SPRING NORTH AMERICAN BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Editors: Henry Francis and Jody Lathanm

Appeals Case 1

Subject: Tempo
Event: Open Pairs, March 1

Board 5 NORTH
N/S vul. 85
Dealer N AJ72
AKJ2
WEST 865 EAST
A 10 7 6 2 Q43
93 K54
10 543
A9742 SOUTH K Q J 10
KJ9
Q 10 8 6
Q9876
3

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 1 Pass 1
2NT 3 4 Dbl
Pass 5 All Pass

Result: N/S minus 100

Facts: South took some time (beyond the STOP warning) before doubling 4 . The director was called by E/
W and the facts were not at issue.

TD's ruling: The Director canceled the bridge result and, pursuant to Law 12C(2), awarded E/W plus 590 for
4 doubled making four.

The Appeal: N/S appealed; only South attended the Committee. He agreed that North acted on the basis of
his hesitation but felt that 4 doubled would have gone down on a club lead and that he (South) would not
have doubled had he not intended to lead a club.

The committee's decision: There was no damage to E/W since in the unanimous opinion of the Committee,
the club lead was a 100% action and would have set 4 doubled. Since E/W had done better by defending 5
than they would have done by declaring 4 doubled, the Committee ruled that the table results of N/S 5
down one (minus 100) would stand.

Chairperson: Jan Cohen

Committee members: Ed Lucas, Jan Shane, Nell Cahn, Mary Jane Farell
Appeals case 2

Subject: Tempo
Event: Charity KO, 29 Feb

N/S vul. NORTH

Dealer N 10 x
AJx
xxx
WEST Qxxx EAST
AQxx Jxxxx
xx KQx
A K J 10 x x Qx
A SOUTH xxx
Kx
xxxx
xx
KJxxx

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- Pass Pass Pass
1 Pass 1 Pass
4 (1) Pass 4 (2) Pass
6 All Pass

(1) 6+ Diamonds, 4+ Spades

(2) Break in tempo

North: Jo Morse, South: Lee Rautenberg, West: Mike Cappelletti, East: Eric Hochman

Result: N/S minus 1010 (club lead)

Facts: East broke tempo slightly before bidding 4 over 4 .

This was noted by N/S after the 6 bid and E/W concurred.

The director was called by South when dummy appeared. East made seven.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that the break in tempo was not insignificant and that a pass by West was a
logical alternative (Law 16A). The contract was changed to 4S making seven, N/S minus 510.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, alleging that the slight hesitation was not suggestive; that the unusual jump to 4
was the cause for a moment's thought to confirm the bid's meaning. West was on his own in bidding the slam.

The committee's decision: The Committee judge that the grounds for the appeal were substantially without
merit and advised the appellants accordingly. Due to the form of scoring, the Committee referred the matter to
the Director-in-Charge. East's hesitation was deemed to have been a possible impetus for West to bid slam.

Chairperson: Mike Aliotta

Committee members: Bruce Reeve, Doug Heron

Appeals case 3

Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs Q1, 1 March

Board 15 NORTH
Dealer S 7543
72
A874
WEST 764 EAST
A K Q 10 2 986
10 9 5 QJ
KQ96 J 10 5 3
Q SOUTH A J 10 8
J
AK8643
2
K9532

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

North: Stephen Williams, South: Jay Korobow, West: John Bartlett, East: Tony Glynne

Result: N/S minus 420 (lead: 7)

Facts: North led the 7 to South's king. South switched to the 2. Declarer hesitated for roughly ten seconds
before playing the K. North won the ace and reverted to hearts, thus losing the diamond ruff for the defense.
North called the Director at the end of the play of the hand.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that the score would stand, but pursuant to Law 73D(1), West violated the
Proprieties since he could have known at the time of his action that his variation in tempo could work to his
benefit. As a result the Director, pursuant to Law 12, assessed E/W a 3.8 matchpoint (10% of a top) procedural
penalty.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, alleging that a ten-second delay for declarer to decide what to do is not excessive
after a defender (not completely expectedly) switches suits. The Laws state that the defenders take inference at
their own risk. N/S did not appear and were not seeking any redress. Declarer stated that he was slightly
surprised at the diamond switch and considered the possibility of avoiding a second heart loser. He wanted to
win the diamond in his hand to lead the Q, with the possibility of building two club winners and returning to
dummy with a trump if the jack dropped singleton or doubleton.

