NEC WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA

World Bridge Federation

Appeals 2 3 4 5 6 7 9-19 20-29 30-39 43-51

Appeals report #2

Sunday, Session 3

Committee Chairman: Bobby Wolff

Scribe: Grattan Endicott

Board 30 NORTH
Love All 10 4
10 6 5 3
10 4 2
WEST KQ63 EAST
KQJ92 65
98 QJ4
A86 QJ53
952 SOUTH A 10 8 7
A873
AK72
K97
J4

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - 1NT Dbl
2 (1) Pass 3 Pass
Pass Dbl Pass Pass
3 Pass Pass Dbl
All Pass

(1) Alerted as showing spades and a minor.

3 doubled went down one for plus 100 to North-South.

The players
East Alerted the 2 bid and explained it as showing spades and a minor. His 3 bid was to ask partner to
choose clubs or diamonds at the level of three. West felt his spades were good enough to retreat into.

The director
The director allowed the score to stand on the basis that North-South could be expected to understand the
significance of the 3 bid, which had been explained as "pass or convert."

The committee
The committee was concerned that the Alert and explanation of 2 had reminded West of his methods. She
should have continued to act "in ignorance" of this information. The 3 bid is therefore probably anti- system
when made opposite a 2 bid, indicating interest only in playing in spades, and must in any case show long
clubs -- certainly five, possibly six. West's duty was to pass 3 on this basis.

The decision
The score was adjusted by the committee to 3 doubled, down one -- plus 100 to North-South. East-West
were penalized one-fourth of a board for the use of unauthorized information ( see Law 73B1 ). North-South
do not gain from this.

Appeals report #3

Sunday, Session 3

Committee chairman: Bobby Wolff

Members present: Paul Chemla, Tommy Sandsmark, Mazhar Jafri
Scribe: Grattan Endicott

Board 10 NORTH
Game All 9754
Dealer East J 10 8
KJ5
WEST Q 10 4 EAST
A K 10 8 J
K7 Q6432
96 10 7 4 3 2
J9632 SOUTH AK
Q632
A95
AQ8
875

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Compton McCallum Melnick Rodwell
- - Pass 1
Pass 1 1NT 2
All Pass

REASON FOR REQUESTING REVIEW

Declarer, receiving information that 1NT was natural, led a spade and ducked with the jack was played, a play
that might gain and could not lose if he was well balanced. If he was known to have a two-suiter, covering the
SJ is automatic, and minus 100 instead of minus 300 would be the result. Why should E-W profit from
misinformation? Why should the non-offending side be punished by E-W's misinformation?

THE PLAYERS
North inquired at some stage as to the meaning of 1NT and understood West to say that it was "balanced."
West said she had described it as "balancing." In the play of the hand, declarer led toward the Q, allowing
the jack to hold on the first occasion. (The stronger bridge players on the committee were not greatly
impressed with the line even if she thought West was balanced in shape.)

THE DIRECTOR
The director was called to the table at the end of the hand. He considered there had been misinformation but
that it was not material to the result. He allowed the score of minus 300 to stand.

THE HEARING
It was brought out that North had found the explanation she received "strange", and that West had (a)
interpreted her conversation with North as based on her explanation of "balancing", and (b) in the presence of
the director had failed to challenge North's use of "balance" in describing the explanation she had received.
East was keen to stigmatize declarer's play of the hand as grossly inferior -- an aspect that was never going to
be a key question in the committee's decision-making, and which the director had already taken into account in
the ruling appealed.

THE COMMITTEE
The committee had no difficulty in reaching a unanimous conclusion that an eminent player such as North
could have no difficulty in recognizing that an eminent player such as East would not be making a 1NT bid as
a passed hand on a balanced holding and were indeed incredulous of the thought that she could believe the
reply she understood she had received once she had even found occasion to ask the question. The general
bridge knowledge involved is not beyond the grasp of even quite modest playing abilities. The committee
considered that North had misunderstood the explanation ( Law 21A ) and was a player fully equipped to be
aware this was so. The director's non-adjustment of the score, although based upon a flawed assessment of the
facts, was no different in the outcome from the decision of the committee. The score of N-S minus 300 was to
stand. A majority of the committee were so impressed with the abilities of the North-South pair that they
believed they would not think, upon mature reflection, they should have pursued the appeal, in token of which
the retention of the deposit by the committee would be something they could understand. A question was
raised by one committee member as to whether North- South were motivated to seek redress for a well-earned
bad score, but it did not appear necessary to pursue the thought.

