1997 World Teams Championships - Appeals Appeals No. 1 Venice Cup Round 3 - South Africa vs Tunisia Reported by Hans Folke (Denmark)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Osie	Jellouli	Nestoridis	Sfar
2	Pass	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
All Pass

Facts: The TD was called to the table at the end of play. 2 was alerted (weak). 3 was alerted by North and explained as "transfer", and since it was a transfer into the opponents' suit. it was Stayman. South however explained to West that 3 was natural and forcing. West led a small spade. Result on the board: nine tricks; North/South +600. TD's ruling: The TD ruled that West had been misinformed and West claimed she would have led a heart had she received the same explanation as East. The contract would then have failed, and the TD adjusted the score to 3NT, down one. Appellant: North/South appealed. The TD: The TD had used Laws 40C and 75 and recited the laws for the Committee. Asked by the Committee, the TD said that there had not been a detailed analysis of the hand, but that South surely would have gone down after a heart lead. The players: The captain of the North/South pair agreed that there had been a misinformation, and that without this misinformation West would probably have led a heart, but claimed that South would have made her contract anyway. The non-appealing side pointed out that after West's 2 bid South was bound to play the spade suit which would leave no play for nine tricks. The committee: The committee was of the unanimous opinion that although the contract -- double dummy -- could have been made, the line of play as suggested by the non-appealing side was not likely to be found. The Committee's Decision: The Committee ruled the TD's decision to stand and upheld the result 3NT, down one. The Committee found that in fact this was a frivolous appeal, but due to possible inexperience of the appealing team, the deposit was returned. Appeals Committee: Steen Moller (Chairman, Denmark), John Wignall (NZ), Bill Pencharz (GB), Eric Kokish (Canada), Naki Bruni (Italy).

Appeal No. 2 Venice Cup Round 7 - France vs USA I reported by Hans Folke (Denmark)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Saul	Meyers	Bessis	Montin
-	-	Pass	1
Pass	1	2	3
3	5	Pass	5
Pass	5	Pass	5NT
Pass	7	All Pass

Facts: The TD was called to the table by West at the end of the next board. Before the lead South had written to West that 5 was probably Exclusion Blackwood. This information had been supplied to East during the bidding. West argued that if she had known this in the bidding she might have bid 6 after 5 knowing that her partner held at least four clubs. The TD applied Law 75.1 (Example 1), since the missing alert by South was an infraction of the Law, and "when this infraction results in damage to East/West, the Director shall award an adjusted score." The TD found that East/West had not been damaged. Under Law 9 the players must summon the TD at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity, and West (and South too) ought to have called for the TD when South explained her uncertainty about the 5 bid -- and not after the next board. Result on the board: thirteen tricks; North/South +2210. TD's ruling: The score stands. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: West told the Committee that she had thought that the 5 bid was natural, showing 6-5 or 6-6 in the rounded suits, because it was not alerted by South. Otherwise she would have bid 6, which would perhaps have led to a cheap sacrifice in 7. She said that South looked uncertain about the bid, and she didn't want to ask -- perhaps giving away information for the play. North/South explained that they had never before had this use of Exclusion Blackwood in a competitive auction. 4 by North would have been natural. They suggested that if West was thinking of bidding she should have asked. South wasn't sure whether 5 was Exclusion Blackwood or Splinter, but in any case 5 was the correct bid, showing 0/3 key cards in the first case and a heart cuebid in the second. She forgot to alert 5 because of her uncertainty and in the confusion she forgot to alert her own 5 bid. The committee: The committee was of the opinion that West should have done more to protect herself before deciding what to bid over 5. They found that she should have called for the TD as soon as possible if she felt she was being prevented from taking action after 5. The committee also found that it was far from obvious for West to bid 6, even if she had been alerted and been given the correct explanation. This was indicated by East's failure to double 5 or to bid 6 over 5 herself, as she also knew of the big club fit. The committee felt that South, in accordance with Law 9, should have called the Director before the opening lead, explaining her uncertainty about the 5 bid. Not doing so can create uneasy situations harming the spirit of the game. The Committee's Decision: The committee ruled that the TD's decision stood and fined North/South half a VP for failing to alert and for not having sorted out the situation with the ambiguous 5 bid before play. This penalty is in accordance with the WBF policy for penalising minor offences when they cause contentious difficulties, such as in this case. Appeals Committee: Steen Moller (Chairman, Denmark), Bill Pencharz (GB), Eric Kokish (Canada).