The committee's decision: West was advised that it would have been best for him to announce that he had
"no problem on this trick" if there were any possibility that an opponent might be deceived by his break in
tempo. While there was no allegation that West had intended to create a false picture of the diamond layout,
West's level of experience was sufficiently high enough that he might be expected to foresee the consequences
of his actions. The procedural penalty was not rescinded. The committee's sentiments were unanimous with
regard to cause and effect and the possible remedies West might have taken at the table.
However, there were some reservations with regard to the penalty.

Dissent (Weinstein/Kokish): If we believe that this break in tempo was innocent and motivated by both
surprise and consideration of other options, the procedural penalty may set a precedent that precludes
exoneration once it is possible that an opponent may err and does so. There reservations are based on the
particular facts of the case.

Chairperson: Jeff Meckstroth

Committee members: Rebecca Rogers, Mary Jane Farell, Howard Weinstein, Eric Kokish

Appeals case 5

Subject: Tempo
Event: NAOP, 28 Feb

Board 35 NORTH
N/S vul. 82
Dealer E KQ
KQJ952
WEST 974 EAST
Q 10 7 5 4 K
10 9 6 2 AJ43
764 10 8 3
K SOUTH A Q 10 5 2
AJ963
875
A
J863

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

(1) Precision-style; 11-16; if upper range, must have four of a major or six clubs; no requirement for lower
range.
(2) Tempo break (undisputed).

North: Tom Kniest, South: Karen Walker, West: Larry Baucher East: Glenn McIntyre

Result: N/S plus 140 (lead: A)

Facts: West took some time before passing the natural 2 . N/S called the Director after East bid 2 . The
Director was called back after the auction.

TD's ruling: The Director canceled the bridge result and, pursuant to Law 12C(2), substituted 2 by N/S for
plus 90.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, contending that giving N/S plus 90 (and E/W minus 90) was unduly harsh for
E/W. They felt it was unlikely that the auction would end at 2 - South or West would have taken some action.
The committee's decision: East concurred during testimony that he should not have bid 2 . After much
discussion of the possible ensuing auctions, the Committee decided the uncertainty warranted assigning N/S
Average Plus or plus 90, whichever was WORSE (to avoid giving the non-offenders a windfall profit).

The Committee then decided that 2 satisfied the requirements of Law 12C(2) as being the most unfavorable
result that was all the probably (based on the Law Commission's "one in six" guide lines, and assigned E/W
minus 90 or Average Minus, whichever was worse. The Committee was not unanimous. Two members felt
that this line of reasoning (2D ending the auction) did not meet those "one in six" guidelines.

Chairperson: Alan Le Bendig

Committee members: Chip Martel, Adam Wildavsky, Jim Linhart, Bob Glasson

Appeals case 6

Subject: Tempo
Event: Flight A Pairs

Board 6 NORTH
E/W vul. AJ43
Dealer E K94
4
WEST K Q 10 8 6 EAST
72 965
Q752 J86
K 10 3 Q9652
J943 SOUTH 75
K Q 10 8
A 10 3
AJ87
A2

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - Pass 1
Pass 2 Pass 2
Pass 3 Pass 4NT
Pass 5 Pass 5NT
Pass 6 Pass 6
Pass 6 Pass 6 (1)
Pass 7 All Pass

(1) Tempo break.

North: Underwood, South: Paskin, West: Neiman, East: Gabay

Result: N/S plus 1510, 7 making

Facts: South's 5NT confirmed possession of all the aces and the king-queen of trumps, asked for kings up-the-
line. When North bid 7 over South's out-of-tempo 6 , E/W called the Director, and called him back after
play had ended.
TD's ruling: The Director canceled the bridge result and, pursuant to Law 12C(2), adjusted the score to N/S
plus 1010 for 6 , making seven.

