41st Spring North American Bridge Championships

March 19-29, 1998

Reno, Nevada

APPEALS
Appeals Case One
Subject Tempo
Event: North American Open Pairs, Flight A
First Qualifying Session, March 18, 1998

Board 32 NORTH The Facts:

E/W vul. Q874 There was an agreed break in tempo before West
Dealer West 10 5 2 bid 6 . The Director ruled there was no violation of
10 6 3 2 Law 16A. ("the partner may not choose from among
WEST Q9 EAST logical alternative actions one that could
AK95 J6 demonstrably have been suggested over another")
A74 KQ983 The 6NT bid was not suggested by the unauthorized
Q974 AK information.
KJ SOUTH A 10 8 4
10 3 2 The Appeal:
J6 N/S appealed the ruling. They suggested the break
J85 in tempo showed further interest, and that pass was a
76532 logical alternative for East after the break in tempo.

The Decision:
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
The Committee decided the table result would stand.
John Ai-Tai Jim Jim
West showed maximum values when he took his side
Rengstorff Lo Krekorian Houghton
beyond game. East knew the partnership had a
1NT(1) Pass 2 (2) Pass
combined 33-34 HCPS, and the heart suit was likely
2 Pass 3 (3) Pass
to produce five tricks. The form of scoring
3 Pass 4 (4) Pass
(matchpoints) made 6NT an attractive choice. This
4 (4) Pass 4NT(5) Pass
authorized information justified East's bid.
5 (5) Pass 5NT(6) Pass
Secondarily, the break in tempo did not
6 (7) Pass 6 (8) Pass
"demonstrably suggest" a 6NT bid over a pass. West
6 (9) Pass 6NT All Pass
already showed extra values. The only value West
did not already show was possible club shortness.
1) 15 - 17 HCPs
That shortness might "demonstrably suggest" a 7
2) Transfer [Announced]
bid from East. Because 6NT was not "demonstrably
3) Natural and Game Forcing
suggested", there is no reason to prohibit that action.
4) Cue bids
5) Roman Key Card : 2 keys without Queen
Committee: Jay Apfelbaum, chair, Steve Goldstein
6) Shows all 5 keys
and Ralph Katz
7) Shows K
8) ambiguous
9) break in tempo

Result: Made 7, E-W +1470

 Appeals Case Two
Subject: Misinformation
Event: North American Open Pairs, Flight A
First Qualifying Session, March 18, 1998

Board 9 NORTH The Facts: After observing the dummy, South

E/W vul. 42 commented that North did not have the values for his
Dealer North 854 2 bid. Later, South called for the Director. South
865 said he bid 6 because the auction indicated North
WEST Q 10 9 7 2 EAST would be short in spades. The Director asked East
K87 10 9 6 about the meaning of his double, and he replied he
97 J 10 was not certain of their agreement. The Director ruled
K Q 10 2 AJ974 that E/W did not meet their burden to show a misbid
KJ83 SOUTH 654 instead of a misexplanation (Law 75B) and changed
AQJ53 the contract to 4 , making five.
AKQ632
3 The Appeal: E/W appealed, and were the only ones
A who appeared. They stated the double of 2
showed spades and a minor, and East had misbid. In
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH support, they produced two identically filled out
Gord Ed Aidan Henry convention cards and system notes explicitly stating
McOrmond WEST Ballantyne Bull this double showed spades and a minor. (Note: E/W
- Pass Pass 2 did not show their system notes until the hearing.)
Pass 2 (1) Dbl (2) 2
2 4 Pass 6 The Decision: The Committee decided the table
All Pass result would stand. They accepted that West correctly
explained the double showed spades and a minor.
East misbid when he doubled 2 . That did not
1) Positive [Alerted] violate Law 75B. ("if the opponents are subsequently
2) Spades & minor [Alerted] damaged, as through drawing a false inference . . . ,
they are not entitled to redress.")
Result: Down 1, E-W +50
The Committee did not assess any penalty against
E/W for the misbid. Some members believed that
North's 2 misbid, not East's double, was the primary
reason for South's 6 bid.

