# 1999 World Bridge Championships
Bermuda Appeals

Appeal Case 1 Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 4 Teams: New Zealand (N/S) versus Italy (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Ernesto d'Orsi (BRA), Anton Maas (NLD), John Wignall (NZL)

Board 1 None vul. Dealer North | NORTH K Q 10 4 2 J 10 9 8 7 6 Q 4
WEST J 8 6 Q 5 K Q 5 2 K 10 9 8 | EAST 5 10 6 2 J 4 3 A 7 6 5 3 2
| SOUTH A 9 7 3 A K 9 8 7 4 3 A J

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Duboin | Crombie | Bocchi | Cornell
- | Pass | Pass | 2(1)
Pass | 2(2) | Pass | 4NT(3)
Pass | 5(4) | Dble | 5(5)
Pass | 6 | All Pass

(1) Strong: 8-9 playing tricks or 22-23 HCP BAL. or a major two-suiter (18-23 HCP) or a GF in hearts. (2) 5+ spades; 8+ HCP. (3) RKCB. (4) 0-3 keycards. (5) Break in tempo. Opening lead: 10. Result: 6 made six, plus 980 for N/S. The Facts: East called the TD when North raised 5 to 6, stating that the tray had been on the S-W side of the screen for quite a long time before returning with the 5 bid. North agreed. The TD allowed play to continue. At the end of the play East recalled the TD, who determined that South also agreed to the break in tempo over 5. North explained that at the time he bid 5 he was somehow under the mistaken impression that hearts were the implied trumps and responded to show his zero keycards. When South bid 5 he realized that his own spades were trumps and with one more keycard than he had shown (the K) and good trumps (including the queen) he raised to 6. North further explained that this was the first board of the match and that he had not yet settled down. Due partly to his inattention, partly to his singleton heart and partly to the fact that in their system South's only game-forcing hand must have hearts, he became confused and thought that 4NT was asking in hearts. He insisted that it was the 5 bid and not the tempo that cleared up his confusion. He also told the TD that after the double he thought it was possible that the hesitation had been due to West thinking about a club sacrifice. The TDs consulted a number of players about whether passing 5 was a logical alternative for North. All believed that pass was a logical alternative and that North could not be allowed to bid on after a break in tempo.While divided in their opinions, after considering all of the evidence and the opinions of the consulted players, the TDs decided to adjust the result for both sides to 5 by South making six, plus 480 for N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. In response to questions from the Committee, the following additional information was obtained. All players agreed that the tray was on the S-W side of the screen following the 5 bid (and double) for at least a minute-and-a-half and possibly for two minutes or longer. North, in settling in for the first match of the day, said he had become wrapped up in the various score cards he was responsible for and was not paying adequate attention to the bridge. Somehow, for reasons he did not fully understand and could not justify, he became confused after South's jump to 4NT and thought South held a game-force in hearts and was asking for keycards with hearts as trumps; thus he made the "correct" response of 5 showing zero keycards. North and South were both firm and clear at the hearing that in their partnership the last bid (or shown) suit in general was assumed to be trumps when someone jumped to 4NT -- and in the present auction that suit was clearly spades. Only after South signed off in 5 did North realize that South intended spades as trumps all along; thus, with his unshown keycard and good trumps he raised 5 to 6. South said he was thinking of several things during his deliberations. Initially, he did not see the double on his right and was thinking about what sort of hand North could hold with no keycards. He knew North's spade suit should be reasonable (at least SQ10xxx) and slam might still be a good bet. For example, North might hold good enough spades that the king could be finessed or he might not get a club lead, in which case even if there were an inescapable trump loser the club loser might go away on his hearts. Then, when he noticed the double, he had to re-evaluate the situation. With the now-guaranteed club lead he decided against risking