Birmingham AppealsAppeals Case 1Subject:
Tempo:
Event: Life Master Open Pairs, 16 November, Second Qualifying Session |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Bill Hagenberg | Terry Michaels | Dennis Goldston | Don Blum |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
2![]() | Pass | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3NT | Pass | 4![]() |
All Pass |
(1) Break in tempo
The Facts:
4 The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director’s ruling.
There had been a slow initial pass by South. (This was
the first round.) E/W claimed that the slow pass and
slow 3 The Committee Decision:
The Committee
quickly established that the Director had correctly
ruled that the initial break before 1 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Dick Budd, Barbara Nudelman, Marlene Passell, Riggs Thayer Appeals Case 2Subject:
Tempo
Event: Life Master Open Pairs, 18 November, First Final Session |
Board 14 Dealer East   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Jeff Meckstroth | Dave Treadwell | Perry Johnson | Bob Schwartz |
- | - | 2![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | Pass | 3![]() |
4![]() | Pass(3) | Pass | 4![]() |
Dbl | 4![]() | Pass | Pass |
Dbl | All Pass |
(1) Alerted; weak two-bid in either major
(2) Alerted; non-forcing (3) Break in tempo The Facts:
4 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director’s ruling.
South knew North had taken extra time. Some of that
time was absorbed by North reading the Defense to
Artificial Conventions booklet, but North also took
some 10-15 seconds to call after reading it. South
said he needed to find as little as Kxxx in either major
and a doubleton in the other to go down one against
a making 4 The Committee Decision:
The Committee focused
on two issues: whether unauthorized information
from the slow pass demonstrably suggested that
bidding would be more successful than passing; and
whether pass was a logical alternative to bidding. In
discussing whether there was message content in
North’s hesitation, the Committee agreed that North
might have been debating between pass and double
or between pass and bidding. The Committee then
focused on what holding would cause an out-of-tempo
action and concluded that this would almost always
be “hard values,” e.g. aces and kings, not queens and
jacks. From South’s perspective, aces and kings rated
to be good and transferable to offense. Thus, the conclusion
was that the slow pass did suggest that North
would have useful values for offense, even if the alternative
considered was double. The Committee also
concluded that had North passed in tempo; a pass by
South was a logical alternative. The Committee then
considered whether East had “failed to continue to
play bridge” when he did not bid 5 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, David Berkowitz, Ed Lazarus, Peggy Sutherlin Appeals Case #3Subject:
Tempo
Event: Open BAM Teams, 19 November, First Session |
Board 30 Dealer East   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Rose Meltzer | Roy Welland | Kyle Larsen | Bjorn Fallenius |
- | - | Pass | Pass |
1![]() | 1NT | Pass | 3NT |
All Pass |
The Facts:
3NT went down two, +100 for E/W.
The opening lead was the |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
(1) Break in tempo.
The Director was called when the hand was over.
West had hesitated before following small to trick
three. E/W estimated it had taken her 5 seconds to
play and N/S estimated the time was 8-10 seconds.
The Director decided that East had unauthorized information
that West had the The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. West did not attend the hearing. East said that
when the The Committee Decision:
There was no dispute
about the DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Doug Doub, Simon Kantor, Becky Rogers, Michael White Appeals Case #4Subject:
Misinformation
Event: Open BAM Teams, 19 November, First Qualifying Session |
Board 27 Dealer South   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Shawn Samuel | Mel Colchimaro | Russell Samuel | Janet Colchimaro |
- | - | - | Pass |
1NT(1) | 2![]() | 2NT(3) | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 3![]() | All Pass |
(1) Announced; 10-13
(2) Not Alerted; spades and a minor (3) Lebensohl (4) Forced (5) Not forcing The Facts:
3 The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director’s ruling.
East stated that had he known that 2 The Committee Decision:
The Committee believed
that North’s hand type should not have had an
effect on East’s decision. If North had a one-suiter,
say 6-2-3-2, then East could hope for a doubleton
spade opposite and for reasonable breaks. If North
was known to have five-five, then West was more
likely to have a third spade and suits could be breaking
badly. True, if North’s minor was diamonds, then
East’s singleton diamond was an asset. East did make
that last point, but he also said, in effect, “I’m not
sure if I’d have been worth an invite if given the correct
information, but I figured I’d let the Committee
decide.” The Committee decided that not only should
East have invited in either case, but that the misinformation
had absolutely no relation to his decision. He
was trying to get in Committee what he couldn’t get
at the the table. Therefore, the Committee allowed
the table result to stand and found the appeal lacking
in merit. East, West, and the E/W team captain were
assessed an appeal without merit warning point. As
for the play in 3 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Larry Cohen (chair), Sid Brownstein, Phil Brady, Corinne Kirkham, Judy Randel Appeals Case #5Subject:
Played Card
Event: Flight B/C Swiss, 19 November, First Session |
  |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
1NT | Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
The Facts:
The opening lead was the ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. West stated that when she played her small spade, she called for a spade from dummy without designating which was to be played. A moment later she heard what she had said and stated her intent was to play the queen. East, her partner, fidgeted when she called for a spade and said he asked “Which one?” N/S agreed that West had called for a spade without designating the rank and at that point East had fidgeted and eventually asked “which one?” At that point West noticed what was happening and said she wanted to play the queen. The Panel Decision: The Panel pointed out that accidents happen. People revoke, pull the wrong cards, etc. The fact that the SAK were not cashed in order gives rise to the possibility that declarer had a lapse in concentration, perhaps thinking that she had played a high spade from her hand rather than a low one. The Panel decided that the burden of proof that declarer’s intention was incontrovertible rested with the declarer, and that based on her arguments she had not proved this. In addition, since her partner’s body language may have called attention to her error, she was deprived of the opportunity to correct her play without taint. The Panel allowed the table result of 3NT down one, +100 for N/S to stand. DIC of Event: Susan Patricelli Panel: Mike Flader (Reviewer), Charlie MacCracken, Chris Patrias Players consulted: none reported Appeals case #6Subject:
Misinformation
Event: Open BAM Teams, 19 November, First Qualifying Session |
Board 4 Dealer West   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
David Reiter | Alan Kleist | Jay Wasserman | Leo Lasota |
Pass | Pass | 1![]() | Pass |
2![]() | Pass | 2![]() | All Pass |
(1) Not Alerted; Reverse Drury
The Facts:
2 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director’s ruling.