The Appeal: N/S appealed; North joined in the king-showing exchange in case the partnership could reach
7NT, but always had enough information to bid 7 .

The committee's decision: The Committee felt (with one dissenting opinion: Gordon) that North's 7 bid
was warranted on the information he had from the auction.

The Committee ruled that the result would be N/S plus 1510 for 7 making.

Dissenting opinion (Robb Gordon): It is very well to say that the North hand would "always" bid a grand
slam. In fact, I would have bid 7 over 6 . But THIS North did NOT choose to do so. What was he looking
for? 7NT? If partner had solid diamonds, partner would have bid 7NT by now. You can never find out about
the J. No, I think the Committee gave this North a free ride. Also, South's hesitation was particularly
egregious in what should have been a planner auction.

Chairperson: Mike Aliotta

Committee members: Mike Huston, Abby Heitner, Bruce Reeve, Robb Gordon

Appeals case 7

Subject: Unauthorized Information

Event: Flight A Pairs, 2 March, 2nd session

Board 8 NORTH
None vul. AK93
Dealer W AK
94
WEST KQJ53 EAST
Q7 J 10 8 6 5 4 2
J 10 4 96
AKQ83 75
10 9 8 SOUTH 42
-
Q87532
J 10 6 2
A76

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

(1) 12-14 HCP.

(2) Alerted and explained as showing both majors at least 4-4.

North: Gary Hann, South: Keith Garber, West: Lou Reich, East: John Adams

Result: 2 down one; N/S plus 100.

Facts: When it became apparent that East's hand did not meet West's description, N/S called the director.

TD's ruling: The Director determined that there was no damage to N/S and that the result should stand.

The Appeal: N/S appealed, contending that appearances suggested that East forgot the partnership agreement
but was reminded by West's Alert and explanation.

The committee's decision: E/W produced their system notes completely documenting their agreement as
Alerted by West. East testified that his 2 action was a deliberate tactical bid. The Committee ruled that the
table result should stand as 2 down one; N/S plus 100. Law 73(e) permits deliberate deviations from the
system as long as these deviations are not protected by concealed partnership understanding.

Nevertheless, the Committee ruled that the District Six Recorder (E/W's District) be advised of the incident
(E/W are an experienced, expert partnerships).

Chairperson: John Solodar

Committee members: Doug Heron, Mary Jane Farrel, Gail Greenberg, Gil Cohen

Appeals case 8
Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Open Pairs, Session Four, 2 March.

Board 4 NORTH
Dealer W -
Q7
AK942
WEST J 10 9 6 4 3 EAST
J963 K Q 10 5 2
K 10 6 5 3 2 J8
Q3 J65
2 SOUTH AK8
A874
A94
10 8 7
Q75

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

(1) Preemptive.
(2) Tempo break.

North: Sam Hirschman, South: Daniel Levin, West: John Diamond, East: Barry Rigal

Result: 3 doubled down one; N/S plus 200 (SA led)

Facts: North hesitated noticeably beyond the time endorsed by the STOP warning and when South reopened
with a double, East called the Director.

TD's ruling: The Director determined that there may have been a violation of the Proprieties (Law 73F(1))
and adjusted the score, pursuant to Law 16A(2), to 3 (undoubled) down one, N/S plus 100.

The Appeal: N/S appealed, contending that pass is not a logical alternative for South at Pairs against
vulnerable opponents facing a partner who had opened vulnerable in second seat; North's hesitation did not
suggest that it would be right for south to make a penalty double of 3 . Quite the contrary.

The committee's decision: The gist of Law 16A is that a player who has received extraneous information
from partner (as by means of an unmistakable hesitation) may not choose from among logical alternative
actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

In the instant case, the Committee felt that North's hesitation did not suggest extra high card values but rather
distributional values that North eventually determined he could not afford to show. N/S's statements about
sound second-seat openings (as one of the few agreements they had made) and their desire to move up in the
standings were not in themselves significant and could always be reasonably interpreted as self interested by a
Committee.