Committee: Jay Apfelbaum, chair, Steve Goldstein

and Ralph Katz
 Appeals Case Three
Subject: Tempo
Event: Vanderbilt KO Teams, First Round, March 22, 1998

Board 8 NORTH The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo

None vul. K9873 before South passed 4 . The 2 opening lead was
Dealer West 42 won with dummy's A. Declarer next played a heart
A872 to South's Ace, who then led the 5. North won the
WEST 32 EAST Ace, declarer playing the six, and returned a
A 10 6 5 J diamond. At this point E/W called the Director, who
7 K Q J 10 6 5 3 allowed play to continue. After the play the Director
Q J63 returned and ruled the table result would stand.
A K J 10 8 5 4 76
SOUTH The Appeal: E/W appealed the ruling. They
Q42 suggested the break in tempo promised high cards
A98 and suggested South would not have a singleton
K 10 9 5 4 Spade. This made the defense of returning a
Q9 diamond much easier.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
result would stand. If East held three spades and at
Gail Dave John Bob
least two diamonds, then it was probable he would
Stanhope Ruderman Lowenthal Klein
try for discards on the clubs before playing a trump.
1 1 4 Pass(1)
The low diamond lead from South (the J, 10 and 9
All Pass
are missing) indicated he held the K. If South
wanted to ruff a spade, he would have led a high
1) Extended pause
diamond. Finally, if East had a 3-6-2-2 distribution,
South could lead a club after winning the K. This
Result: Down 1, N/S +50
would lock declarer in dummy, and North would still
win the K.

The Committee then considered whether the appeal

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

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Dick Budd, Corinne

Kirkham, Judy Randel, and Nancy Sachs.
Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum
 Appeals Case Four
Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC+ Open Pairs I
Second Qualifying Session, March 20, 1998

Board 12 NORTH The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo

N/S vul. J964 before South doubled 3 . N/S called for the Director
Dealer West A965 when East bid 4 . The Director later ruled that pass
A762 was not a logical alternative to bidding 4 . The table
WEST 8 EAST result stood.
A8 52
K 10 8 7 2 J4 The Appeal: N/S appealed the ruling. They
85 Q J 10 4 suggested East’s hand had enough defense to make
J976 SOUTH A K 10 4 3 pass a logical alternative to bidding 4 .
K Q 10 7 3
Q3 The Decision: The Committee changed the contract
K93 to 3 doubled, making three, for N/S +730. Law 16A
Q52 prohibits a player from choosing from among logical
alternatives one that could be demonstrably
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH suggested by extraneous in-formation. West’s break
Jim Bob Gregg Dan in tempo before doubling 3 demonstrably
Sundlin Thomson Van Dyke Molochko suggested doubt about defeating the contract, and
Pass Pass 1 1 was extraneous information. East had no reason to
Dbl(1) 2 (2) 2 (3) 2 believe 4 would be more successful than 3 ,
3 3 (2) Pass 3 doubled. He earlier chose not to compete to 4 , so
Dbl(4) Pass 4 All Pass pass must be a logical alternative. In 3 , doubled, it
was clear that declarer would take nine tricks (4
1) Negative spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 club ruffs).
2) Cuebids
3) Does not promise extra values The Committee discussed the appropriate time to call
4) Break in Tempo the Director in hesitation cases. Laws 9A and 9B
require the Director to be called when attention is
Result: Down 2, N-S +100 drawn to an irregularity. The issue was whether the
hesitation or the bid that possibly used the
information from the hesitation is the irregularity. The
Director and one committee member felt the
hesitation is the initial irregularity. The majority
believed Law 16A makes using the extraneous
information the irregularity.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Jay Apfelbaum, Lou

Reich, Ellen Siebert and Brian Trent
 Appeals Case Five
Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC+ Open Pairs I
Second Final Session, March 20, 1998

Board 26 NORTH The Facts: E/W play that opening 1NT shows 12-15
N/S vul. J864 HCP balanced, but denies holding both major suits
Dealer West AK63 (may have one). N/S were confused by the
A543 explanation. North doubled the Stayman bid
WEST 7 EAST intending it as takeout, but there was no such
K932 A Q 10 agreement with South. She said to the Director after
Q9 J75 the hand was over that she would bid 2 if East
9 KQJ62 passed. (South did not attend the hearing)
A Q 5 4 3 2 SOUTH 10 6
75 South led the 8, won by East with the 10. The
10 8 4 2 Q was won by North’s Ace, who led three rounds of
10 8 7 hearts. East cashed the K and J (discarding clubs
KJ98 from dummy), then led the A, Q and 10. North later
won a spade and heart. The Director was called
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH when play was completed. West told the Director he
Bruce Robert Reynold Jane would have bid 3NT if he knew the double did not
Ruskin McIlrath Wong Rivell promise clubs. The Director ruled there was a failure
- - 1NT(1) Pass to Alert the double of 2 . The violation affected the
2 Dbl(2) 2 (3) Pass auction and may have affected the play. The Director
2NT All Pass ruled Average Plus to E/W and Average Minus to N/S.