COMMITTEE COMMENT
North misunderstood the explanation. Her general bridge knowledge should have caused her to recognize the
situation.

COMMITTEE DECISION
Score stands -- N-S minus 300. Deposit not refunded.

Appeals report #4

Monday -- Mixed Pairs, Session 2.

Committee chairman:
Members present:
Scribe: Grattan Endicott
Board 21 NORTH
N/S Vul 10 5 4 2
Dealer North 854
AJ963
WEST 3 EAST
986 AQ73
A K 10 3 2 96
Q 10 8 K7
KJ SOUTH 98652
KJ
QJ7
542
A Q 10 7 4

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1NT(1)
2 3 3 All Pass

(1) 13-16, with 13 reserved for hands with 3-3-3-4 distribution.

3 went down two for plus 100 to North-South.

FACTS
East-West play a different defense when the minimum value for 1NT is 14 high-card points and move from
the defense where it can be weaker. West intended his bid as a single-suited hand, knowing the minimum to be
13 HCP. East took West for a major two-suiter, believing the minimum to be 14.

THE PLAYERS
When East, behind screens, asked North about the 1NT opener, North wrote down 14-16, may be 13 if no
four-card suit other than clubs. East could not read without glasses and while she was delving for them North,
seeking to curtail the delay, said, basically 14-16.

DIRECTOR
The score of 3Sdown two, plus 100 to North-South, to stand.

COMMITTEE
The committee held that North had done his best to explain. The written statement is accurate, his spoken
comment contains the word basically, which indicates some qualification to the 14-16 range. Score confirmed
at North-South plus 100. Deposit forfeited.

COMMENT
If East has need of glasses to read, they should be kept handy and used.

Appeals report #5

Event: Mixed Pairs Consolation

Committee Members present: Edgard Kaplan, Bobby Wolff, Kathie Wei-Sender, Jeff Polisner, Jens Auken,
Ernesto dOrsi.
Scribe: Grattan Endicott

Board 19 NORTH
E/W Vul 10 7 4
Dealer South 10 7 4 2
Q8763
WEST K EAST
Q98 K62
K863 AJ95
J2 K9
AQJ9 SOUTH 8752
AJ53
Q
A 10 5 4
10 6 4 3

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - Pass
1 Pass 1 Pass
2 Pass 2 Pass
2NT Pass 3 All Pass

THE FACTS
1 was Alerted because it might bypass a five-card diamond suit -- a healthy action to Alert this although not
mandatory. 2 required the 2NT bid and 3 was showing a singleton spade, according to Wests explanation.
East had bid this way in the belief that he was not showing a singleton spade.

THE DIRECTOR
The director was called at the end of the play. South had misdefended, believing North to have five spades.
East admitted he had forgotten his system. The director ruled no infraction in the belief he read supporting
evidence on the convention card, but by the time he came to the Committee he had concluded the statement on
the card was insufficiently analagous.

THE COMMITTEE
The difficulty for the players here is that the convention card does not say anything as to this kind of action
when it is responders suit that is raised by opener. The card does not corrroborate Wests explanation and the
Law requires the Director to rule false explanation when in doubt. The committee held that East, too, should
consider that Wests explanation could be incorrect and should offer this opinion as declarer before the opening
lead is selected. East has based his bidding on an alternative understanding of his system. East violated his
own conventional understandings, where they were clearly not in doubt, the Laws do not require him to
disclose it.

COMMITTEE DECISION
The scored was adjusted to 3 , down one. Plus 100 to North-South. There was also a penalty on East-West
reducing their matchpoints to zero on the board. Further, East-West were forbidden to use the 2 relay for the
remainder of the World Bridge Federation championships.