If South had instead reopened with a cooperative double or a bid of 4 , the Committee would have
considered those actions to be logical alternatives suggested OVER another (a PENALTY double) by the
extraneous information. The Committee ruled that the results would be the one achieved at the table; N/S plus
200.

This case was decided on its special facts and does not attempt to reinterpret the meaning of "logical
alternative." The particular extraneous information conveyed by North's hesitation was NOT of the nature that
South could not lose by taking SOME action. In fact, North had just the sort of light shapely hand suggested by
the break in tempo, and E/W might well have been cold for 3S doubled from South's point of view opposite
such a hand. South expected North to pass the double even when it was wrong to do so.

Chairperson: Eric Kokish

Committee members: Ralph Cohen, Ed Lucas

Appeals case 9
Subject: Failure to Alert
Event: Flight A Pairs, 04/03/96
Board 1 NORTH
None vul. 8542
Dealer N A3
AK9543
WEST 9 EAST
10 9 6 AQ
Q 10 8 5 K642
6 QJ8
A K 10 6 2 SOUTH QJ54
KJ73
J97
10 7 2
873

West North East South

- 1 Pass 1
1NT(1) 2 3 Pass
Pass 3 4 All Pass

(1) "Sandwich" Notrump: hearts plus clubs, moderate values.

Result: E/W +450

Facts: East did not Alert the conventional 1NT. North protected against 3 in the belief that West had a good
hand and East some distribution with limited vallues. East took this new opportunity to bid his game and made
it. When dummy appeared, the Director was called. North thought she might have sold out to 3 if she had
known that West had a distributional hand. E/W alleged that "everyone plays this 1NT overcall and that it
wasn't necessary to Alert it."

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that the failure to Alert did not result in any damage to N/S and let the score
stand.

The Appeal: Although East failed to Alert 1NT and E/W failed to properly inform their opponents before the
opening lead was made, N/S did not seek any redress for the result at the table. They felt, however, that E/W's
omissions and reaction to the situation at the table warranted a procedural penalty.

The committee's decision: The combination of the failure to Alert an Alertable bid and the failure to properly
inform the opponents about the meaning of the bid in question before the opening lead constituted an
infraction. The committee imposed a one-and-one-half matchpoint penalty to E/W, with the table result (N/S
minus 450) to stand.

Chairperson: Dave Treadwell

Committee members: Abby Heitner, Steve Weinstein

Appeals case 10
Subject: Claims
Event: Flight A Pairs; 04/03/96, 1st session
Board 8 NORTH
E/W vul. 9832
Dealer N -
10 7 4
WEST J98732 EAST
Q74 K J 10 5
J8764 AK3
8 AQ53
KQ65 SOUTH A 10
A6
Q 10 9 5 2
KJ962
4

West North East South

- Pass 2NT Pass
3 (1) Pass 3 Pass
3NT Pass 4 Dbl
All Pass

(1) Transfer

Result: ?

Facts: East claimed 4 doubled after the following play: A, diamond to the queen, A, low heart to the
queen, spade to the 10, K, low diamond ruffed, claim. The claim was contested by N/S, who alleged that
East was unaware of the existing trump position at the moment and could have gone down by playing the A
prematurely.

TD's ruling: The Director concurred with N/S and ruled that 4 doubled would be down two; N/S +500

The Appeal: E/W appealed, declarer claiming that it was clear that she was making only 4 doubled and that
there was no question that the defense was to be given only one more trick. Declarer stated that she could have
claimed at trick three.

The committee's decision: The Committee decided unanimously that a statement by declarer that "I'm playing
the jack of hearts, drawing the last trump ... " constituted a false claim; there was still a trump outstanding. The
Committee determined that the result at the table would stand; N/S plus 500. This case shows that claiming in
order to save time very often results in more confusion and takes more time than playing out the hand.

