for West.
The contract was changed to 5S doubled down two, plus 500
for E/W.
West stated that he did not agree there had been a break in
tempo. The screening Director stated that North, East and
South had all previously agreed there had been a break in
tempo.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South and West appeared
before the Committee.
West stated that he was under the impression that during an
auction, that escalated to high levels quickly, players
should slow their tempo. He was disconcerted by the fact
that North had made a rather fast pass after the 5H bid.
South stated that due to a physical problem manipulating
the bidding cards, his partner's tempo did sometimes vary.
West stated he bid 5H over 4S because his partnership (each
have about 250 masterpoints) was inexperienced and he did
not think they had the mechanics to get to 6H. He could
safely bid 5H after partner's vulnerable 4H bid. He thought
that there were no heart losers but there might be a spade
and diamond loser.
West did not consider bidding 5C over 4S. Once South bid
5S, West no longer thought their side had a spade loser and
that both 5S and 6H might make. When asked to demonstrate
the length of the tempo break, South simulated an eight
second break.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided that there was a break in tempo and
that the 6H bid could not be allowed. The Committee did not
agree with the West analysis of probable losers. The
Committee agreed there was probably no spade loser,
probably only one diamond loser, but did not agree the
hearts were guaranteed to be solid.
The Committee next decided whether West would double 5S.
East had stated that part of the reason he had bid 6H was
because 5S might make. The Committee, however, believed
that if East had passed in tempo, West probably would have
doubled 5S.
The Committee then gave thought to whether East would pull
an in-tempo double to 6H as cheap insurance. Since E/W was
the offending side, the standard required to allow East to
take the best action for his side is quite high. In this
case the standard could not possibly be met because East
had chosen not to appear before the Committee.
Based on the statements heard, the Committee decided they
could not find any basis to overturn the Director's ruling.
The contract was changed to 5S doubled down two, plus 500
for E/W.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Bobby Goldman
Committee Members: Harvey Brody, Steve Weinstein
===========================================================
CASE SEVEN
Subject: Change of Call
Event:Stratified Mixed Pairs, 28 July 97, First Session
Board: 31 S 764
Dealer: South H AJ
Vul: N/S D AKQT74
C 72
S KJ52 S AT83
H T H KQ865
D J965 D 8
C T985 C Q43
S Q9
H 97432
D 32
C AKJ6
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- - - Pass
Pass 1D 1H 1NT
Pass 2D All Pass
----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
2D made three, plus 110 for N/S. Originally, South had
placed the 1H bid card on the table. When the insufficiency
of the bid was called to his attention, South immediately
stated that he had intended to bid 1NT. The Director was
called.
Away from the table, South was firm in his statement that
he had intended to bid 1NT and did not know how he had
managed to place the 1H card on the table. Away from the
table, West told the Director that if he were allowed to,
he would accept the 1H bid and bid 1S. The Director ruled
that South's 1H call was inadvertent and could be changed
to 1NT (Law 25A) and that the table result would stand.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director's ruling. South stated that he
did not notice that his call was 1H when he pulled the card
from the box, when he transported the card to the table, or
when he placed it on the table. South stated he was left-
handed and had been using his right hand to handle the
bidding cards a bit clumsily.
----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The pivotal issue before the Committee was whether South's
1H call was inadvertent. South pulled a card which was not
next to the allegedly intended 1NT card, but separated from
it by the 1S card. It seemed a somewhat remarkable
coincidence that South had such a clear 1H call had he not
seen the 1H bid by East.
On the other hand, when the insufficiency of the bid was
called to South's attention, he immediately said that he
had intended to bid 1NT.
The problem the Committee dealt with was how to weigh the
evidence of inadvertency. Clearly South was quite negligent
if not inadvertent. A person careless enough not to check
his own bid, might have been careless enough to not notice
his right-hand opponent's bid. The Committee struggled with
the problem of how much imprudence should be tolerated in
order to make a finding of inadvertence.
In a split decision, the Committee used the Director's
finding of credibility at the table to be determinative of
the issue. In cases where a finding of credibility is made
at the table, it is sometimes appropriate when the evidence
is not clear to use the Director's finding of credibility
as the default position for the Committee. The Committee
allowed the table result, 2D made three, plus 110 for N/S
to stand.
