APPEAL no. 21 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Rich Colker | USA
Members | Sabine Auken Chris Compton Claire Tornay | GER USA USA
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Rosenblum Cup | Round of 32
Countries
South Africa | v | France
Players
NS |  |
EW |  |
Board
Board 13. Dealer North. Game All
| ª | 6 5 3 |
© | K 8 7 5
¨ | J 7 2
§ | 8 7 2
ª | Q 7 3 |  | ª | A K J 9 4
© | A 3 | © | 6
¨ | K 8 4 | ¨ | A Q 10 5
§ | K 6 5 4 3 | § | Q J 10
| ª | 10 8 |
© | Q J 10 9 4 2
¨ | 9 6 3
§ | A 9
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | Pass |  | 1ª(1) |  | Pass
2NT(2) |  | Pass |  | 3¨(3) |  | Pass
4ª(4) |  | Pass |  | 5¨(5) |  | Pass
5©(6) |  | Dble |  | 5ª |  | Pass
6NT |  | All Pass |  |  |  |
(1) 5+ spades or balanced weak notrump with 2-3 spades (2) Balanced game force without four hearts (3) Natural (5+ spades, 4+ diamonds), not showing extras (4) Minimum with three spades (5) Cue-bid, denying a club control (6) Cue-bid, first or second-round heart control
Result
6NT=-1440
Facts
East bid 5¨ after a long hesitation and his 5ª bid, although somewhat faster, was still slow. At that time North told East that he was reserving his right to call the TD, which he did immediately after West's 6NT bid. East's 5ª bid was not forward-going and indicated a lack of interest in hearing whether West's 5© cue-bid was based on first or second-round control. (He could have passed, allowing West to redouble with first-round control.) East and South both agreed with North's description of the tempo of the 5¨ and 5ª bids. The TD determined that North/South had no agreement about what a double of 6NT by South would have meant in this situation.
TD's Decision
The TD ruled that unauthorized information was available which made West's 6NT bid more attractive and that passing 5ª was a logical alternative. The directing staff also believed that the break in tempo (at the point where North doubled 5© and East bid 5ª) was far more likely to have been due to East than North. The contract was adjusted for both sides to 5ª making six, plus 680 for E/W, according to Laws 16 and 12.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
East agreed that his 5¨ bid was quite slow but stated that his 5ª bid, while a bit slow, had taken at most 10-15 seconds not unreasonable for a call in the middle of a slam-investigative auction. West stated that he knew his side could make a slam once East cue-bid 5¨, but he did not jump to 6¨ immediately because seven was still a possibility. He also pointed out that his inference that East was concerned about a heart lead (and would thus hold at least a doubleton) and his choice to bid 6NT to protect his §K were errors and could have worked out poorly but they were not predicated on East's hesitation. East also indicated that his partnership had no way to systemically show a distributional (say, six-five) slam try. In response to a Committee member's question North stated that, while in theory he agreed that the decision of whether to make a high-level lead-directing double could require some lengthy consideration, the double of 5© here was not in that category. With a near worthless hand he had no trouble doubling the one suit in which he could stand a lead, and thus, in his opinion the hesitation was entirely attributable to East.

Committee's Comments
The Committee believed that East's 5ª bid was a clear signoff, especially since East could have indicated further interest by passing the double of 5© and then bidding 5ª over West's redouble. Since East/West stated that, by their own agreement 5¨ had denied a club control, West's 5© must have shown a club control. Thus, West had already shown much of his hand. East's slam try might be such that he needs West to hold three of the four features which include the two round-suit aces, the ªQ and the ¨K (doubleton) to continue. While West is admittedly near maximum for his 4ª bid, holds three key cards (ªQ, ©A, ¨K), and could hardly be expected to hold more after his 4ª bid, West still lacks two of the four critical features (§A and doubleton diamond). Also, since many players would pass 5ª holding the West hand, West should not be permitted to continue.
Committee's Decision
The Committee cancelled the 6NT bid and adjusted the contract for both sides to 5ª by East made six, plus 680 for E/W.
Relevant Laws
Law 12, Law 16
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page