(short description of image)APPEAL no. 2

(short description of image)
Appeals Committee
Chairman (short description of image)Eric Kokish CAN
Members (short description of image)Tommy Sandsmark
(short description of image)Naki Bruni
(short description of image)John Lenart
(short description of image)David Stevenson
NOR
ITA
NZD
GBR

Scribe (short description of image)David Stevenson GBR

(short description of image)
Event
1998 World Championships
Mixed Pairs Session 1
   
(short description of image)
Countries
USA v Denmark
   
(short description of image)
Players
NS (short description of image)

EW (short description of image)

   
(short description of image)
Board
Board 10. Dealer East. Game All
ª 3
© K Q 7 4 2
¨ 8 7 6 5 2
§ 9 2
ª A 6 5 (short description of image) ª Q J 8 4 2
© A J 9 3 © 10 8 6 5
¨ A 10 3 ¨ Q
§ A J 6 § 8 4 3
ª K 10 9 7
©
¨ K J 9 4
§ K Q 10 7 5

West
North
East
South

2© Dble
Pass 3¨ Pass Pass
4© Dble All Pass
   
(short description of image)
Result
4©*-2: +500
   
(short description of image)
Facts
The 2© opener showed spades and hearts, 3 to 10 HCP. When West asked about 3¨ South said that they played Lebensohl over other openings but had not agreed whether they played it over this one. After West had bid 4© and the tray was passed across the screen South volunteered that North was "probably strong". The TD was called at this time by West and recalled at the end of the hand.
   
(short description of image)
TD's
Decision
Score stands

(short description of image)
Appellants
E/W
   
(short description of image)
Players'
Comments
East did not attend the Committee hearing. West explained that he had no agreement over the meaning of redouble so he passed 2© doubled, and had to guess on the next round. If he had known that North had values then he would have been more likely to play bid 3©, playing there, possibly undoubled. He also said that in his view people who played Lebensohl in response to a double normally had an agreement to play it in all situations with specific exceptions. He did not believe the auction would have been any different if the 2© had been natural. North said that at the start of the round East-West had mentioned this particular bid, and he had said to his partner (through the screen) 'Play natural'. He was sure that East heard him but he did not know whether it was heard on the other side of the screen

(short description of image)
Committee's
Comments

The Committee said that players using destructive and complex or unfamiliar (to the public) conventions have a special obligation to know these methods and present them clearly to their opponents. The 2© opening is such a convention and West's uncertainty over the meaning of a redouble at his first turn (by his admission there was little partnership discussion about this convention) is evidence of a failure to meet an acceptable standard of development in a normal situation.

Although West's argument about his opponent's degree of preparation in such a common situation might have merit in a flighted or closed event, it was quite inappropriate in an open field of very mixed standard, particularly since different federations adopt such different approaches to the use of destructive methods in their mainstream events. The Committee stressed that West should have realised that South's belated opinion about the values shown by North's 3¨ was not an expression of a firm agreement but simply an attempt to be helpful. Having chosen not to involve his partner in the final decision he should have been prepared to accept the consequences. Bringing the appeal to Committee suggests that West was unwilling to recognise his responsibility in creating the problem.

Dissenting opinion (David Stevenson): It is not unreasonable for general conventions in defence to be known as much as for the opening side. Especially for a player from a European country where such openings are normal it is a reasonable expectation for opponents to know whether they play Lebensohl or not, giving the Appeal merit. The Committee mentioned the advantage of all players attending since North's comment at the start of the round could not be verified in East's absence.

   
(short description of image)
Committee's
Decision

The Committee ruled: Score stands. TD's decision confirmed. 10% of a top Procedural Penalty to East-West for:

(1) Negligence in agreements using a destructive convention and presenting it on the card

(2) Failure to appreciate that the scenario was created largely by his own negligence

   
(short description of image)
Relevant
Laws
Law 75 C
   
(short description of image)
Deposit
Returned  
Forfeited X


(short description of image) Return to Top of page To main Championship page(short description of image)