(short description of image)APPEAL no. 22

(short description of image)
Appeals Committee
Chairman (short description of image)Steen Møller DEN
Members (short description of image)Jens Auken
(short description of image)Jean-Paul Meyer
(short description of image)David Stevenson
(short description of image)Herman De Wael
DEN
FRA
GBR
BEL

Scribe (short description of image)Herman De Wael BEL

(short description of image)
Event
1998 World Championships
Rosenblum Round of 32
   
(short description of image)
Countries
The Netherlands v USA
   
(short description of image)
Players
NS (short description of image)Maas (short description of image)Ramondt
EW (short description of image)Moss (short description of image) Schenken
   
(short description of image)
Board
Board 2. Dealer East. NS Game
ª A 10 5
© A K Q 9 4 3
¨ 7 4
§ 10 8
ª 6 (short description of image) ª Q 9 7 3 2
© J 10 8 7 © 6 5 3
¨ A Q 9 6 5 ¨ 10 3 2
§ J 7 5 § 9 6
ª K J 8 4
©
¨ K J 8
§ A K Q 4 3 2

West
North
East
South

Pass 1§
Pass 1© Pass 1ª
Pass 2¨(1) Pass 4§(2)
Pass 4©(3) Pass(4) 4ª
Pass   5§(5)   Pass(6)   Pass
Pass      

(1) very slow
(2) very slow
(3) very fast
(4) deliberately adjusted tempo
(5) disputably fast
(6) deliberately adjusted tempo
   
(short description of image)
Result
5§+1: +620
   
(short description of image)
Facts
East, having judged the bids of 4© and 5§ to have been made in too fast a tempo, took out his Pass card immediately but held it over the tray before deposing it. South, when faced with the decision to bid 6§, claims he decided not to push on because of the perceived hesitation by partner.
   
(short description of image)
TD's
Decision
6§ made, N/S +1370. Law 73D, 73F2 and General Conditions 16.3.

(short description of image)
Appellants
E/W
   
(short description of image)
Players'
Comments
East said he counted to eight seconds after 4© before placing his pass card on the tray, and to six seconds before placing his pass over 5§. He did so, in his opinion, to restore the normal tempo. A French spectator was in the Appeals Committee meeting to confirm these timings. He said both passes were in about the same tempo. North agreed that he had bid 2¨ after a long pause for thought, and that he may have been very quick in bidding 4©, but that his bid of 5§ was in normal tempo. South stated that he had noticed the slow return of the tray on both occasions, and that this influenced him in not bidding the slam. The US Captain stated that he believed East had acted in good faith.

(short description of image)
Committee's
Comments
The Committee read the pertinent Laws and Regulations. Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play, or by the manner in which the call or play is made." Law 73F2: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)" WBF Conditions of Contest - 16.3: "During the auction period, after an opponent has acted quickly, it is proper to adjust the tempo back to normal by either delaying one's own call or by waiting before passing the tray." The Committee stresses that the word "normal" in this regulation does not mean the average tempo of that one auction but the normal tempo that would not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner.
   
(short description of image)
Committee's
Decision
The Director's ruling was absolutely justified. The call of 5§ was on the evidence of the neutral spectator in normal tempo. Whilst the East player no doubt acted in good faith, he did overcompensate since the requirement is to return the tempo to normal and not to a tempo consistent with any prior slow bid. It is important that this principle is understood and players are not advised to act in the manner described in condition 16.3, unless the position clearly requires it. The Committee applied Law 12C3 and not being satisfied that 6§ would inevitably be bid, ruled that the score be adjusted to 50% of +1370 and 50% of +620.
   
(short description of image)
Relevant
Laws
Law 73
   
(short description of image)
Deposit
Returned X
Forfeited  


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