Appeal Case 1 Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 4 Teams: New Zealand (N/S) versus Italy (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Ernesto d'Orsi (BRA), Anton Maas (NLD), John Wignall (NZL) |
Board 1 None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Duboin | Crombie | Bocchi | Cornell |
- | Pass | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | Pass | 4NT(3) |
Pass | 5![]() | Dble | 5![]() |
Pass | 6![]() | All Pass |
(1) Strong: 8-9 playing tricks or 22-23 HCP BAL. or a major
two-suiter (18-23 HCP) or a GF in hearts.
(2) 5+ spades; 8+ HCP. (3) RKCB. (4) 0-3 keycards. (5) Break in tempo. Opening lead: Result:
6 The Facts:
East called the TD when North
raised 5 At the end of the play East recalled the TD,
who determined that South also agreed to the
break in tempo over 5 North further explained that this was the
first board of the match and that he had not yet
settled down. Due partly to his inattention, partly
to his singleton heart and partly to the fact
that in their system South's only game-forcing
hand must have hearts, he became confused and
thought that 4NT was asking in hearts. He insisted
that it was the 5 The TDs consulted a number of players about
whether passing 5 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the TDs' ruling.
In response to questions from the Committee,
the following additional information was
obtained. All players agreed that the tray was on
the S-W side of the screen following the 5 North, in settling in for the first match of the
day, said he had become wrapped up in the various
score cards he was responsible for and was
not paying adequate attention to the bridge.
Somehow, for reasons he did not fully understand
and could not justify, he became confused
after South's jump to 4NT and thought South
held a game-force in hearts and was asking for
keycards with hearts as trumps; thus he made the
"correct" response of 5 South said he was thinking of several things during his deliberations. Initially, he did not see the double on his right and was thinking about what sort of hand North could hold with no keycards. He knew North's spade suit should be reasonable (at least SQ10xxx) and slam might still be a good bet. For example, North might hold good enough spades that the king could be finessed or he might not get a club lead, in which case even if there were an inescapable trump loser the club loser might go away on his hearts. Then, when he noticed the double, he had to re-evaluate the situation. With the now-guaranteed club lead he decided against risking bidding slam. The Committee Decision:
The Committee
members agreed that there had been a clear
break in tempo which was far more likely to have
been due to South than to West and which made
bidding on with the North cards more attractive.
They were , however, somewhat divided as to
whether pass by North was a logical alternative.
Several members believed that South's 5 Others thought that pass was possible by
North since the 4NT bidder is in charge and his
partner should not override his decision unless
there is an overwhelming reason to do so --
which they thought was not the case here. All
members finally agreed that the fact that all of
the players consulted and some Committee
members thought pass was a logical alternative
made that the only defensible conclusion. The
Committee sustained the TDs' ruling for both
sides: 5 The Committee believes that there are several important points which players should note regarding the decision in this case: (1) While it is entirely plausible that North had
an aberration that hearts were trumps, there
are other possible explanations for his 5 (2) It is possible (likely, in the Chairman's opinion)
that North's confusion about hearts
being trumps was directly linked to his artificial
2 (3) If North wishes to justify his actions in the presence of a hesitation, then compelling bridge reasons are needed. For example, what if, in the present case, South held this hand?
