APPEAL no. 22 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Steen Møller | DEN
Members | Jens Auken Jean-Paul Meyer David Stevenson Herman De Wael | DEN FRA GBR BEL
Scribe | Herman De Wael | BEL

Event
1998 World Championships
Rosenblum | Round of 32
Countries
The Netherlands | v | USA
Players
NS | Maas | Ramondt
EW | Moss | Schenken
Board
Board 2. Dealer East. NS Game
| ª | A 10 5 |
© | A K Q 9 4 3
¨ | 7 4
§ | 10 8
ª | 6 |  | 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
Result
5§+1: +620
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.
TD's Decision
6§ made, N/S +1370. Law 73D, 73F2 and General Conditions 16.3.

Appellants
E/W
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.

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.
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.
Relevant Laws
Law 73
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page