----------------------------------------------------------
Dissenting Opinion: Jan Cohen. As one who does not believe
in coincidences, I was too troubled by both the fact that
South held five hearts and that the 1H bid card is two
cards away from the 1NT card to vote that South really
intended to bid 1NT.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Michael Huston
Committee Members: Jan Cohen, Ed Lazarus
===========================================================
CASE EIGHT
Subject: Misinformation
Event: Continuous Pairs, 28 July 97
Board: 2 S 54
Dealer: East H A82
Vul: N/S D 7653
C AKQ3
S J86 S KQ32
H T64 H J95
D KJT42 D AQ98
C 52 C 96
S AT97
H KQ73
D ---
C JT874
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- - 1D Dbl
3D 4C All Pass
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
4C made seven, plus 190 for N/S. North asked for an
explanation of the 3D bid. East stated that 3D was a limit
raise. Before the opening lead was made, West called the
Director and spoke to him away from the table. After the
hand was over, North asked West what the Director had said.
West told North that she had been instructed to inform the
opponents after the hand was over that she had intended her
3D bid as a weak raise. North called the Director and
stated that N/S would have bid game if North had not been
misinformed. North stated the E/W convention card was not
marked. The Director ruled the misinformation had not
caused damage. The table result was allowed to stand.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All four players
appeared before the Committee. North stated if she had not
been misinformed, or if West had passed, she would have bid
5C. South stated she would have thought North had a better
hand if she had been correctly informed. The Committee
asked North to account for the points that had been shown.
North stated it had seemed like a lot of points had been
shown. North stated she thought her partner's takeout
double might have been very distributional.
West was playing with her husband and stated she also plays
with many other partners. She plays 3D is a weak raise
after double with all of these partners.
West used to play weak raises after double with her husband
but he kept forgetting. They changed their agreement to
limit raises about two years ago.
West forgot their agreement. East plays only with his wife.
The Committee examined the single E/W convention card and
found that minor suit raises after doubles was not marked.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided the E/W agreement was that the 3D bid
was a limit raise and that West had forgotten the
agreement. The Committee unanimously decided that N/S's
poor result was not a consequence of the misinformation.
North had a full opening bid and knew her partner was short
in diamonds. North should have taken a stronger action,
perhaps a cuebid.
South also could have taken a stronger action. South had an
excellent fit and should have realized North must have a
very good hand. The Committee allowed the table result, 4C
made seven, plus 190 for N/S, to stand. E/W were also
instructed to make sure that they had two convention cards
completely filled out and that they had the same
understanding about all their ingredients.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Karen Allison
Committee Members: Harvey Brody, Bruce Keidan, Bruce Reeve,
Dave Treadwell (scribe: Linda Weinstein)
===========================================================
CASE NINE
Subject: Tempo
Event: Life Master Pairs, 26 July 97
Board: 25 Rob Stayman
Dealer: North S J8
Vul: E/W H 875
D AQ7
C QJ543
Jon Brissman Jonathan Steinberg
S Q95432 S T7
H Q642 H K
D 9 D KJT642
C 87 C AT96
Reno Bianchi
S AK6
H AJT93
D 853
C K2
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
- Pass 2D 2H
Pass 3H Pass 4H
All Pass
-----------------------------------------------------------
The play:
West: D9 DA D6 D3
North: H5 HK HA H2
South: CK C8 C3 C6 (1)
South: H3 HQ H5 D2
West: C7
(1) Break in tempo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
4H went down one, plus 50 for E/W. E/W were playing
standard carding. Both sides agreed that there was a
noticeable break in tempo before East played the C6 at
trick three. The Director ruled that a spade shift by West
at trick five was a logical alternative. The Director
changed the contract to 4H made four, plus 420 for N/S.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W made the following
statements:
First, the club play by declarer suggested that declarer
did not have the CA. Second, the discard of the D2 at trick
four had suit preference implications.
N/S stated that if declarer had the hand in question with
the black suit holdings reversed, he might have made the
excellent deceptive play of the CK before playing a second
trump to misdirect the West defender. Because of the break
in tempo, West no longer needed to consider this
possibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee quickly agreed that there had been a break in
tempo, as often occurs in defensive carding situations, and
that there was unauthorized information present on which
West was not allowed to base any subsequent action.
The Committee then had to decide if the presence of
unauthorized information demonstrably suggested the club
play over other logical alternatives or if there was a
reasonable bridge argument for the club play.
While the Committee was deliberating, West asked to return
to present new evidence. While they were waiting for the
decision, South had suggested a line of play after a
hypothetical spade shift by West that would have also have
defeated the contract.