South had suspected that 2 The Director ruled that North had already passed
and gave him the option of changing his call. South had
told the Director away from the table that he would have
bid 2NT had he been properly Alerted. East said that he
had forgotten their agreement to play Drury (both convention
cards had Drury marked on them). West said
that he would have bid 3 The Committee Decision:
The Committee decided
that N/S were responsible for their poor result. Surely
North and South suspected that 2 South should have suspected that 2 DIC Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Larry Cohen (chair), Sid Brownstein, Phil Brady, Corinne Kirkham, Judy Randel Appeals Case #7Subject:
Misinformation
Event: Flight B/C Swiss Teams, 19 November, First Session |
Board 35 E/W vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
Pass | 1![]() | 2![]() | Dbl(1) |
3![]() | All Pass |
(1) Not Alerted; intended as support.
(2) Intended as a diamond raise. The Facts:
3 The opening lead was the The Appeal:
E/W appealed the Director’s ruling.
After the hand was over West said he did not
care what the double was, unless it was penalty.
He thought it was takeout. When it was pointed
out that a support double is a form of takeout, he
said he would have bid 3 West was asked what kind of vulnerable versus non-vulnerable overcalls his partner made if this were a penalty double. He replied that sometimes he overcalled four-card suits. East stated that KJ9xx (the suit he held) was
kind of on the weak side for a two-level overcall.
East also said that since there had been no Alert,
he thought his partner was making a runout bid and
he had to respect it. When he was asked why he
did not protect himself by calling the Director prior
to passing 3 The Panel Decision: West was aware when he
bid 3 DIC of Event: Ron Johnston Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Mike Flader, Chris Patrias, Susan Patricelli Players consulted: none reported Appeals case #8Subject:
Tempo
Event: Open BAM Teams, 20 November, First Final Session |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Alfredo Versace | Yi Zhong | Lorenzo Lauria | Rouyu Fan |
- | - | - | Pass |
1![]() | Pass | 1![]() | Pass |
1NT | Pass(1) | 2![]() | Pass |
2![]() | Pass | 3![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 4![]() | Dbl |
All Pass |
(1) Break in tempo.
(2) Alerted; checkback. (3) Forcing. The Facts:
4 The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. The E/W team captain (George Jacobs) attended the hearing. E/W claimed that a hesitation of approximately 5-6 seconds occurred after the 1NT call and that South’s double might have been suggested by the hesitation. North said there was no reason for him to hesitate holding only four points vulnerable, with his partner not showing any values. He thought he had taken 2-3 seconds to bid over 1NT. N/S explained that at a previous regional, the Director had been called to the table because they had bid too quickly. The Director had suggested they hesitate briefly before each bid. N/S pointed out that this was a BAM event, and risking the double at BAM was a good gamble with South’s holding even if partner could not contribute to the defense, especially since, although East had shown extra values, West had rejected two game tries by East. The Committee Decision: The question of the hesitation was discussed fully, and the Committee found no reason to find that there had been a hesitation by North. Therefore no infraction had occurred and there was no restriction on any action that South chose. The Committee also decided that this appeal was without substantial merit, and should not have come to Committee. East, West and the team captain were issued an appeal without merit warning. Committee: Doug Heron(chair), Bart Bramley, Barbara Nudelman, Marlene Passell, Riggs Thayer. Appeals case 9Subject:
Tempo
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs, 21 November, First Qualifying Session |
Board 23 Dealer South   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Helen Jinks | David Siebert | Scott Stearns | Allan Falk |
- | - | - | 3![]() |
Dbl | 3![]() | Dbl | Pass |
Pass | 4![]() | Pass | Pass |
Dbl(1) | Pass | 4![]() | Pass |
5![]() | Pass | 5![]() | All Pass |
(1) Break in tempo.
The Facts:
5 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the Director’s ruling.
North did not attend the hearing. East stated that he
had shown his spades when he doubled 3 The Committee Decision:
The Committee discussed
the bridge logic of the East hand. The double
of 3 DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: David Berkowitz (chair), Nell Cahn, Jim Linhart, Bob Schwartz (scribe), Riggs Thayer |