bidding slam. The Committee Decision: The Committee members agreed that there had been a clear break in tempo which was far more likely to have been due to South than to West and which made bidding on with the North cards more attractive. They were , however, somewhat divided as to whether pass by North was a logical alternative. Several members believed that South's 5 bid alone was more than sufficient to clear up North's confusion, even without a break in tempo, and that North's extra keycard and good trumps (SKQ10) made 6 a clear choice. Others thought that pass was possible by North since the 4NT bidder is in charge and his partner should not override his decision unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so -- which they thought was not the case here. All members finally agreed that the fact that all of the players consulted and some Committee members thought pass was a logical alternative made that the only defensible conclusion. The Committee sustained the TDs' ruling for both sides: 5 by South made six, plus 480 for N/S. The Committee believes that there are several important points which players should note regarding the decision in this case: (1) While it is entirely plausible that North had an aberration that hearts were trumps, there are other possible explanations for his 5 response. For example, he might have thought that spades were trumps and that 5 showed one keycard (e.g., that he was playing 1430 responses; or that he had bid 5 and not 5), with the break in tempo alerting him to his error. "Offending" players have the burden of providing very strong (perhaps overwhelming) evidence of the innocence of their actions. Here, reasonable doubt was left in the Committee members' minds. (2) It is possible (likely, in the Chairman's opinion) that North's confusion about hearts being trumps was directly linked to his artificial 2 bid. Players should be aware, when considering playing such methods, that their possible technical advantages do not come entirely free. Such methods carry with them certain responsibilities, such as to remember them, to Alert and fully explain them, and to know when and how they apply in various auctions. Players whose artificial conventions cause problems can expect little sympathy from WBF Appeals Committees when the problems are directly linked to such methods. (3) If North wishes to justify his actions in the presence of a hesitation, then compelling bridge reasons are needed. For example, what if, in the present case, South held this hand? A J x x (x) A K Q x x x (x) x x Several Committee members suggested that South might bid 4NT with a hand like this, but that his break in tempo after the zero keycard response made this sort of hand impossible and so invited 6. N/S said nothing to dispel this argument, and it was their job to make their best case (most effective if made immediately to the TD at the table). (4) But the most important lesson for players, especially those in top world competition, is that they are expected to consider the consequences of their actions before making their calls and plays. In Blackwood/Keycard auctions in particular, players should be prepared for any response that could reasonably be anticipated. South should have decided what he would do if North showed zero, one or two keycards before bidding 4NT and should not have needed to think after receiving a response. Of course the double, being somewhat unexpected, afforded South some additional leeway to consider the two extra options (redouble and pass) afforded him-but not the several minutes he ended up taking. If South wished to consider bidding a slam after a 5 response, then he should work that out before bidding 4NT. The time he spent considering this option was to a large extent responsible for this entire problem. North might have gotten away with his error if South had not huddled and South might have gotten away with his huddle if North had not erred, but only if both players had been more careful could this sort of problem have been avoided. In general, players can expect little sympathy from WBF Appeals Committees for tempo problems created through their lack of proper preparation in the auction -- especially in Blackwood/Keycard auctions, which cause many of the tempo problems we have to deal with.