1) 12 - 15 HCP, will not have both major suits The Appeal: N/S appealed. They suggested there
2) Showed cards, for takeout was no agreement about the meaning of the double.
3) Tends to deny clubs The poor result was a product of poor play, and not
from any failure to Alert.
Result: Made 2, E/W +120
The Decision: The Committee decided that the table
result (E/W +120) would stand. There was no
violation because N/S had no agreement about the
meaning of the double. The Committee felt that
South’s club lead indicated she expected her partner
to have clubs. North doubled to show cards, but the
Committee felt he would have doubled if his and the
West hands were interchanged.

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Jay Apfelbaum, Lou

Reich, Ellen Siebert and Brian Trent
 Appeals Case Six
Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Silver Ribbon Pairs
First Qualifying Session, March 22, 1998

Board 19 J5 The Facts: West's 2NT bid was properly explained.

Dlr: South J864 The players used bidding boxes. West did not notice
Vul: E/W Q85 South's double at the time she bid 2NT. She did
K432 notice it after East's 3 bid, and realized she had
AQ9 K642 misbid. North led the J to West's queen. On the
Q 10 2 A95 9 lead, North played the queen and South the king.
J 10 9 7 4 62 South continued with the A and 3. West
Q6 A 10 7 5 eventually came to 10 tricks. N/S called for the
10 8 7 3 Director when they learned of West's doubleton club.
K73 The Director ruled that E/W receive Average Minus
AK3 based on a violation of Law 16A, as the
J98 unauthorized information demonstrably suggested to
West that 3 was not the correct contract. Because
of the line of defense, the ruling left N/S with the
West North East South
score earned at the table.
Pass
Pass Pass 1 Dbl The Appeal: Both pairs appealed. West did not
2NT 1 Pass 3 Pass realize South doubled the opening bid, and admitted
3NT All Pass the Alert awakened her. N/S stated their defense was
predicated on West's "known" club fit. South overtook
1) Limit Raise in Clubs [Alerted] the diamond to avoid blocking the suit because on
the play so far and the bidding West was "known" to
Result: Made 4, E/W +630 have 3-3 in the majors with at least four clubs.

The Decision: The Committee decided the table

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

Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Dick Budd, Corinne

Kirkham, Judy Randel and Nancy Sachs
 Appeals Case Seven
Subject: Tempo
Event: Stratified Open Pairs
Second Session, March 23, 1998

Board 6 9753 The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo

Dlr: East 765 before South doubled. The Director ruled that under
Vul: E/W 52 Law 16A the break in tempo demonstrably suggested
KJ63 5 as an alternative to pass. He changed the
A2 Q contract to 5 , down one, N/S +200.
J2 A K Q 10 9 8 4 3
AQJ98 10 The Director considered the play would be the same
8754 10 9 2 at the five level as actually happened at 6 .
K J 10 8 6 4
The Appeal: N/S appealed. They suggested that pass
K7643 was not a logical alternative when South doubled 5 .
AQ
The Decision: The Committee decided the table
West North East South result would stand. Law 16A does not allow a player
to choose from among logical alternative actions one
4 1 4
that is demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized
5 Pass Pass Dbl 2 information. However, the information North observes
Pass 5 Pass Pass in his own hand is authorized. The three small hearts
6 Dbl All Pass make it clear South doubled on playing values rather
than trump tricks. And the four spades strongly
1) Strong Heart preempt [alerted] suggest South will have little defense in that suit.
2) Break in Tempo North's pass after West's 5 bid does not suggest
defending. North may be waiting to learn if South has
Result: Down 2, N/S +500 a strong hand. It is difficult to maintain an even tempo
in high level auctions such as these. Finally, a 5 bid
is not nearly so risky as a pass. Bidding figures to be
a poor score only if both contracts go down, and then
N/S figure to have plenty of company. The Committee
decided North did not violate Law 16A, and Pass was
not a logical alternative to bidding 5 . Therefore, it
had no reason to adjust the score.