Several Committee members suggested that
South might bid 4NT with a hand like this, but
that his break in tempo after the zero keycard
response made this sort of hand impossible
and so invited 6 (4) But the most important lesson for players, especially those in top world competition, is that they are expected to consider the consequences of their actions before making their calls and plays. In Blackwood/Keycard auctions in particular, players should be prepared for any response that could reasonably be anticipated. South should have decided what he would do if North showed zero, one or two keycards before bidding 4NT and should not have needed to think after receiving a response. Of course the double, being somewhat unexpected,
afforded South some additional leeway to
consider the two extra options (redouble and
pass) afforded him-but not the several minutes he
ended up taking. If South wished to consider bidding
a slam after a 5 In general, players can expect little sympathy from WBF Appeals Committees for tempo problems created through their lack of proper preparation in the auction -- especially in Blackwood/Keycard auctions, which cause many of the tempo problems we have to deal with. |
Appeal 2 Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 15 Teams: Argentina (N/S) vs Chinese Taipei (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA),Anton Maas (NLD), Nissan Rand (ISR), John Wignall (NZL) |
Board 8 None vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Wu | Camberos | Hsia | Scanavino |
1![]() | Pass | 2NT(1) | Dble |
Rdble | All Pass |
(1) Weak hand with either minor
Result: 2NT redoubled by East made three, plus 880 for E/W. The Facts: N/S called the TD at the end of the hand claiming that they had been misled by E/W's explanations of their methods. The TD determined that North and South had both been told that East's 2NT bid showed a weak hand with either clubs or diamonds. Further, West told South only that his redouble showed a strong hand while East told North that the redouble was to play and showed 18-21 HCP, 'maybe.' The TDs ruled that there had been no infraction and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. In response to questions from the
Committee, North said that East told him that the redouble showed 18-
21 HCP "balanced" but did not say that it was "to play." Further, he
said he could not bid 3 South told the Committee that when he asked West about his redouble he was told only that it showed a "good hand." Upon further probing of E/W's methods, West told South that East "will
correct to 3 N/S also said that the E/W convention cards contained no information about this sequence. The Committee told N/S they were having difficulty seeing any basis for changing the TDs' ruling and asked them one last time to explain how they believed they had been misinformed and how that misinformation had affected their actions. N/S said they believed that E/W had not fully disclosed their agreements and somehow "knew" the contract was guaranteed. However, they could not provide any concrete explanation of why they suspected this. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that N/S had been correctly informed of E/W's methods. They were told that East's 2NT showed a weak minor one-suiter (which he had) and that West's redouble showed a strong hand (which he had). South was also told that East could correct to 3 The Committee believed that South, by passing the redouble, had gambled that North's diamond holding would be sufficient to defeat the contract -- and had lost. However, they could find nothing in E/W's explanations that had unduly induced him to take this action; N/S had been solely responsible for their result. Therefore, the Committee sustained the TDs' ruling that the table result would stand. In addition, the Committee was displeased that N/S chose to pursue this appeal after the TDs' ruling made it clear that there had been no infraction and that N/S were unable to present any basis on which a score adjustment could even be considered. As a result, the Committee decided that N/S's appeal lacked substantial merit and retained their $50 deposit. |
Appeal 3 Committee: Joan Gerard (Chair), Grattan Endicott (scribe), Anton Maas, Dan Morse, Nissan Rand. Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 17 Players North: I Delmonte South: B. Richman (Australia) East: M. Villas-Boas West: J-P. Campos (Brazil) |
Board 14 None vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | - | Pass | 1NT(a) |
Dble | Pass(b) | Pass | Redble |
Pass | 2![]() | Dble(d) | 3![]() |
All Pass |
(a) 12-14
(b) Forcing, requiring South to redouble (c) Explained by North to East as 4-4 in majors, by South to West as natural and constructive. (d) Explained by East to North as penalties, by
West to South as take-out each Son the basis
of the explanation given to him in (c). The Director: Called to the table by North when dummy was faced. North said he thought there might have been a misunderstanding. Subsequently called back to the table by East/West who felt damaged. The Brazilian pair contended that the different explanations had
caused sufficient confusion to prevent East from doubling 3 West added that given the correct explanation, he would have doubled