Appeal 2 Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 15 Teams: Argentina (N/S) vs Chinese Taipei (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA),Anton Maas (NLD), Nissan Rand (ISR), John Wignall (NZL)

Board 8 None vul. Dealer West | NORTH K 9 J 7 6 3 Q 7 J 8 6 5 3
WEST A 8 7 6 A A K J 8 4 3 7 4 | EAST 10 5 4 10 9 4 10 9 6 5 2 A 9
| SOUTH Q J 3 2 K Q 8 5 2 - - K Q 10 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Wu | Camberos | Hsia | Scanavino
1 | Pass | 2NT(1) | Dble
Rdble | All Pass

(1) Weak hand with either minor Result: 2NT redoubled by East made three, plus 880 for E/W. The Facts: N/S called the TD at the end of the hand claiming that they had been misled by E/W's explanations of their methods. The TD determined that North and South had both been told that East's 2NT bid showed a weak hand with either clubs or diamonds. Further, West told South only that his redouble showed a strong hand while East told North that the redouble was to play and showed 18-21 HCP, 'maybe.' The TDs ruled that there had been no infraction and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. In response to questions from the Committee, North said that East told him that the redouble showed 18- 21 HCP "balanced" but did not say that it was "to play." Further, he said he could not bid 3 because clubs could be East's suit and besides, a pass might induce East to pull the redouble (taking N/S off the hook). He expected South, knowing that West had 18-21 HCP, to bid again if East passed. South told the Committee that when he asked West about his redouble he was told only that it showed a "good hand." Upon further probing of E/W's methods, West told South that East "will correct to 3 if he holds diamonds, I suppose." South said this convinced him that East's pass of the redouble showed clubs. He said he was content to defend if East's suit was clubs (since North might hold good enough diamonds to allow the contract to be defeated) but that he would have bid if he had been told that East might also pass holding diamonds. N/S also said that the E/W convention cards contained no information about this sequence. The Committee told N/S they were having difficulty seeing any basis for changing the TDs' ruling and asked them one last time to explain how they believed they had been misinformed and how that misinformation had affected their actions. N/S said they believed that E/W had not fully disclosed their agreements and somehow "knew" the contract was guaranteed. However, they could not provide any concrete explanation of why they suspected this. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that N/S had been correctly informed of E/W's methods. They were told that East's 2NT showed a weak minor one-suiter (which he had) and that West's redouble showed a strong hand (which he had). South was also told that East could correct to 3 if he held diamonds and chose to bid, but no indication was given that East was systemically obliged to do so (since West simply said "I suppose he could" in response to South's inquiries). The Committee believed that South, by passing the redouble, had gambled that North's diamond holding would be sufficient to defeat the contract -- and had lost. However, they could find nothing in E/W's explanations that had unduly induced him to take this action; N/S had been solely responsible for their result. Therefore, the Committee sustained the TDs' ruling that the table result would stand. In addition, the Committee was displeased that N/S chose to pursue this appeal after the TDs' ruling made it clear that there had been no infraction and that N/S were unable to present any basis on which a score adjustment could even be considered. As a result, the Committee decided that N/S's appeal lacked substantial merit and retained their $50 deposit.

Appeal 3 Committee: Joan Gerard (Chair), Grattan Endicott (scribe), Anton Maas, Dan Morse, Nissan Rand. Event: Bermuda Bowl, Round Robin, Match 17 Players North: I Delmonte South: B. Richman (Australia) East: M. Villas-Boas West: J-P. Campos (Brazil)

Board 14 None vul. Dealer East | NORTH 10 8 6 5 3 J 9 5 4 K 9 6 8
WEST Q 7 2 A 10 Q J 10 4 A J 10 4 | EAST K 9 4 8 7 6 3 A 8 5 Q 5 3
| SOUTH A J K Q 2 7 3 2 K 9 7 6 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | - | Pass | 1NT(a)
Dble | Pass(b) | Pass | Redble
Pass | 2(c) | Dble(d) | 3
All Pass

(a) 12-14 (b) Forcing, requiring South to redouble (c) Explained by North to East as 4-4 in majors, by South to West as natural and constructive. (d) Explained by East to North as penalties, by West to South as take-out each Son the basis of the explanation given to him in (c). The Director: Called to the table by North when dummy was faced. North said he thought there might have been a misunderstanding. Subsequently called back to the table by East/West who felt damaged. The Brazilian pair contended that the different explanations had caused sufficient confusion to prevent East from doubling 3 since West's action was consistent with his having a strong hand based on a long minor. West added that given the correct explanation, he would have doubled 3 since he would have known his partner's double was for penalties. After various consultations the Director referred to Law 40C and ruled that the score should stand since the damage claimed was not solely and directly due to the infraction. Players: To the committee, Mr. Richman explained that his partnership had decided only recently to change their agreements when they are doubled in 1NT. In some of the situations North's explanation would apply, as it did on this occasion, and in others his own explanation would have been correct. At the time the board was played, he had not clarified the distinction adequately in his own mind and had gone wrong. He also wished the committee to be aware that when the screen was opened North had asked him why he had raised the Heart bid. The Appeals Committee: Recognized that East and West had a difficulty as to their action and indeed had failed to resolve their problem. However, each of them was aware that their side had the balance of the points and East, if he took his partner to be possibly void in Hearts, with a strong hand, was aware that his holdings in Spades, Diamonds and Clubs all fitted with his partner's holding. Whilst there was a degree of sympathy with their dilemma, the committee felt that they had failed to untangle themselves and, at this level, their judgement of the action was insufficiently disturbed to justify redress. The table score would stand. However, under Laws 40B and 75C North and South are required to give opponents a correct explanation of their agreements. On this occasion, they had attempted to reach an agreement but it was clear they did not have similar views as to what they might have agreed. Equally clearly, at least one of them had misinformed his screenmate as to the correct meaning. Accordingly, a procedural penalty of 0.5 VP. was awarded to North/South. The deposit was returned.

