APPEAL no. 36 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Steen Møller | DEN
Members | Jens Auken Ernesto D'Orsi David Stevenson | DEN BRA GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Qualifying
Countries
India | v | France
Players
NS | Poddar | Lal
EW | Etienne | Michel
Board
Board 25. Dealer North. EW Game
| ª | A 9 8 6 5 4 3 |
© | 4
¨ | 10 4 3
§ | J 5
ª | K 7 2 |  | ª | 10
© | 1- 9 6 5 3 | © | A K J 8 7
¨ | Q 2 | ¨ | J 9 8 7 6 5
§ | 10 7 4 | § | 9
| ª | Q J |
© | Q 2
¨ | A K
§ | A K Q 8 6 3 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | 2ª¹ |  | Pass |  | 2NT²
Pass |  | 3§³ |  | 3¨ |  | Dble
Pass |  | 3ª |  | 4© |  | 4ª
5© |  | Pass |  | Pass |  | Dble
All Pass |  |  |  |  |  |
¹ Weak, 5+ cards ² Relay ³ 1 honour in ª + bad hand
Result
5©*-2: +500
Facts
The double of 3¨ was slow (agreed).
TD's Decision
3¨ doubled minus one, N/S +200. Law 73F1.

Appellants
N/S
Players' Comments
North and East did not attend the hearing. South said the ruling was only requested after the board was on the table for the next hand. It seemed a very late request. He said that it was difficult for himself and his partner because he hands were computer-dealt, which is rare in his country. He considered the E/W bidding bad leading to a bad result. He suggested there was some doubt as to whether his partner was in receipt of unauthorised information. West said he knew he wanted a ruling but did not want to give unauthorised information to partner, and he did not know the best time to call the Director, so he left it until the end of the hand. He bid 5© knowing his partner was 6-5.

Committee's Comments
Pass by North was a logical alternative to 2ª. There was unauthorised information: it had been agreed at the time and North was not present to dispute it. The Committee considered whether West's actions was strange enough that any damage was subsequent not consequent. It decided that it might have been ill-advised but nothing more. They also considered the possibility of 3¨ making but it seemed unlikely and had not been mentioned by the players. It considered that computer-dealing and the time of the request for a ruling were not relevant.
Committee's Decision
Director's ruling upheld. N/S +200.
Relevant Laws
Law 73 F1
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page