3 After various consultations the Director referred to Law 40C and ruled that the score should stand since the damage claimed was not solely and directly due to the infraction. Players: To the committee, Mr. Richman explained that his partnership had decided only recently to change their agreements when they are doubled in 1NT. In some of the situations North's explanation would apply, as it did on this occasion, and in others his own explanation would have been correct. At the time the board was played, he had not clarified the distinction adequately in his own mind and had gone wrong. He also wished the committee to be aware that when the screen was opened North had asked him why he had raised the Heart bid. The Appeals Committee: Recognized that East and West had a difficulty as to their action and indeed had failed to resolve their problem. However, each of them was aware that their side had the balance of the points and East, if he took his partner to be possibly void in Hearts, with a strong hand, was aware that his holdings in Spades, Diamonds and Clubs all fitted with his partner's holding. Whilst there was a degree of sympathy with their dilemma, the committee felt that they had failed to untangle themselves and, at this level, their judgement of the action was insufficiently disturbed to justify redress. The table score would stand. However, under Laws 40B and 75C North and South are required to give opponents a correct explanation of their agreements. On this occasion, they had attempted to reach an agreement but it was clear they did not have similar views as to what they might have agreed. Equally clearly, at least one of them had misinformed his screenmate as to the correct meaning. Accordingly, a procedural penalty of 0.5 VP. was awarded to North/South. The deposit was returned. |
Appeal Case 4 Committee: Robert Wolff (Chair), Grattan Endicott (scribe), Joan Gerard, Anton Maas, Jean-Paul Meyer. Venice Cup, Round Robin (round 18), Board 11. Players: North: Way South: Johnson (Bermuda) East: Cimon West: Saltsman (Canada) |
  |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | - | - | 2![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | 3NT(c) | 4![]() |
5![]() | Dble | All Pass |
(a) Weak, 5/4 or 5/5 in the majors.
(b) 'I do not expect my partner to bid again' (c) Over a weak sequence by opponents this is natural, if opponents are bidding constructively, this is for minor suits. Director: called at the end of the play, by
West who considered she had been misinformed by South, so that she had taken her
partner's bid to be for minor suits. The
Director concluded that West had misinformation and was entitled to redress. With Laws
40C and 75A in mind the Director adjusted
the score to 4 The players:
In committee there was difficulty establishing exactly what had been said
by South. This player told the committee that
she had described her own bid as in (a) above;
further she had passed her convention card to
West and had said 'it is on the card'. West had
said to South 'is it like Flannery?' and South had
assented to this, but West, by her own understanding of Flannery, had then assumed the
hand to be stronger than was the N/S agreement. West did not find the bid mentioned on
the front of the card and did not pursue further the invitation to study the card. East had
been told by North that South was not
expected to bid again, so that she treated the
bidding as pre-emptive. West was told by South
that 3 The Committee:
Was somewhat surprised by North's willingness to stop short of
game, but allowed that her bridge judgement
was not a matter for the committee. The same
applied in the case of South's 4 Footnote: a discerning member of the
committee remarked that had the hand been
passed out in 3 |
Appeal Case 5 Event: Transnational teams, Round 2 Committee: Joan Gerard (Chair), Grattan Endicott, Nissan Rand. |
Board no None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
- | Pass | Pass | 1NT |
2![]() | 3![]() | Pass | 3NT |
All Pass |
(a) Both minors or both majors.
(b) Majors; not alerted. Result: NS +430. The Director: ascertained that when the 3 The players: North maintained that East's pronunciation was difficult to understand. East pointed out that a different explanation had been given by South to West. East's difficulty was that if West had the same explanation as he had (although inclined to distrust it) a double by him would be for take out rather than showing the suit. He could not double for this reason. During his remarks East used the word 'natural' more than once. The Director in Charge: confirmed, upon committee enquiry, that the convention used by West is permitted in this tournament. The Committee: considered, without dissent, that East had been damaged. All committee members understood the East player's speech without difficulty; further, North, being asked the question twice, would be expected to appreciate there might be a misunderstanding. He had not written the explanation down for East, nor had he spoken it in a way to use the word 'majors' himself. Nor, in fact, was it at all clear that N-S really had an agreement. Score adjustment was thus appropriate. The committee had in mind a number of considerations and possibilities: 1. If East has the correct explanation and doubles to show clubs, with
2. If they are led, East is likely to duck a round of the suit, probably 80 or 90% of the time. 3. However, a number of East's peers could be expected not to double, and a number could be expected not to play low on partner's lead of the small club. It would not be equitable to allow East-West full benefit, nor for North-South to suffer the full effects of an adverse result. The committee came to a range of expectancy of 50 to 60% that the contract would go down. Its eventual decision, after substantial discussion, was to award 3NT-1 (NS -50) fifty percent of the time and 3NT+1 (NS +430) fifty percent of the time(see Law 12C3). Effect: In the other room East-West had scored -50 in 4 Clubs. 50% -50 -50 = minus 3 imps 50% +430 -50 = plus 9 imps Net +3 in place of +9. The non-offenders were given back six imps on the hand. As far as the record is known, this is the first 12C3 decision by the WBF, certainly the first since the WBF Code of Practice was published. |
Appeal Case 7 Event: WTOTC, Round 4 Teams: Bulgaria (N/S) versus Sweden (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (FRA) |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Nystrom | Stamatov | Stromberg | Popov |
- | 1NT(1) | Dble(2) | 2![]() |
Pass | Pass(4) | 3![]() | All Pass |
(1) 9-12 HCP.