Appeal Case 4 Committee: Robert Wolff (Chair), Grattan Endicott (scribe), Joan Gerard, Anton Maas, Jean-Paul Meyer. Venice Cup, Round Robin (round 18), Board 11. Players: North: Way South: Johnson (Bermuda) East: Cimon West: Saltsman (Canada)

| NORTH V o i d A 9 6 3 A K J 10 7 3 9 6 2
WEST A 10 9 5 4 5 4 Q 5 4 2 5 4 | EAST K J 3 2 Q 7 9 8 A K Q J 10
| SOUTH Q 8 7 6 K J 10 8 2 6 8 7 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | - | - | 2(a)
Pass | 3(b) | 3NT(c) | 4
5 | Dble | All Pass

(a) Weak, 5/4 or 5/5 in the majors. (b) 'I do not expect my partner to bid again' (c) Over a weak sequence by opponents this is natural, if opponents are bidding constructively, this is for minor suits. Director: called at the end of the play, by West who considered she had been misinformed by South, so that she had taken her partner's bid to be for minor suits. The Director concluded that West had misinformation and was entitled to redress. With Laws 40C and 75A in mind the Director adjusted the score to 4 by North, N/S +420. The players: In committee there was difficulty establishing exactly what had been said by South. This player told the committee that she had described her own bid as in (a) above; further she had passed her convention card to West and had said 'it is on the card'. West had said to South 'is it like Flannery?' and South had assented to this, but West, by her own understanding of Flannery, had then assumed the hand to be stronger than was the N/S agreement. West did not find the bid mentioned on the front of the card and did not pursue further the invitation to study the card. East had been told by North that South was not expected to bid again, so that she treated the bidding as pre-emptive. West was told by South that 3 was 'better than 2 with 3 or 4 cards in the suit'. West also contended that South had added 'and a good hand', tending to confirm her belief that the opposition bidding was constructive. South did not agree that she had used these words, and upon enquiry affirmed that had East passed 3, she also would have passed. The Committee: Was somewhat surprised by North's willingness to stop short of game, but allowed that her bridge judgement was not a matter for the committee. The same applied in the case of South's 4 bid. However, there appeared to be no doubt that the partnership agreement was to play no higher than the three level on this sequence if opponents did not intervene. East had correct information; that she judged to bid 3NT naturally was her judgement of her best action on the basis of this correct information. Neither was there any clear evidence that West had been misinformed, having introduced the name 'Flannery' into the discussion herself, and having been referred to the convention card where it was stated that the opening bid was 5 to 9 HCP. (Additionally, the Director thought he recalled having seen a written explanation which included the word 'weak' but the pad had disappeared.) The exact words used by South in relation to the 3 bid were not established, but it was the committee's unanimous view that West had not protected herself prior to her final bid by further enquiry of opponent, and by not asking opponent to indicate where on the convention card she could find information about the calls. She could also have established quite easily that South would have passed out in 3, given the opportunity. West's call was therefore a matter of her own judgement, and having taken her life into her own hands she was entitled to no other outcome. The deposit was returned; the table score of N/S +1700 was restored. Footnote: a discerning member of the committee remarked that had the hand been passed out in 3, one would be left wondering whether the Director would have been called.