Chairperson: Abby Heitner

Committee members: Steve Weinstein, Mary Jane Farell

Appeals case 11
Subject: Misinformation
Event: 0-2000 Knockout
Board 11 NORTH
None vul. 72
Dealer S Q J 10 7 6 4
Q52
WEST Q2 EAST
J 10 3 K9865
52 AK98
AKJ 84
K9854 SOUTH A3
AQ4
3
10 9 7 6 3
J 10 7 6

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

(1) 12-15 HCP.

(2) Alerted and explained as showing the majors.
(3) Not Alerted; intended as Lebensohl.

Result: E/W +150

Facts: When it became apparent that South's information had been incorrect and did not match North's hand,
the Director was called.

TD's ruling: The Director determined that N/S's agreement was that 2D showed hearts, and that E/W had
been misinformed. The score was adjusted to E/W +420 (for 4 making).

The Appeal: South testified that N/S had recently changed their defensive methods over 1NT openings from
Cappelletti (2D showing both majors) to transfer overcalls (2D showing hearts). They had only been playing
the new methods for two days, and this was the first time the situation had come up.

South admitted that he had misinformed E/W about the meaning of 2 , but argued that E/W were not entitled
to any redress since they caused their own misfortune by West passing East's forcing 2NT bid.

N/S were not requesting any score adjustment for themselves. East testified that had he not been misinformed
about the meaning of 2 he would have bid 2NT (Lebehsohl) followed by 3 (forcing), allowing E/W to end
up in 4 making.

As it was, he planned to rebid 3NT (instead of 4 ) to show his major suit stoppers (Lebensohl: slow shows).
West did not appear at the hearing.

The committee's decision: The Committee found that N/S's agreement was that 2 showed hearts, and that
E/W had been misinformed. They also determined that E/W had a firm agreement that 2NT was Lebensohl
(and forcing) in this auction.

The Committee felt that the misinformation was not responsible for preventing E/W from reaching some game.
Had West not passed 2NT E/W would have arrived in 3NT, and since 3NT would have made no score
adjustment would have been necessary. However, had 3NT been beatable the score would then have been
adjusted to 4 making. In other words, E/W's poor result followed, but was not a result of, N/S's infraction.
After the infraction E/W were still expected to play bridge up to some minimal standard commensurate with
their skill and experience level. The Committee felt that they failed to do this when West passed East's forcing
2NT bid, and it was because of this that the damage occurred. The Committee therefore allowed the result at
the table to stand for both pairs.

In addition, a 3 imp procedural penalty was assessed against N/S for failing to know their agreements and for
not adequately disclosing them. This penalty was not to accrue to E/W in the three-way match. It would
therefore be deducted from N/S's total if a quotient was needed, but would not be deducted in the head-to-head
comparison between the two teams.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig

Committee members: Eric Rodwell, Rich Colker

Appeals case 12
Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: Board-a-Match Teams

Board 17 NORTH
None vul. AK3
Dealer S J82
KQ6
WEST AKQ4 EAST
J984 752
A 10 4 K7653
10 7 4 92
J92 SOUTH 876
Q 10 6
Q9
AJ853
10 5 3

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 2 Pass 2 (1)
Pass 2NT(2) Pass 3 (3)
Pass 3 Pass 6NT
All Pass

(1) Alerted; explained after the auction as 2 controls.

(2) 23-25 HCP.
(3) Alerted; transfer.

Result: N/S plus 990 (lead: 8)

Facts: East, believing that South held a heart suit behind her, failed to lead a heart and the slam made. The
Director was called.

TD's ruling: The Director determined that N/S's agreement was that South's 3 bid was a transfer to hearts,
and that South forgot. The result at the table was allowed to stand.
The Appeal: E/W appealed. They claimed that South bid the slam based on unauthorized information from
North's Alert.

It was argued that South's hand was only invitational in strength, that bids other than 6NT were more in line
with the direction South began on (moving toward a diamond slam), that North's hand was subminimum for
his 2 - 2NT sequence and had poor distribution, and that South only bid 6NT to forestall a 6 bid from
North.

