APPEAL no. 24 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Rich Colker | USA
Members | Naki Bruni Joan Gerard | ITA USA
Scribe | Rich Colker | USA

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Semifinals
Countries
USA | v | USA
Players
NS | Michael Seamon | Sheila Ekeblad
EW | Adam Widalsky | Dan Morse
Board
Board 19. Dealer South. EW Game
| ª | Q 7 6 5 3 |
© | Q 7 6 2
¨ | Q 9 2
§ | K
ª | A J 8 2 |  | ª | 10
© | K 4 | © | A J 9 8 5
¨ | 8 5 3 | ¨ | 10 7 6
§ | 10 9 5 3 | § | A Q J 8
| ª | K 9 4 |
© | 10 3
¨ | A K J 4
§ | 7 6 4 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  |  |  |  |  | 1NT¹
Pass |  | 2ª |  | 3© |  | 3ª
Dble² |  | All Pass |  |  |  |
¹ 10-12 HCP ² No alert by West; alerted by East and explained as 'Cards' when North inquired
Result
3ª*-2: -300
Facts
East led the ª10 and the contract eventually went down two, -300 for N/S. North summoned the TD at the end of play. He complained that East's pass with a singleton trump and West's four-card trump holding suggested that West's double was penalties. Had he been informed of that he would have made the better play of ruffing the third heart with dummy's ª9.
TD's Decision
The TD decided that that East's explanation of the double as 'Cards' was inadequate and constituted an infraction (Law 75). However, the TD further ruled that this infraction did not result in any damage to North. Therefore, the table result was allowed to stand.

Appellants
N/S
Players' Comments
South did not attend the hearing. North stated to the Committee that had he been told that West's double was for penalties, as East's pass suggested, he would have ruffed the third heart with dummy's ª9. Later he might have guessed to finesse West for the ª8, although he might still have played for spades to have been three-two originally given East's pass of the double. E/W said they had played together a couple of times on Okbridge, but this was their first time playing together at the bridge table. This was also the first time they had filled out a WBF convention card together. Their card was marked 'competitive' doubles in competition when the opponents have bid and raised a suit. West said that he had too much to pass 3ª. He believed he had two-way values and that his double asked East to decide whether to bid or defend. He believed his spade holding was good should East decide to defend, while he had club support if East chose to bid that suit; otherwise, he could prefer hearts. When asked, West indicated that he would have doubled with a variety of hands, including some with shorter spades but more high-cards. East indicated that he fully expected West to hold shorter spades: perhaps as few as two. He said that he knew that passing 3ª doubled was risky, but the Law of Total Tricks guided him in his decision. If N/S had a nine-card spade fit and E/W an eight-card club fit, then if his side could make 4§ they would likely collect 300 defending 3ª doubled, while if they would be down one in 4§ they would be plus 100 defending. E/W said that, beyond their agreement to play these doubles as card showing ('Cards rather than trumps' was marked on their ACBL convention card, which they had never used but had filled out in anticipation of playing together) they had not discussed the requirements for the bids. East indicated that he personally would readily have doubled with as few as two trumps in West's position, while West was less convinced that he would have doubled with only two trumps without significant extra high-card strength. East requested guidance from the Committee on how he should explain these doubles in the future, so as not to run into this sort of problem again.

Committee's Comments
The Committee agreed with the TD that East's explanation of West's double as 'Cards' was inadequate. E/W had an obligation to discuss the requirements of such doubles and not simply label them as 'competitive'. East should at least have explained the double as not promising any particular trump length, denying primary heart support, not being strictly for penalties or for takeout, but showing sufficient high-cards to not allow N/S to play in 3ª unmolested. West would be expecting East to make a decision. The Committee agreed that West's hand was too good to pass. In situations such as this double is often the only reasonable course of action and must include a wide range of hands including some number (say two to four) of the opponents' trumps. E/W will have to pay off by passing hands that are strictly penalty or strictly takeout-oriented, but in exchange they will gain on those hands containing flexibility. The Committee believed that East had a difficult decision to make over West's double, and that many players might have bid the good four-card club suit without deep analysis. (East told the Committee at one point that, in retrospect, he thought that 4§ might well be the right bid with his hand.) However, East had the right to make the decision he made. As one Committee member put it, 'East can light a candle in the church and then pass'. However, the Committee was quick to add that he cannot continue to light such candles. The Committee stressed that players are warned to make certain that they have discussed their competitive doubles adequately and disclose them fully and accurately to their opponents particularly the number of trumps they are expected to hold for their actions. Pairs with experience playing together will be held especially accountable for having firm agreements and disclosing them properly. The Committee also noted that N/S were themselves playing aggressive methods (10-12 notrumps) designed to confuse the opponents and force them to make difficult decisions in unfamiliar bidding situations. Players using such methods have an obligation to be tolerant of the opponents' uncertainty in such auctions, and to exhaust all reasonable avenues of inquiry about the opponents' methods (and be skeptical of the answers they receive). The present situation was indeed unfortunate for North, but in the final analysis it was East's decision to pass rather than the explanation of the double which was the source of his misfortune. (The merits of North's failure to ruff the third heart with dummy's ª9 may also be debatable.)
Committee's Decision
The Committee allowed the table result to stand for both sides. The Directing staff was commended for their difficult decision in this case.
Relevant Laws
Law 75
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page