Appeal Case 5 Event: Transnational teams, Round 2 Committee: Joan Gerard (Chair), Grattan Endicott, Nissan Rand.

Board no None vul. Dealer North | NORTH 10 9 5 2 K 5 3 2 K Q 10 8 5 - -
WEST A J 8 6 4 Q 9 8 6 4 K 7 6 | EAST Q 10 4 9 7 3 A 9 8 5 4 3 2
| SOUTH K 7 3 A J 7 A J 6 2 Q J 10

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | Pass | Pass | 1NT
2(a) | 3(b) | Pass | 3NT
All Pass

(a) Both minors or both majors. (b) Majors; not alerted. Result: NS +430. The Director: ascertained that when the 3 bid was not alerted a surprised East asked North whether it was natural, was told 'yes' and repeated the question, getting the same answer. North said he had difficulty in understanding his opponent's English and had taken the question to be asking whether it showed the majors. The Director was persuaded that there had been no infraction and allowed the table result to stand. The players: North maintained that East's pronunciation was difficult to understand. East pointed out that a different explanation had been given by South to West. East's difficulty was that if West had the same explanation as he had (although inclined to distrust it) a double by him would be for take out rather than showing the suit. He could not double for this reason. During his remarks East used the word 'natural' more than once. The Director in Charge: confirmed, upon committee enquiry, that the convention used by West is permitted in this tournament. The Committee: considered, without dissent, that East had been damaged. All committee members understood the East player's speech without difficulty; further, North, being asked the question twice, would be expected to appreciate there might be a misunderstanding. He had not written the explanation down for East, nor had he spoken it in a way to use the word 'majors' himself. Nor, in fact, was it at all clear that N-S really had an agreement. Score adjustment was thus appropriate. The committee had in mind a number of considerations and possibilities: 1. If East has the correct explanation and doubles to show clubs, with K.x.x West can be expected to lead them. 2. If they are led, East is likely to duck a round of the suit, probably 80 or 90% of the time. 3. However, a number of East's peers could be expected not to double, and a number could be expected not to play low on partner's lead of the small club. It would not be equitable to allow East-West full benefit, nor for North-South to suffer the full effects of an adverse result. The committee came to a range of expectancy of 50 to 60% that the contract would go down. Its eventual decision, after substantial discussion, was to award 3NT-1 (NS -50) fifty percent of the time and 3NT+1 (NS +430) fifty percent of the time(see Law 12C3). Effect: In the other room East-West had scored -50 in 4 Clubs. 50% -50 -50 = minus 3 imps 50% +430 -50 = plus 9 imps Net +3 in place of +9. The non-offenders were given back six imps on the hand. As far as the record is known, this is the first 12C3 decision by the WBF, certainly the first since the WBF Code of Practice was published.

Appeal Case 7 Event: WTOTC, Round 4 Teams: Bulgaria (N/S) versus Sweden (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chair, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (FRA)

Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North | NORTH 9 8 6 3 5 3 K Q 10 A J 7 6
WEST K 10 7 J 10 8 6 4 3 2 10 9 2 | EAST A Q J A 7 A 9 8 6 5 Q 8 5
| SOUTH 5 4 2 K Q 9 4 2 J 7 K 4 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Nystrom | Stamatov | Stromberg | Popov
- | 1NT(1) | Dble(2) | 2(3)
Pass | Pass(4) | 3 | All Pass