Appeal No. 3 Bermuda Bowl Round 6 - Italy vs France reported by Grattan Endicott

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Multon	Buratti	Mouiel	Lanzarotti
-	-	1	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
1NT	Pass	Pass	Dbl
2	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	2	All Pass

Result N/S +170 Facts: The Director was first called to the table at the end of the auction. West asked him to note the slow double of 1NT by South and the length of time the tray had taken to return from the N/E side after East's second pass. At the end of the hand, the Director returned to the table; East/West complained of a failure to alert the two doubles on the S/W side of the screen and also suggested that South's second double was based upon the apparent hesitation by North. If the second double had been alerted,West asserted that he could have bid 3. Tournament Director's Ruling: The TD determined that the score should stand unaltered. Appellant: The decision was appealed by East/West. The Players: East/West argued that the failure to alert the doubles had inhibited West from bidding 3; they also argued that South had used unauthorised information in making his second double. There was disagreement whether South's first double had been alerted to West; South stated that he had alerted it and, upon request, demonstrated how he had done so not entirely in accordance with recommended procedure. West insisted that there had been no alert and that he had seen no alert. The Director had not been able to resolve this question of fact but noted that it was the responsibility of South to ensure that the alert was observed by West. The call had been alerted by North to East. It was agreed that the second double had not been alerted to West. South stated that he did not feel it was necessary, having alerted the first double. With respect to the allegation that unauthorised information had been used, N/S described South's first double, in view of its following passes of 1 and 1, as showing a good hand, two suited in diamonds and spades. North and East agreed that the delay in returning the tray after East's first pass was wholly due to time spent by both players in asking questions and giving explanations. Mr. Mouiel thought South had fully described his hand, by his own explanation of it, with the first double; he had perhaps believed the delay reflected a hesitation by North and had been prompted by this belief into the second double. South informed the Committee that when the opponents ran to 2 and stayed there it exposed their lack of strength and encouraged him to make the second effort. The Committee: The Committee considered that South had not sufficiently made sure that his first alert was noticed and was at fault also in not alerting the second double. However, the Committee was not persuaded that, behind screens, West had done enough to protect his own understanding of the auction: he had made assumptions and had asked no question. The Committee was not attracted to the thought of ruling unauthorised information in the complex situation where South was alleged to have drawn an incorrect conclusion from the time spent by the board on the other side of the screen.There were indications that North must have some cards, however, bearing in mind the precise description of the South hand already given to North by the first double one might think a bid of 2 more appropriate than double (in which connection note that a double of 2 by North would have been for penalties). What, in the Committee's view, remains unexplained, is the strange pass of 2 by North when he acknowledges that he has precise information as to South's suits and has four card support for the major and AQ in the other. Committee Decision: Neither ground for appeal is sufficiently sound to warrant a change of score. N/S are to be penalised, with no consequent benefit to E/W, 0.5 VP for South's failings in regard to the alerting of his doubles. Appeal Committee: Joan Gerard, Ernesto d'Orsi, Eric Kokish, Barbara Nudelman, Dan Morse.

Appeal No. 4 Bermuda Bowl. Round 6. - Canada v Poland Reported by Grattan Endicott (GB)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Zmudzinski	Hanna	Balicki	Fraser
-	-	-	2
Pass	3(1)	Dble	All Pass