South testified that once North Alerted he knew North could never evaluate his hand properly for a diamond
slam. Not wanting North to show high-level preference for hearts over diamonds he just took a shot at 6NT.

He felt that his 9 HCP justified slam even opposite a 23 HCP minimum, adding that 6NT might fail when 6
was cold and that this risk mitigated for the bid.

North pointed out that had South continued with 4 (showing diamonds) he would always convert six of
either red-suit to 6NT given his black-suit holdings, weakish heart support, and diamond fit as a source of
tricks.

The committee's decision: The Committee determined that N/S's agreement was that 3 was a transfer
showing hearts, and that South had forgotten.

South had been playing duplicate bridge for about two years and had about 440 masterpoints. South's
testimony confirmed that his 6NT bid was based on unauthorized information from North's Alert, and that he
bid it to avoid complications which might arise from North thinking he (South) had hearts. The 6NT bid was
therefore not allowed.

The Committee then considered the issue of what the final contract would have been had South bid more in
line with his diamond-oriented start. A jump to 4NT (Blackwood) would immediately propel the N/S pair into
slam, and the Committee felt that North's hand would certainly justify converting any six-level red-suit slam to
6NT, as he testified. If South bid 4 over 3 (to confirm slam interest) North would preference to 4 , and
now, even if South tried to slow the auction down with a "natural" 4NT bid, North would never interpret that
as anything other than forward-going. Only a 3NT bid over 3 might end the auction, but opposite North's
presumed 23-25 HCP (South couldn't know that North had stretched with only a 22 count) South seemed
entirely justified in showing his slam values and proceeding to the four-level.

It was decided that N/S would almost certainly have reached 6NT even if South had bid entirely in line with
only the authorized information available to him. Therefore, the final contract was restored to the one achieved
at the table (6NT: N/S plus 990).

N/S (in particular, South) were lectured on their obligations to base their bids only on the authorized
information available to them from the auction and their hands.

If partner's Alert gave them information which suggested that a normal, previously planned, bid would likely
produce a disastrous result, they were obligated to proceed with that action and accept the consequences.
Failure to do so in the future could result in possibly severe disciplinary penalties.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Gil Cohen, Peggy Sutherlin, Karen Allison, Bruce Reeve
Appeals case 14
Subject: Unauthorized information
Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 05/03/96, 1st session

Board 1 NORTH
None vul. K432
Dealer N AQ
A 10 9 8 4
WEST A6 EAST
A 10 8 QJ6
10 8 7 6 J542
J53 Q6
532 SOUTH QJ97
975
K93
K72
K 10 8 4

West North East South

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

(1) Alerted as a transfer to clubs

Result: 3NT (N), plus 460

Facts: West called the Director after the auction, alleging that N/S might have profited from the unauthorized
information made available to South by North's Alert.

TD's ruling: The Director allowed the result to stand.

The Appeal: E/W appealed.

The committee's decision: The Committee decided that the result at the table should stand. They reasoned
that it was difficult to imagine South doing anything other than bidding 3NT. The Committee decided further
to address N/S's "card snapping" and unpleasant behavior at the table.

N/S did not appear because the hearing was held so late in the evening; they left after a lengthy wait. N/S were
both elderly players. North Alerted that 2NT "was maybe a transfer to clubs." South meant 2NT as natural.

The Committee members all felt strongly that this (relatively inexperienced) South would invariabley bid 3NT
over 3 . E/W wanted to require N/S to play in 3 , whatever the meaning of 2NT might have been. The
Committee members all felt that if N/S had been at the hearing, E/W would have been given a frivolous appeal
warning.