Committee: Michael Huston, chair, Dick Budd, Doug

Heron, Judy Randel and Ellen Seibert

Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum

 Appeals Case Eight
Subject: Claims
Event: NABC+ Vanderbilt KO Teams
Second Round, March 23, 1998

Board 8 Harry Steiner The Facts: Against East's 7 contract, South led a
Dlr: West AKJ42 low heart. East tabled his hand and claimed 13 tricks,
Vul: None J 10 2 but made no statement. N/S did not protest, and the
8764 board was scored E/W +1440. This was the final
9 board of the set. After a few minutes, North called for
Sidney Brownstein John Potter the Director and expressed doubt about the claim.
-- 10 8 5 The Director ruled that N/S had acquiesced in the
A3 Q85 claim (Law 69A), but he would consider the matter
A Q 10 5 2 KJ93 because the correction period had not expired (Law
A K 10 8 7 6 QJ4 79C). Law 69B allows a player to withdraw
Ross Rainwater acquiescence, but only "for tricks that could not be
Q9763 lost by any normal play of the remaining cards."
K9764 Normal play "includes play that would be careless or
-- inferior for the class of player involved, but not
532 irrational." The Director ruled that any line of play that
would fail to take thirteen tricks would be less than
normal, and awarded E/W +1440.
West North East South
1 1 Pass 4 The Appeal: N/S appealed. They agreed that the
contract could always be made by ruffing two spades
4NT 1 Pass 6 6
in the closed hand, but that this was not obvious.
7 All Pass
The Decision: The Committee decided the table
1) Minor suits with longer clubs result would stand. East listed some of his previous
accomplishments, and the Committee was convinced
Result: Made 7, E/W +1440 that he is a player of considerable skill. It is easy for a
player of his skill to ruff two spades in dummy and
draw trump (two ruffs, one heart, four diamonds and
six clubs). A player this skilled would have to adopt
an irrational line of play to go down in 7 .

The Committee then considered whether to keep the

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

Committee: Doug Heron, chair, Dick Budd, Michael

Huston, Judy Randel and Ellen Seibert

Scribe: Jay Apfelbaum

Dissenting Statement from Michael Huston: I

believe the appeal lacks substantial merit. This
Committee accepted the claim in less than one
minute. N/S, an experienced pair, did not present a
bridge reason not to accept ruffing two spades in
dummy and drawing trump. They showed no
careless-but-not-irrational error that East could make.
The only apparent reason for the appeal was N/S did
not understand the Laws covering claims. Lack of
knowledge of the Laws by experienced players
playing in a major national event should not
constitute substantial merit for the appeal.
 Appeals Case Nine
Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC+ Open Pairs I
First Final Session, March 20

Board 14 NORTH The Facts: There was an agreed break in tempo

None vul. 10 7 6 before West bid 6 . The Director was called when
Dealer East Q2 East bid 7 . He ruled that the break in tempo
J4 demonstrably suggested interest in bidding on, and
WEST Q 10 9 4 3 2 EAST that pass was a logical alternative for East. The
A32 KQJ984 contract was changed to 6 , making seven for E/W
10 8 6 4 AK973 +1010.
AKQ62 --
8 SOUTH AJ The Appeal: E/W appealed. They first stated there
5 was no hesitation, but West admitted she did take a
J5 moment to count the kings before bidding 6 .
10 9 8 7 5 3
K765 The Decision: The Committee decided the final
contract would be 6 , making seven for E/W +1010.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH E/W were relatively inexperienced, and West stated
Jean he had to show his kings before he could bid 7 .
Bob Etter Paul GabalisAlan Strauss
Johansson The Committee determined there was a break in
- - 2 Pass tempo, and that the break demonstrably suggested
2 (1) Pass 2 Pass interest in bidding a grand slam. Pass was a logical
4NT(2) Pass 5 (2) Pass alternative for East, as he did not bid a grand slam at
5NT(3) Pass 6 (4) Pass his previous turn. The play in either contract would be
6 (5) Pass 7 All Pass the same, so the Committee could determine the
number of tricks East would take.
1) Not negative
2) Key Card, 0 or 3 controls Committee: Henry Bethe, chair, Mark Bartusek, Doug
3) Promises all 5 controls Doub, David Treadwell and Michael White
4) One king
5) Break in tempo