Result: 3 doubled minus 1 by South. N/S -100 Facts: The Director was called to the table at the conclusion of the hand andWest complained that 3 had been alerted as pre-emptive with at least four spades. West said he did not bid 4 on the takeout double because he was afraid of finding four spades on his left. The system file of the N/S pair was examined but it gave no indication that the bid guarantees four cards in spades; it merely says that it is pre-emptive. The Director formed the view that with information as it is written in the system file, West would have bid four spades. The score was adjusted to N/S -420. Appellant: The decision was appealed by N/S. The Players: Both North and South informed the Committee that their correct agreement was that the bid guaranteed four spades with at least three hearts. The system file does not contain this information. The Committee: The Committee took the view that it would be more normal for the bid to guarantee at least three in each major and that the guarantee of four in the spade suit is sufficiently unusual to require some statement, certainly in the system file and, the Committee thought, also on the convention card. The Committee did not consider that there was evidence to support the statements of N/S sufficiently strongly to warrant the Committee's changing the Director's ruling. There was some discussion as to whether a score of N/S -170 was a possibility but N/S -420 was considered "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" (Law 12C1). Committee Decision: Equity does not require any adjustment other than the N/S -420 awarded by the Director which is also the decision of the Committee. The Committee recommends N/S to amplify their written system explanations. Appeal Committee: Grattan Endicott (GB), Jean-Paul Meyer (FRA), Naki Bruni (ITA).

Appeal No. 5 Venice Cup. Round 11. - Canada v Tunisia

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Klibi	Cimon	Jellouli	Paul
-	1	2	2
3	3	Pass	4
Pass	4	Pass	4
Pass	4	Pass	4NT
Pass	5	Pass	6
Pass	6	Dbl	6NT
Pass	Pass	Dbl	7
Pass	Pass	Dbl	All Pass

Facts: The Director was called after the double of 6. At this stage North had learned that the bid of 2 was for the major suits. North claimed that it had not been alerted and that her subsequent bidding was on the basis that it was natural.The Director determined at the end of the hand that the bidding makes no sense with South working on the basis of the correct explanation and North believing 2 was natural. Tournament Director's Ruling: The Director decided he could not determine a bridge result and awarded an artificial adjusted score of +3 IMPs to N/S. His enquiries about the alert of 2 to North showed that North was emphatic that no alert had occurred, while East stated that she had alerted the bid and had looked at North who had nodded. The Director considered East had not ensured that the alert was seen by applying the requirements of the Regulations. Appellant: The Appellant was E/W. The Players: East and North repeated their statements as to the alert of 2. East demonstrated how she had made the alert which was not as the Regulation says it MUST be done. The Tunisian Captain asked the Committee to note the general procedure at the table which had been, in his view, not in accordance with the requirements of the Regulations, especially in the matter of alerting. The Committee: The Committee took the view that the presentation by both sides had been accurate as to their experience at the table but that there had been a failure to make the alert of 2 in the manner prescribed by the Regulations. The Committee drew it to the attention of the players that, if an alert is not made correctly , when something subsequently goes wrong the player making the alert has to bear the responsibility for the incorrect manner in which it has been made. This is true even though there has been a general inattention to this point in the match. Committee's Decision: The Committee's award was +3 IMPs to N/S as the Director had awarded. It was suggested to the Direc- tors that they should again draw the attention of teams to the position in regard to alerts. Appeal Committee: Joan Gerard (USA), Ernesto d'Orsi (BRA), Steen Møller (DEN), Dan Morse (USA), Barbara Nudelman (USA).

Appeal No 6 Bermuda Bowl. Round 7. - Denmark v Canada

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Fraser	Schaffer	Hanna	Andersen
-	-	2(1)	3
Pass	3(2)	Pass	3(3)
Dbl	6	6	Pass(4)
Pass	Dbl	All Pass

