Appeals Case 1Subject: Unauthorized informationEvent: Grand National Teams Flight B, 10 August, second session
(1) Not Alerted; intended as a splinter,
The Facts: 6NT made six, plus 1440 for E/W.
The opening lead was the The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's
ruling. They believed that there was a fair chance that
North would have bid at the seven-level if the
3
The Committee Decision: The Committee
decided that even if North had bid 6
DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Appeals Case 2Subject: MisinformationEvent: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, second semifinal session
(1) Intended as a support double, not Alerted
The Facts: 2 The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. North and West were the only players to attend the hearing. West believed that had he known South was making a support double, he might have bid 2NT. He believed that North should not have removed the double. North said that South was a relatively inexperienced player (a student of his, though a Life Master). He had explained at the table that his partner might have meant the double as Support, though he wasn't sure. He believed that removing the double was the right action with his hand. The Committee Decision:
The Committee
believed that North went out of his way to explain
the possibilities for his partner's double, that it was
possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she
was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W
could have asked North to leave the table and had
South explain the intent of the double. The
Committee believed that the decision North had made to bid
2
DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
Appeals Case 3Subject: MisinformationEvent: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, second qualifying session
(1) Alerted; single-suited hand
The Facts: 4 The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's
ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing.
They each had played their partner to have club
shortage because of the opponents' bidding and otherwise
would not have bid 4 The Committee Decision: The Committee
accepted the Director's representation that E/W did
not have an agreement. The table result of 4
DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff |
Appeals Case 4Subject: Played CardEvent: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, first qualifying session |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | - | - | Pass |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 1NT |
Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
The Facts:
3NT went down two, plus 200 for
E/W. At 3NT, West led the ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director’s ruling.
North and West attended the hearing. North explained
that South was recovering from a grievous illness that
may have affected his speech processes. North said
that South was pointing toward the spade suit when
calling for the The Committee Decision: The ACBL and the bridge legislators have tried to create as level a playing field for all players as they can. The game is none-theless a game for thinkers. When plays are made carelessly, the carelessness cannot be excused and the laws themselves superseded. Law 47C says: "a played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change of designation as permitted by Law 45C4b." Law 45C4b says, "a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought. . ." The Laws Commission’s San Antonio meeting
minutes contain the following note regarding Law
45C4b. "It was clear to the Laws Commission that: (1)
The presumption must be that the card named was the
one intended. (2) The burden of proof is on the declarer.
(3) The standard of proof is ‘overwhelming.’
(4) In judging ‘without pause for thought,’ if the de-clarer
has made a play after an inadvertent designation,
a ‘pause for thought’ has occurred." In this case,
despite the irrationality of the play of the The Committee briefly considered an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point for the appellants but decided against it for two reasons: (1) This appeal was based on a player’s health handicap and how the laws must be interpreted with regard thereto. While accommodation for handicap has been brought before committees before, the general public’s knowledge of the standards is suspect. (2) This appeal, based on Law 45C4b, had some similarities with the much publicized Vancouver appeal, which, though successful, had less merit than this one. In effect, this Committee believed that the Vancouver decision cast doubt in the bridge public’s minds about what constitutes cause for permitting the withdrawal of a designated card. Since the public’s confusion exists in part because of the National Appeals Committee’s own actions, it would be wrong to punish a player for bringing an appeal which was based on the Committee’s own published statements. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Doug Doub, Corrine Kirkham, Richard Popper, Judy Randel.
Appeals Case 5Subject:
(Tempo)
|
Board 25 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | 3![]() | 4![]() | Pass |
4NT | Pass | 5![]() | Pass |
5NT | Pass | 6![]() | Pass |
6![]() | Pass | 6![]() | Pass |
7![]() | All Pass |
(1) One or four keycards
(2) Showed the ![]() The Facts:
7 The opening lead was the The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. The total time taken to make each bid by E/W was
disputed. 6 The Committee Decision:
The Committee found
it easy to determine that East’s failure to bid 7 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Bart Bramley, Ed Lazarus, Barbara Nudelman, Becky Rogers. |
Appeals Case 6Subject: Tempo
The Facts: 2 The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East said that he paused for perhaps 10 seconds to consider his action over 1NT. West said that he did not notice any break in tempo and that he thought his action was justified, both vulnerable at matchpoints. North and South both stated that they noticed an unmistakable break in tempo. The Committee Decision: The Committee
judged that a hesitation had likely occurred, based on the
statements of three of the four players. The Committee
believed that pass was a logical alternative to double
since in theory East could have held a 4-4-2-3 five count
and the break in tempo demonstrably suggested action
on West's part. Whether the break in tempo was based
on extra high cards or extra distribution, West's double
was more attractive with that knowledge. The
Committee therefore canceled West's double and reverted the
contract to 1NT. In 1NT with the likely spade lead, the
play was projected as follows: spade ducked to West's
king, low diamond to North's 10, DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Appeals case 7
Subject: Miscellaneous
The Facts: 1NT made one, plus 90 for E/W.
The Director was called at the end of play. South
had not been told that E/W open 1 The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's
ruling. Only South attended the hearing. South
stated that upon receiving the explanation "could be
short" he assumed that it was the normal 4-4-3-2
distribution. Had he known that it could have been a
strong notrump, possibly with longer diamonds, he
would have overcalled 1NT, leading to the possible
N/S results of 2 The Committee Decision: The Committee
believed that South had not done enough to explore the implications of East's explanation. For
example, when asked what E/W's notrump range was,
South said he did not know at the time but now knew it
to be, "11 to 14, or maybe 10 to 12." Because
knowledge of E/W's notrump range was critical to
South's decision, failure to inform himself of that fact
was in no small way responsible for South's
dilemma. Also, relying on the opponents to have
specifically a 4-4-3-2 weak notrump in the finals of the
Life Master Pairs was an inference that South took at
his own risk. Finally, it was possible that South
would have been worse off had he overcalled 1NT since
E/W scores of plus 100 (2 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff
|