APPEAL no. 6 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Steen Møller | DEN
Members | Dan Morse Becky Rogers David Stevenson | USA USA GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Mixed Pairs | Final
Countries
Israel | v | France
Players
NS |  |
EW |  |
Board
Board 25. Dealer North. EW Game
| ª | A Q 9 6 2 |
© | K 4 3
¨ | 10 5 3
§ | K 9
ª | K J 10 |  | ª | 8 7 3
© | 8 | © | 10 9 7 5 2
¨ | A K 2 | ¨ | 9 7
§ | A Q 10 7 6 4 | § | J 8 5
| ª | 5 4 |
© | A Q J 6
¨ | Q J 8 6 4
§ | 3 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | 1ª |  | Pass |  | 1NT*
3§ |  | Pass |  | Pass |  | Dble*
All Pass |  |  |  |  |  |
* Alerted
Result
3§ doubled making.
Facts
South asked West the meaning of the 3§ bid and West told her it was natural. After there had been two passes, South tried to find out more about the meaning of the bid and West refused to describe it in more detail. On the other side of the screen East described it as "Strong". More than one TD attended at the table because of some language difficulties.
TD's Decision
Double cancelled. Scored as 3§ making, N/S -110. Law 75A.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
West said that there was no special understanding between him and his partner as to the meaning of the 3§ bid, so he saw no reason to tell South something that was not an agreement, and told her so. He had bid 3§, knowing it was undiscussed, and a gamble, since that was his general style. He pointed out that 3§ doubled could be beaten on a heart lead. East said she believed that they had discussed the sequence if 1NT was not alerted. She could not remember an alert. She explained that 3§ must be strong because of the vulnerability and her hand. South said that she had tried to find out more information and that West had been extremely brusque and used gestures in telling her he was not going to answer. She said that if 3§ was strong then her takeout double needed to be stronger in case partner wished to pass it, and she would have bid 3¨ on the actual hand. North agreed the double was takeout but he had passed it because there seemed no other sensible call.

Committee's Comments
The Committee believed that East-West had no further understanding about the 3§ bid. The felt that South was not misinformed. They also felt that even if there had been misinformation then there was no damage since the South hand was an automatic takeout double. The Committee felt that West had not acted correctly when asked further questions. If he felt the questions were inappropriate then he should have called the Director rather than lecture his opponent. If the questions were appropriate he should have answered them.
Committee's Decision
Table score stands (3¨ doubled making). Deposit returned. 20% of a top Procedural Penalty to East-West for West's actions when asked questions he believed to be inappropriate. Law 74A2.
Relevant Laws
Law 74 A2
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page