(2) 13+ HCP. (3) Runout. (4) Break in tempo. Result:
3 The Facts:
E/W called the TD at the end of the match, explaining that
North had taken a long time to pass South's 2 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. The Committee questioned
both sides about the events at the table. North said that his system
employed three different opening notrump ranges (9-12, 11-14 or 15-18
HCP, depending on seat and vulnerability), each using a different
runout method after a double. It took him a few seconds (he estimated
about 10) to decide what his partner's 2 After he passed, East asked about the meaning of 2 The Committee Decision:
The Committee made several points in rendering
their decision. First, regarding East's 3 Therefore, E/W were not damaged by North's actions and deserved no redress. Second, regarding North's actions, the Committee was in agreement that a player is not required by law to disclose the content of his thought process to his opponents - provided he is concerned with legitimate bridge issues. If a player has been engaged in extraneous, non bridge-related thought (e.g., finds himself daydreaming; or is unaware that his RHO has bid) he has an obligation to state something to that effect (e.g., "No problem."). However, some members of the Committee (Wolff, Meyer) also believed that a player behind screens who takes a significant amount of time thinking about tangential bridge issues should inform his screenmate of the reason for the delay (e.g., "I was trying to remember our system."). Extraneous delays, when unexplained, may be subject to score adjustment if: (1) they unduly influence the opponents to their detriment; (2) they have no demonstrable bridge reason; and (3) the player could have known at the time that his hesitation could work to his advantage. In this case, the Committee believed that North's hesitation was
neither seriously out of normal tempo nor was it likely to deceive the
opponents (since it is rare that a 9-12 notrump opener is permitted to
raise his partner's runout after a penalty double - regardless of his
trump holding). For these reasons the Committee reinstated the table
result of 3 |
Appeal Case 8 Event: WTOTC, Round 5 Teams: Bulgaria (N/S) versus Poland (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chairman, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (FRA) |
Board 1 Dealer North   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Puczynski | Karaivanov | Chveski | Trendafilov |
- | 1![]() | Pass | 1![]() |
1![]() | Pass(4) | 1![]() | 2![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
Pass | 4![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
Dble | Pass | Pass | 4![]() |
Pass | 5![]() | Pass | 5NT(8) |
Pass | 6![]() | Pass | 7![]() |
All Pass |
(1) Clubs or certain balanced hands.