Result: Made 7, E/W +1510

 Appeals Case Ten
Subject: Misinformation
Event: 0-2000 KO Teams, March 25

Board 26 NORTH The Facts:After Dummy was laid down, South asked
Both vul. K J 10 9 North to leave the table and explained further that 2
Dealer East 10 4 3 2 might be a limit raise in hearts. E/W called for the
8 Director at the end of the play. The Director ruled
WEST AJ73 EAST there was an incomplete explanation and gave E/W 3
AQ8632 7 IMPs (Average Plus per Law 86)
75 86
KJ6 A Q 10 4 2 The Appeal: N/S appealed. They stated the
10 8 SOUTH KQ962 explanation was correct as far as South knew at that
54 time.
AKQJ9
9753 The Decision: The Committee decided the table
54 result would stand. Law 40C states if “a side has
been damaged through its opponents’ failure to
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH explain the full meaning of a call or play, [the director]
- - 1 1 may award an adjusted score.” Even if South’s
1 2 (1) Pass 3 explanation of the cuebid was not complete, E/W
3 Dbl All Pass created their own problem. East could not have
spade support, or he would have doubled North’s 2
1) Explained as transfer to clubs, but not promising cuebid. West had to know that either North or East
clubs had some heart length. Finally, either East or West
could have asked another question if they were not
Result: Down 2, N/S +500 certain what the cuebid showed.

Committee: Barbara Nudelman, chair, Dick Budd and

Riggs Thayer
 Appeals Case Eleven
Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC+ Women's Pairs II
Second Qualifying Session, March 26, 1998

Board 31 NORTH The Facts: When South bid 3 , North alerted and
N/S Q 10 volunteered that it showed 3-5 HCPS and at least 6
Dealer South A 10 9 8 4 spades. West asked North if South could have more
65 points. North said no. The Director was called at the
WEST A853 EAST end of the hand. The Director ruled that West's
5 AJ42 question was unauthorized information for East. The
Q63 KJ75 question implies West had values, which
A K 10 9 2 Q873 demonstrably suggests East should bid rather than
QJ94 SOUTH K pass. Pass being a logical alternative on the East
K98763 hand, the Director ruled the final contract of 3 by
2 South, down three, E/W +150.
J4
10 7 6 2 The Appeal: E/W appealed, and were the only ones
who appeared at the hearing. West stated she asked
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH one question of North and then passed in tempo.
Loretta Joan Remey- Zoe
Liane Turner
Bromberg Moore Hutchins The Decision: The Committee decided the final
- - - 3 (1) contract would be 3 , by South, down 3, E/W +150,
Pass(2) Pass 3NT All Pass and kept the deposit. This was not a tempo case, as
suggested by E/W. West's question suggests she has
(1) Alerted as 3-5 HCPS with 6+ spades values, and this information is unauthorized for East.
(2) Questioned 3 before passing The Committee felt pass was a logical alternative for
East. She has 14 HCPS and no obvious source of
Result: Made 4, E/W +630 tricks. The Committee also felt this should have been
clear to E/W, if not when the hand was played, then
by the time they appeared before the Committee.

Committee: George Dawkins, chair, Nell Cahn, Abby

Heitner, Riggs Thayer and Michael White
 Appeals Case Twelve
Subject: Misinformation
Event: Bracketed KO, First Round, March 20, 1998

