APPEAL no. 12 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Steen Møller | DEN
Members | Nissan Rand Herman De Wael David Stevenson | ISR BEL GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
McConnell Trophy | Qualifying
Countries
USA | v | Sweden
Players
NS |  |
EW |  |
Board
Board 14. Dealer East. Love All
| ª | 7 |
© | K 9 4
¨ | 10 8 7 3
§ | 10 9 5 4 2
ª | 10 9 8 6 |  | ª | K Q J 5 4
© | A J 7 | © | 10 8 2
¨ | A | ¨ | K Q J 6
§ | A K Q 8 7 | § | 3
| ª | A 3 2 |
© | Q 6 5 3
¨ | 9 5 4 2
§ | J 6
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  |  |  | 1ª |  | Pass
2NT(1) |  | Pass |  | 3§(2) |  | Pass
3¨(3) |  | Pass |  | 4§(4) |  | Pass
4¨(5) |  | Pass |  | 4ª(6) |  | Pass
4NT(7) |  | Pass |  | 5§(8) |  | Pass
5ª(9) |  | Pass |  | 6ª |  | All Pass
(1) GF, fit in ª (2) Minimum (3) Asks for shortage (4) Shortage in § (5) Cue-bid (6) No H control (7) RKCB (8) 0 or 3 out of 4 aces + ªK (9) After hesitation
Result
6ª=-980
Facts
The Director was called at the end of play. The hesitation before bidding 5ª was agreed by West, South and North, while East was not really aware one way or another. East had misbid when she bid 5§, since she had the ªK.
TD's Decision
5ª plus one, N/S -480

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
East said that when she was asked the meaning of 5§ she immediately realised she had made the wrong bid. She made this clear to North. She was not influenced by the hesitation - in fact she was barely aware of it. She agreed that the question was asked, answered and she realised that she had gone wrong, and indicated this between sending the tray across after her 5§ bid and before it came back. She would not expect partner to have fewer than three aces to bid 4NT. She had played RKCB for many years. North said it was a long hesitation: there was a question, an answer, and expressions of surprise while the tray was away. Whatever the likelihood of three aces, it became completely clear after the hesitation.

Committee's Comments
The Committee believed that the hesitation made it easier to get the final decision correct, though different members of the Committee saw different reasons for this. One view of it was: Even if the players can prove that within the system, the bid is the only rational alternative, Law 16 talks of Logical alternatives. The Committee felt that if the tray had returned promptly, it might well have happened that the player might go wrong a second time.
Committee's Decision
The Committee ruled: 5ª plus one, N/S -480
Relevant Laws
Law 16A2, Law 12C2
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page