(Sutherlin; Committee member): "Cohn testified that he had been involved in a similar appeal at a recent
NABC and lost it with `the other side's cards'; accordingly, he wondered if his side might be entitled to any
redress.") It is important to note that at the highest levels, the Committee would have expected more from the
N/S pair, and issues such as determining the meaning of 1NT-2NT(NAT); 3 and 1NT-2NT(transfer); 3 -
3NT ... might have been broached.
Chairperson: Gil Cohen

Committee members: Bobby Goldman, Rebecca Rogers, Mary Jane Farell, Peggy Sutherlin

Appeals case 15
Subject: Unauthorized Information
Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, Session Two, 5 March.

Board 21 NORTH
N/S vul. AQ532
Dealer N A872
A 10 8
WEST 8 EAST
10 9 6 J87
K5 10 3
K432 965
7543 SOUTH K Q J 10 2
K4
QJ964
QJ7
A96

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 1 Pass 2 (1)
Pass 4 (2) Dbl 4 (3)
Pass 4NT Pass 5
Pass 6 All Pass

(1) Game force.

(2) Alerted; splinter.
(3) Agreed break in tempo.

Result: N/S plus 1460

Facts: The Director was called as soon as North acted over South's out-of-tempo 4 bid. He determined that
the hesitation before South's 4 bid was agreed to by all the players, and then instructed that the bidding and
play should continue.

TD's ruling: The Director ruled that unauthorized information was available to North and that pass was a
logical alternative. The result was adjusted to 4 by N/S for plus 710.

The Appeal: North appealed, and only North and East appearing at the hearing. North contended that as soon
as South bid 2 he always intended to bid a slam based on his four trumps, controls, and source of tricks
(spades). He began with 4 to elicit cooperation from South and allow her to evaluate her hand opposite his
singleton for slam purposes. When he found out that the partnership was off a keycard he settled for the small
slam.

The committee's decision: The Committee determined that there was unauthorized information available to
North which could have suggested that bidding over 4 was more likely to be successful than passing. In
addition, North's other testimony and actions were inconsisent with his statement that he was always going to
bid a slam. If 4 was meant to bring South into the picture, North's 4NT bid seemed inconsistent with that
plan.

Also, several types of hands which North admitted were adequate for South's 2 bid placed even a five-level
contract in jeopardy. When questioned North stated that the partnership had no agreements as to whether
South's bidding 4 over the double of 4 was stronger or weaker than passing. North terstified that he had
more than 5,000, and South had around 4,000 masterpoints and that they had played together about 15-20
times in the past year.

The Committee felt strongly that bidding over 4 was clearly not justified after South's hesitation, and would
have been a questionable action even had there been no hesitation. The score was therefore adjusted to 4 by
N/S, plus 710. Next the question of the merit of N/S's appeal was considered. Given North's level of
experience and number of masterpoints it was felt tht he should have known that bidding again after the double
was not proper and could not be allowed.

It was the Committee's unanimous decision that the appeal was substantially without merit; the $50 deposit
was retained.

Chairperson: Rich Colker

Committee members: Karen Allison, Bruce Reeve

Appeals case 16
Subject: Tempo
Event: NABC Mixed Pairs, 05/03/96, 1st session

Board 18 NORTH
N/S vul. 10 9 8 5 4
Dealer E J6
K Q J 10 8 3
WEST -- EAST
A7 KJ6
A752 Q 10 9 4
9 A7652
AQ9842 SOUTH 5
Q32
K83
4
K J 10 7 6 3

West North East South

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

(1) Break in tempo

Result: N/S minus 420

Facts: The Director was called by South after West's bid of 3 . The break in tempo was agreed to by all
present at the table.

TD's ruling: The Director canceled West's bid of 3 , canceled the result at the table, and ruled that N/S
would play in 2 doubled, one down; minus 200.

The Appeal: E/W appealed, alleging that pass is not a logical alternative for West and that her 3 bid is not an
action suggested by East's break in tempo before doubling.

The committee's decision: The Committee decided that a pass by West is a logical alternative and that 2
doubled, one down, minus 200, would be the result. As an aside, North was chided for not using the STOP
card.

Chairperson: Alan LeBendig

Committee members: Doug Heron, Nell Cahn, Mary Jane Farell, Gil Cohen

Appeals 17-28