Board 7 NORTH The Facts: E/W called for the Director when they
Both vul. KJ97 discovered North's pass promised some values. This
Dealer South 2 was during the next hand. After that hand was
874 finished, the Director ruled there was not sufficient
WEST Q 10 7 6 4 EAST reason to adjust the score.
A85 63
J4 A987653 The Appeal: E/W appealed. East stated he would not
J 10 9 6 5 3 KQ bid 4 if he was told North's Pass promised values.
J5 SOUTH A9
Q 10 4 2 The Decision: The Committee decided the table
K Q 10 result would stand. East's statement he would not
A2 have bid 4 if South alerted North's pass did not
K832 convince the Committee. East knew South promised
12-14 HCPS for his 1NT bid. Even though North's
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH pass was not alerted (promised moderate values),
- - - 1NT(1) East should not be surprised by North holding 6
Pass Pass(2) 4 All Pass HCPS. His hand was well within East's expectations.
The Committee also determined that the N/S
(1) 12-14 HCPS (announced) agreement allowed North to have zero points with a
(2) Promises some values (not Alerted) long minor suit. Finally, East could have protected
himself by asking a question. The Committee decided
Result: Down 1, N/S +100 the lack of disclosure about North's pass did not affect
the auction.

Committee: Jon Brissman, chair, Michael Rahtjen

and Diane Siebert
 Appeals Case Thirteen
Subject: Misinformation
Event: Bracketed KO, First Round March 20, 1998

Board 23 NORTH The Facts: E/W called for the Director after finishing
Both vul. J 10 8 3 the hand. The Director ruled that the misexplanation
Dealer South 987 demonstrably suggested (Law 16A) to North that he
K983 bid 3NT over 3 , rather than 4 . He changed the
WEST 65 EAST contract to 4 , down 2, E/W +200.
K92 Q654
J65 K42 The Appeal: N/S appealed. North stated that South's
642 A 10 7 5 3 bid showed solid hearts and a good hand. He
98743 SOUTH J 10 showed the Committee system notes to prove this.
A72 North chose to bid 3NT because the hand would play
A Q 10 3 as well in notrump. He added that 4 would
QJ probably make.
AKQ2
The Decision: The Committee decided the final
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH contract would be 4 , down 2, for E/W +200. 3NT,
- - - 2 rather than 4 , is strongly suggested by the
Pass 2 (1) Pass 3 unauthorized information. Law 16A ("may not choose
Pass 3NT All Pass from among logical alternative actions one that could
demonstrably have been suggested over another")
1) Explained as a transfer to hearts -- actual agreement requires the contract be 4 . The probable club lead
is waiting would lead to down one or two on most lines of play.

Result: Made 5, N/S +660 The Committee decided that down two was the most
probable result. Because this happened in a
Continuous Pairs, the Committee decided to explain
to North his obligations under Law 16A rather than
consider a procedural penalty.

Committee: Barry Rigal, chair, Mark Bartusek, Jerry

Gaer, Chris Moll and Michael Rahtjen
 Appeals Case Fourteen
Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC+ Open Pairs I
First Qualifying Session, March 20, 1998

Board 4 NORTH The Facts: Before the opening lead of the 7, East
Both vul. AK asked North about the meaning of South’s double.
Dealer West A K 10 9 8 North said they were playing a new system, and he
9854 was taking the double as Stayman. E/W called for the
WEST 84 EAST Director. Away from the table, East told the Director
Q654 J87 that she was not satisfied with the explanation. If the
- QJ65432 double was either Stayman or promised general
J 10 6 3 - values, she wanted to lead clubs. If the double
KJ732 SOUTH Q96 promised clubs, however, she would lead a spade.
10 9 3 2
7 North said he was taking it as Stayman. When East
AKQ72 asked South about the double, he said the
A 10 5 partnership had no agreement. The Director ruled
there was no violation of Law 40C (“If the Director
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH decides that a side has been damaged through its
Ron opponents’ failure to explain the full meaning of a call
Stan SubeckGeorge Pisk Suzi Subeck
Feldman or play, he may award an adjusted score.”), and the
Pass 1NT(1) 2 (2) Dbl table result would stand.
Pass 2 Pass 3NT
All Pass The Appeal: E/W appealed. They stated if they were
properly informed, then East would have led a club
1) 13-17 (not announced) and beaten the contract. North said that 3NT can be
2) Single-suited hand (Alerted) made by winning the third round of clubs and playing
on hearts.
Result: Made 4, N/S +630
The Decision: The Committee decided the table
result would stand. N/S have an obligation to know
their partnership agreements, but this is a relatively
rare sequence. The Committee felt N/S were not
required to have an agreement for the meaning of
South’s double. East’s assumption that South’s
double was based on a club suit was the key factor in
E/W’s poor result. The Committee felt that as this
double is normally played as either Stayman or
general values, North’s explanation of the double
was adequate. There was no violation of Law 40C.