(2) Transfer, showing 4+ hearts. (3) Takeout (see The Appeal, below). (4) Showed clubs. (5) Cuebid. (6) Likes diamonds. (7) Likes clubs. (8) Choice of suits (clubs or diamonds). (9) Break in tempo. Result: 7 The Facts: The TD was called to the table at
the end of the auction. East stated to him that it had
taken North about 15-20 seconds to bid 6 The Appeal:
N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. In
reviewing the auction for the CommitteeWest stated that, although he had
been Alerted to both the
1 When asked again about the timing of North's
6 The Committee Decision: The Committee noted several important points regarding both the bridge issues involved in the situation and the informational considerations from the tempo. Regarding the bridge issues: First, two suits were bid and raised by N/S during the auction so that, from South's perspective, the appropriate strain was unclear. Second, N/S's assertions that 5NT made more logical sense as "Pick a Slam" (rather than Josephine) were accurate, although this argument was somewhat self-serving and had to be viewed with appropriate scepticism. Third, had South wished to investigate a Grand
Slam the path he chose (first asking North to choose
the proper strain; then raising his choice to seven)
would be a logical one while other paths (such as recue-bidding 5 Fourth, North showed clubs four times in the
auction (by passing 1 Fifth, the North club holding in the previous
point is made even more likely by North's failure to
bid 3NT over 3 Sixth, North had minimum high-card values,
club length and fit for South's suits which made it
unlikely in the Committee's eyes that he would have
thought seriously about bidding a Grand Slam - and
thus was more likely to have been deciding between
the minors for the six level. And seventh, West's negligence with his 1 Regarding the tempo issue: First, all WBF events are supposed to be conducted under the new (1999) WBF Code of Practice. This provides, in part, that behind screens, "It is considered there can be no implications if a tray returns after 15 seconds or less. This period may be extended in the later stages of a complicated or competitive auction without necessarily creating implications." By all accounts, North's 6 More generally, even had the Committee found
that the COP was not in effect, the fact that this was
the eighth round of a complicated (and competitive)
slam auction suggested being more lenient about
breaks in tempo. Second, it is not clear that there
was a true break in tempo here. Much of the previous auction (prior to
North's 6 For these reasons the Committee was not convinced that a break in tempo
occurred (either in
fact or under the COP). Moreover, even if it did
occur it seemed unlikely that it conveyed useful
information to South that was not obvious from the
authorized information from the auction itself. The
Committee therefore restored the table result of
7 The Committee wishes to make two further points regarding this case and its implications. First, the TDs' adjustment of N/S's score seems out of keeping with the conditions of contest (in particular, the COP). In addition, their decision to adjust the score to plus 920 rather than plus 940 seemed rather odd. Wouldn't North make thirteen tricks without any jeopardy to the contract? Second, even though no score adjustment was made by the Committee in the present case, players should be aware that hesitations in slam auctions always involve some risk. While it is rarely possible to make difficult calls quickly, it is always possible to make easy calls more slowly and deliberately. This has the beneficial effect of giving one's screenmate less useful information regarding the ease of one's calls and additionally produces a more even tempo which avoids transmitting unauthorized information across the screen to partner. (It works even better without screens!) Also, in their COP the WBF states that it "considers it desirable that players should vary the tempo randomly when returning the tray under the screen." This acts effectively to further reduce the possibility of transmitting unauthorized information to partner. As we enter the 21st century, players must develop good playing habits which will make bridge not only a more enjoyable game but one which will be decided at the table and not by Appeals Committees. Isn't that the Olympic Spirit? |
Appeal Case 13 Event: Transnational Teams Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair), Ernesto d’Orsi, Nissan Rand. Players: Ron Smith (North) Kyle Larsen (South) USA Gene Simpson (East) Hamish Bennett (West) USA |
Board 4 Dealer West   |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 1![]() |
Pass | 1NT | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
All Pass |
(1) double checkback
Defence took two club tricks, shifted to Spade, declarer drew all three rounds of trumps and claimed four, saying "you get the Heart Ace". East/West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, E/W approached the Director saying they believed they should get another trick because they would get a second Heart trick. Expert players were consulted by the Director (WBF Code of Practice procedure) and four of seven played the Heart Ace when a small Heart was led at trick 6. The play was ruled to be at worst inferior, not irrational. Under Law 69B the acquiescence could not be withdrawn. The players: had nothing relevant to add to these facts. The Committee: agreed that the Director had ruled correctly. The Chairman remarked: Since the word "irrational" should be, and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to be a wild emotional action which is also contrary to any bridge logic the committee has no option but to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said this it is the committee's recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one down since (a) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense, and (b) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of the game. The players: Declarer immediately conceded down one and the committee authorized a change of score accordingly. |