(1) Multi (2) Natural (or maybe stopper for NT) (3),(4) The appeal was based on these bids. ** written explanations (if any) not available by the time the protest was made The Result: 6SX - 6 by East: N/S +1400 Facts: The Director, called to the table at the end of play, was informed that there was a problem because different explanations had been given on the two sides of the screen. South had told West that 3 denied a stop; North had told East that it could still be a try for 3NT but was ambiguous. At a later stage East had asked North the meaning of the pass of 6. North said that he replied something along the lines of "Normal bridge would be that it shows first-round control". East said that North just shrugged his shoulders and said "First-round control". Tournament Director's Ruling: The Director allowed the table score to stand since he felt North had given an accurate description of his understanding. Appellant: The appellant was E/W. The Players: East complained that he had not been given the explanation as it was given on the other side of the screen; if he had had this explanation he would not have played South for the A and instead would have played the first round low to the 8. The only play is for 10 doubleton trump. There was a question as to whether the words "Normal bridge" were said. The player also questioned the basis for the Director's decision since he could find no evidence on the convention card on which the Director could conclude that he had been given an accurate description of the 3 bid. The Danish South said that in explaining 3 he had first of all said "Treading waters", and then "stepping", and then "probing". When none of these words were understood by his opponent, he said "denies spade stop". North said that his partner had judged that he had the A and had invited seven. He had found no reason to judge that he should bid seven. He also could not understand the thinking process by which declarer, who had already seen him play DAK and A, could judge in the play that he would also have the A. This view would require that North had bid a hand comprising only KQJxxxx hearts and a minor honour in diamonds in the way that he had. The normal understanding of the pass of 6 would be that it showed first-round control, but this is potentially modified by the explanation of the 3 bid. The Committee: The Committee felt that declarer , having seen the three top honours played by South and discovering that he was not void in spades, could hardly play him for A. Committee's Decision: It was considered the appeal was substantially without merit and the deposit was retained. Appeal Committee: Joan Gerard (USA), Ernesto d'Orsi (BRA), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Dan Morse (USA), Bill Pencharz (GB).

Appeal No. 7 World Transnational Teams. Round 3. Reported by Grattan Endicott (GB)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Andersen	Hanna	Schafer	Fraser
-	-	1	1
1NT	3	Pass	4
Pass	4	Dbl	All Pass

The Result: 4 by North. N/S +790 The Facts: The Director was called to the table after the match had ended. This board had been the last board of the match. East complained that there had been different explanations of the 3 bid. North to East had not alerted and had described the bid as natural and non-forcing. South explained to West that the bid was a limited fit-jump. East complained that failure to give him this latter explanation had caused him not to lead a heart to beat the contract. North pointed out that 3 cannot be a fit-jump as then it would be game-forcing, which makes no sense.They use fit-jumps in limit situations. Tournament Director's Ruling: The Director decided that there was no infraction and that the score should stand. Appellant: The Appellants were E/W. The Players: The East player said that he had expected, on the explanation North had given to him, to find six or seven hearts in dummy with little fit in the North hand and had thought he might be killing any holding in his partner's hand by leading the singleton. He felt that it was not material whether the 3 bid was a limit bid or not; he had been talked out of a natural heart lead and the damage was not related to the question of which was the correct explanation. He also questioned the Director's ruling against the non-offending side when the facts were not clearly established. Upon the invitation of the Chairman, the Director repeated that he had considered North had given the correct explanation, since this was the logic of the hand. He also noted the late stage at which he had been called. North thought it somewhat humorous that the Director's ruling should be questioned. He said it was quite obvious that his hand was worth a lot more in spades than in hearts. He did not think that the question was an opening lead problem; after a club lead and a spade switch the East player should duck, when there is no way to make the contract. He had failed to duck, the return of the small trump had held in dummy and the heart finesse was immediately taken, giving 10 tricks. South commented that their fit-showing jumps showed four-card support. North added to this that the bid is a limit bid. When he wishes to force he can begin with a double. The Committee: The Committee immediately agreed that the difference of explanation, which was trivial, had not affected the hand. There was comment that the bidding sequence could well indicate little about the suit holdings except that North was determined to play in spades. East had simply defended badly. There was no damage and no possibility of damage and the explanation that the 3 bid could not be a limit bid had an obvious logic which the defenders could work out at the table. The Director had not been called when East saw the dummy. Committee's Decision: The score of N/S +790 should stand. The slight discrepancy in South's explanation had not contributed to any confusion and should not be penalised. There was discussion as to the possible retention of the deposit but it was decided to return it. The Committee did, however, think that it should express its commendation of the Director's procedure and decision which it did not consider open to question. Appeal Committee: Joan Gerard (USA); Ernesto d'Orsi (BRA); Naki Bruni (ITA); Dan Morse (USA); Barbara Nudelman (USA).