Committee: Barry Rigal, chair, Lowell Andrews, Judy

Randel, Dianne Siebert and Brian Trent
 Appeals Case Fifteen
Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC+ Open Pairs II
First Qualifying Session, March 26, 1998

Board 31 NORTH The Facts: N/S did not Alert South’s 3 bid as not
N/S Q 10 6 promising a major suit. East led a spade. After the
Dealer South A84 play was done, E/W called for the Director. He ruled
A4 that N/S did not make it clear that on this auction
WEST A K Q 10 3 EAST South did not promise a major suit. With full
K9752 4 disclosure, East would lead a heart. Therefore, the
Q J 10 6 K9532 result was changed to 3NT, down one, E/W +100.
KQ8 J53
5 SOUTH 9864 The Appeal: N/S appealed. They stated their only
AJ83 way to invite game in notrump was first to bid
7 Stayman. It was also the only way for them to show a
10 9 7 6 2 maximum negative hand with a diamond suit. North
J72 was not aware that a rebid of 2NT on this auction
required an alert.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Ole Howard Julie The Decision: The Committee decided the table
Nick Martino
Godefroy Einberg Godefroy result would stand, and assessed N/S a 1/8 th board
- - - Pass penalty for failing to properly alert the 3 bid. The
Pass 1 (1) Pass 1 (2) Committee decided that West had the means to show
1 1NT(3) Pass 2 (4) both major suits over South’s 1 response. West’s
Pass 2 Pass 3 (5) failure to show his heart suit was the reason East led
Pass 3NT All Pass the 4, not North’s failure to explain that South might
or might not have a heart suit.
1) Artificial and forcing
2) Negative Committee: George Dawkins, chair, Nell Cahn, Abby
3) 16-19 Heitner, Riggs Thayer and Michael White
4) Stayman, does not promise a major suit
5) Natural

Result: Made 5, N/S +660

Appeals Case Sixteen

Subject: Misinformation
Event: NABC Open Swiss, 29 Mar 98, Second Session

The Facts: 1NT doubled went down five, plus 1100

Board 15 NORTH for N/S. The play went as follows:
N/S Vul. K 10 6 3
Dealer South KJ3 S: 2 6 Q A
KQ984
E: A 2 4 3
5
WEST EAST E: Q 2 7 K
J974 AQ85
10 8 7 Q52 Declarer now asked about the N/S signaling
76 A 10 5 methods, but did not look at the N/S convention card.
9873 K 10 6
SOUTH The reply was "standard." Play continued.
2
A964 N: 8 10 J 7
J32
 S: 3 3 K 5
AQJ42
N: 9 5 4 7
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH N: 4 6 6 8
John Bob Rich Bob
Stiefel Morris DeMartino Etter When North now played a club, the defense had the
- - - 1 rest of the tricks. The only tricks declarer had won
Pass 1 1NT Pass were his two aces.
Pass Pass Dbl All Pass
Two boards later in the same match, signalling
methods were again asked about. This time, N/S
replied "standard count and attitude, with odd even
discards". East now realized this explanation was
different from the one he had received when he
declared 1NT doubled and found out that the correct
explanation of the N/S agreement was the current
complete explanation.

The Director was called to the table, and confirmed

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

The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. All

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

N/S also stated that they believed the declarer error

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

East stated that using odd-even signalling, the lowest

even card may be encouraging if no odd cards are
available. South stated that his primary goal was to
get partner to continue diamonds.

The lowest even card had clear suit-preference

connotations. South did agree with the club-positive
aspects of the 2. N/S were not a regular
partnership, and had not discussed this treatment.

East conceded that it was the end of a long week, he

was tired, and he had not completely analyzed all
possible layouts at the time he pitched a club.

The Decision: The Committee began by considering

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

The second question to be considered was whether

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

Whether East was damaged could be determined by

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

The crux of the matter was East's club discard on the

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

The Committee therefore allowed the table result,

1NT doubled down five, plus 1100 for N/S to stand
for both sides.

The Committee also decided that it was a serious

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

Committee: Doug Heron (chair), Phil Brady, Harvey

Brody, Barry Rigal, Steve Weinstein