COMMENT
There is a body of opinion in favor of a change in the Laws to place a strong onus on East in such situations.
A counterview stresses that a deliberate violation of ones agreements without partners awareness must
continue to be legal.
DISSENTING OPINION
Wolff writes (Wei-Sender agrees) that he dissents on the score adjustment (i.e., the penalty). East-West were
playing a convention -- a relay to show shortness -- and once this type of convention is either misused or
misexplained the defense is usually (as in this case) severely damaged. We must stop this offense at the highest
levels of our game, and the way to accomplish this is to encourage players either to learn their conventions or
not to use them. I would adopt the decisions of the committee with the matchpoint fine increased to the value of
a full board.

Appeals report #6

Monday, Mixed Pairs Consolation second session

Committee chairman: Bobby Wolff

Scribe: Grattan Endicott

Board 5 NORTH
N/S Vul K97
Dealer North A763
J 10 8 2
WEST 43 EAST
10 5 2 A8
-- QJ852
AQ4 973
K Q J 10 8 7 2 SOUTH A95
QJ643
K 10 9 4
K65
6

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- Pass 1 1
Dbl 2 Pass Pass
3 Pass 3NT Pass
Pass Dbl Pass Pass
Redbl All Pass

Table result -- N-S minus 800

THE FACTS
E-W did not Alert any call. They play 3 in this sequence as forcing.

THE PLAYERS
North considered he would have acted differently if he had known 3 to be a forcing bid. E-W explained that
they did not Alert it because it is a natural call. They play negative free bids over the intervention, so it follows
that 3 is strong after the double. Since East, the opener, had passed the 2 bid, he should have a minimum
hand. North should realize it is not logical for East to bid 3NT if the 3 is non-forcing. In addition we dont
think Norths hand is worth a double as his partners overcall could have been light. So we appeal against the
directors ruling that Norths double was damaged by the unAlert of the 3 bid.
THE DIRECTOR
The director was called to the table after the hand was played. E-W play 3 is forcing but failed to Alert.
North said he would not have doubled had he been Alerted as he thought his partner had a better hand since
the auction seemed competitive only. The score was adjusted to. North-South minus 400, East-West plus 400.

THE COMMITTEE
It was adjudged that the double is conventional and must be Alerted. An explanation of the double must
include the information that a free bid would be negative; from this opponents can be expected to realize that a
bid after a double is not a sign-off.

THE DECISION
Score awarded North-South minus 400, East-West plus 400. Deposit not refunded.

COMMENT
A member of the committee was skeptical that North would not have obtained the same result on the board if
the K had been exchanged with the 5 and the bid of 3 had been non- forcing. He suggested that North
has got out of a situation in which he made a bridge misjudgment regardless of the non-Alert. The other point
in the case is that players cannot assume the whole world understands and plays as they do back home.

Appeals report #7

Mixed Pairs Consolation, third session

Chairman: Jeff Polisner

Scribe:

Board 25 NORTH
E/W Vul Q82
Dealer North 95
A 10
WEST AJ9632 EAST
A 10 4 3 KJ965
AK8432 J
K9 652
5 SOUTH K Q 10 7
7
Q 10 7 6
QJ8743
84

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 1 1 Pass
2 Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 2 Pass
3 Pass 3 Pass
4 All Pass

Made 11 tricks
THE PLAYERS
If the 2 bid was Alerted and explained as a game try and nothing to do with diamonds, then South would
lead the Q, and the result depends on declarer play. If he covered with the K there might be an uppercut.
Otherwise the maximum number of tricks made would be 10.

THE DIRECTOR
As per their convention, overcalls are random; the 2 bid was meant to be natural (a bridge bid) and a game
try. 2 would show a poorer hand. No damage -- the result stands. (North explained after the deal that the
explanation given for the 2 bid was just game try.

COMMITTEE
The Committee believed that E-W had no conventional understanding and thus there was no failure to Alert.
In any case, there was no likely damage as a diamond lead was unlikely holding a small doubleton in clubs --
the likely lead was a club. E-W were admonished that they now have an understanding and should not Alert 2
in the future.

COMMITTEE RULING
The directors ruling stands. Sandsmark, a member of the committee, believed the appeal to be frivolous and
therefore the deposit should not be returned. However, the committee disagreed and the deposit was returned.

appeals 2 3 4 5 6 7 9-19 20-29 30-39 43-51