APPEAL no. 53 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Bobby Wolff | USA
Members | Virgil Anderson Rich Colker John Lenart Dan Morse | USA USA NZD USA
Scribe | Rich Colker | USA

Event
1998 World Championships
Ladies Pairs | Qualifying
Countries
South Africa | v | South Africa
Players
NS | Modlin | Mansell
EW | Bloom | Holroyd
Board
Board 30. Dealer East. Love All
| ª | K Q 7 2 |
© | K 6 4
¨ | A 10
§ | K 10 9 5
ª | A J 8 6 5 4 |  | ª | 3
© | 7 | © | A 10 9
¨ | Q 9 | ¨ | K J 6 5 4
§ | Q J 7 4 | § | A 6 3 2
| ª | 10 9 |
© | Q J 8 5 3 2
¨ | 8 7 3 2
§ | 8
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  |  |  | 1¨ |  | 2©¹
2ª |  | Dble² |  | 3§ |  | Pass
3© |  | Dble |  | 3NT |  | Pass
4§ |  | Dble |  | All Pass |  |
¹ Alerted; weak jump overcall ² Alerted by South to West; North's alert not seen by East
Result
4§*-1: +100
Facts
The TD was called by East at the end of the hand and told that she had not been given the information that North's double of 2ª showed a heart honor (N/S's agreement) and was not penalty. North had pulled her alert card partly up from her bid box (which was mounted on the side of the table) but East never saw this action. Thus, East chose to 'escape' to 3§. She told the TD that, had she known the double only showed a heart honor she would have passed and the auction would have been different.
TD's Decision
The TD ruled that, had she been properly alerted East might have passed North's double of 2ª. N/S would then most likely have ended up in 3©, which would have gone down one. Thus, according to Laws 75C, 40C and 12C2 the TD adjusted the score for both sides to 3© down one, -50 for N/S.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
North admitted negligence in not making sure that East saw and acknowledged the alert. South said she fully expected the Committee to deal with her side accordingly, but did not believe that East's 3§ bid merited the redress afforded it by the TD. South then stated that the two partnerships had played against one another for many years in their home country and that E/W were thus familiar enough with N/S's system to have known the meaning of North's double even without an alert. In response East asked South to describe what the double of 2ª would have meant in E/W's system had they been in the N/S seats. South admitted that she had no idea how E/W played such a double. East then made the point, 'Then how then can you say that we should have known your system when you don't know ours'? In response to a Committee member's question, South stated that she would have bid 3© had East passed North's double of 2ª, and N/S agreed that 3© was then likely to have been the final contract.

Committee's Comments
The Committee decided that North had not properly alerted her double of 2ª. The rules state that in alerting with screens a player should place his alert card on the tray where his screen-mate's next bid will be placed; the alert is acknowledged by returning the alert card to the alerter. While some players alert by simply pointing to their alert card or making some other gesture, they still have the responsibility to obtain a clear and unmistakable acknowledgment that the alert has been received. In cases where any doubt of this exists, a player who has not followed proper procedure will be ruled against. This was the case here. The Committee decided that, had East been properly alerted, 3© would have been the final contract and would have gone down one trick.
Committee's Decision
The Committee adjusted the contract for both pairs to 3© down one, -50 for N/S.
Relevant Laws
Law 75 C
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page