The Committee dismissed out of hand the overheard statement
by South that the contract would be defeated by a spade
shift. The Committee had not asked South to state a line of
play because South was not required to take the best action
for his side if an infraction had been committed by E/W.
The argument that the D2 was a suit preference signal was
considered reasonable by some Committee members and self-
serving by others. The Committee decided that the threshold
of bridge argument had been met by E/W and the club play
would be allowed. The contract was changed to 4H down one,
plus 50 for E/W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Robb Gordon
Committee Members: Larry Cohen, Bobby Goldman, Ed Lazarus,
Walt Walvick
===========================================================
CASE TEN
Subject: Tempo
Event: Stratified Mixed Pairs, 28 July 97, First Session
Board: 28 S J83
Dealer: West H J85
Vul: N/S D K83
C QJT6
S Q7642 S AKT5
H AQ974 H K32
D --- D AQJ965
C 743 C ---
S 9
H T6
D T742
C AK9852
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Pass Pass 1D 2C
Dbl 3C 4S 5C
5S Pass Pass(1) Pass
(1) Break in tempo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
5S made six, plus 480 for E/W. Before the opening lead,
North volunteered that 3C promised four-card support. West
stated he would have bid 6S had he known his side could not
have two possible club losers. The Director ruled that
there had been misinformation (Law 21) and changed the
contract to 6S made six, plus 980 for E/W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South and West appeared
before the Committee. North arrived just before
deliberations began. Over 5S East hesitated approximately
10-15 seconds before passing.
Before the opening lead North informed the table
(inappropriately, and was informed of proper procedure
later by the Director) that her 3C bid should have been
Alerted as showing four or more clubs.
The Director was called. Since East had already passed, the
auction could not be backed up to allow West to change his
5S bid. West was taken away from the table by the Director
and stated that he would have bid 6S had he known that
North's 3C bid showed four or more clubs (thus placing East
with at most one club).
The Director was not informed of East's hesitation, and
consequently ruled that the contract be changed to 6S made
six, plus 980 for E/W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
During the appeal the Committee learned of East's
hesitation. They believed that the unauthorized information
from it could have made West's statement, that he would
have bid 6S, significantly easier. When contacted, the
Director at the table confirmed that she had not been given
this information and would likely have ruled differently
had she been so informed.
The Committee did not believe that a 6S bid by West was
likely given the unauthorized information from East, and
also the fact that N/S had bid, vulnerable, to 5C and on
that basis were known to be likely to hold at least nine
cards in the suit. Therefore, the contract was changed to
5S made six, plus 480 for E/W.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Rich Colker
Committee Members: Martin Caley, Brad Moss
===========================================================
CASE ELEVEN
Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Senior Swiss Teams, 29 July 97, Second Session
Board: 24 Norm Coombs
Dealer: West S A9
Vul: None H K943
D K93
C 7643
Sharon Bailek Norm Bailek
S K84 S QJT632
H QJ7 H T6
D T D J542
C KQJT52 C 8
Kyle Weems
S 75
H A852
D AQ876
C A9
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
1C Pass 1S DBL
Rdbl 2S All Pass
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Facts:
2S went down four, plus 200 for E/W. East failed to Alert
West's redouble. E/W stated they were playing support
doubles and redoubles. West's redouble showed three-card
spade support. South stated he thought the redouble showed
a big hand and his partner's 2S bid was to play. The
Director ruled that the table result would stand for N/S
because South should have realized his partner's 2S bid was
a cuebid and could not be to play. The Director adjusted
the E/W score to Average Minus (minus 3 IMPs) for failure
to Alert the redouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director's ruling. E/W did not appeal the
Director's score adjustment. South stated that he would
have bid if the redouble had been Alerted. South did not
ask about the meaning of West's redouble before he passed.
The Committee determined that N/S were also playing support
doubles and redoubles.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided, in view of N/S's own agreement to
play this same convention, that South was not damaged by
East's failure to Alert the redouble. South had an
obligation to "protect" himself before he passed. North
obviously intended his 2S bid to show hearts and an
invitational hand. Finally, the Committee believed that
South, an experienced player with more than 3,000
masterpoints, should have known that his partner's 2S bid
was forcing.
The Committee allowed the table result 2S down four, minus
200 for to stand for N/S. The Committee allowed the E/W
score of Average Minus (minus 3 IMPs) to stand. The
Committee unanimously agreed that the appeal was
substantially without merit and retained the $50 deposit.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chair: Bob Glasson
Committee Members: Darwin Afdahl, Bruce Keidan, Bruce
Reeve, Dave Treadwell