(1) 9-12 HCP. (2) 13+ HCP. (3) Runout. (4) Break in tempo. Result: 3 by East went down one, plus 100 for N/S. The Facts: E/W called the TD at the end of the match, explaining that North had taken a long time to pass South's 2 bid. East stated that this induced him to bid 3 rather than doubling since he could see no reason for North to think other than if he were considering raising with a heart fit. North told theTD that he had been thinking about his system, whether 2 was natural or a transfer, but did not offer this information to East during the auction. The TD adjusted the score to 2 doubled down one, minus 100 for N/S (Law 73F2). The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. The Committee questioned both sides about the events at the table. North said that his system employed three different opening notrump ranges (9-12, 11-14 or 15-18 HCP, depending on seat and vulnerability), each using a different runout method after a double. It took him a few seconds (he estimated about 10) to decide what his partner's 2 bid meant for this range (9- 12), as sometimes their runouts employed transfers (after a strong notrump) and sometimes they were natural (as here). After he passed, East asked about the meaning of 2; North told him it was natural (as his pass indicated). North said he was not a robot and needed a few seconds to "establish the situation and to Alert or not." He did not consider that his pass of 2 was out of normal tempo. He further explained that at the conclusion of the play East asked about his hesitation. He told him what he had been thinking about and no attempt was made to call the TD while they were at the table. North also said he was not aware that he was obliged to explain to East what he was thinking about. East contended that North's hesitation was more extended, lasting perhaps 20 seconds, and that he could think of no reason for North's pause unless he had a heart fit and was considering raising. He said this induced him to bid 3 rather than doubling. When the Committee asked what a double would have meant E/W agreed that it would have been unquestionably for takeout. The Committee Decision: The Committee made several points in rendering their decision. First, regarding East's 3 bid, the Committee believed that North's tempo should have had no effect on East's action. East's hand clearly warranted a double regardless of the tempo and 3 was simply too committal an action -- since West might hold length in spades, clubs or both with attendant shortness in diamonds. Therefore, E/W were not damaged by North's actions and deserved no redress. Second, regarding North's actions, the Committee was in agreement that a player is not required by law to disclose the content of his thought process to his opponents - provided he is concerned with legitimate bridge issues. If a player has been engaged in extraneous, non bridge-related thought (e.g., finds himself daydreaming; or is unaware that his RHO has bid) he has an obligation to state something to that effect (e.g., "No problem."). However, some members of the Committee (Wolff, Meyer) also believed that a player behind screens who takes a significant amount of time thinking about tangential bridge issues should inform his screenmate of the reason for the delay (e.g., "I was trying to remember our system."). Extraneous delays, when unexplained, may be subject to score adjustment if: (1) they unduly influence the opponents to their detriment; (2) they have no demonstrable bridge reason; and (3) the player could have known at the time that his hesitation could work to his advantage. In this case, the Committee believed that North's hesitation was neither seriously out of normal tempo nor was it likely to deceive the opponents (since it is rare that a 9-12 notrump opener is permitted to raise his partner's runout after a penalty double - regardless of his trump holding). For these reasons the Committee reinstated the table result of 3 by East down one, plus 100 for N/S.

Appeal Case 8 Event: WTOTC, Round 5 Teams: Bulgaria (N/S) versus Poland (E/W) Committee: Bobby Wolff (chairman, USA), Rich Colker (scribe, USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (FRA)

Board 1 Dealer North | NORTH Q 4 3 2 9 Q 8 5 A K J 4 3
WEST 9 7 6 5 K Q J 8 9 6 10 9 2 | EAST K J 10 8 7 5 4 2 J 7 4 7 5
| SOUTH A A 10 6 3 A K 10 3 2 Q 8 6

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Puczynski | Karaivanov | Chveski | Trendafilov
- | 1(1) | Pass | 1(2)
1(3) | Pass(4) | 1 | 2(5)
Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
Pass | 3(6) | Pass | 4(7)
Pass | 4 | Pass | 4
Dble | Pass | Pass | 4
Pass | 5 | Pass | 5NT(8)
Pass | 6(9) | Pass | 7
All Pass

(1) Clubs or certain balanced hands. (2) Transfer, showing 4+ hearts. (3) Takeout (see The Appeal, below). (4) Showed clubs. (5) Cuebid. (6) Likes diamonds. (7) Likes clubs. (8) Choice of suits (clubs or diamonds). (9) Break in tempo. Result: 7 by North made seven, plus 1440 for N/S. The Facts: The TD was called to the table at the end of the auction. East stated to him that it had taken North about 15-20 seconds to bid 6 over 5NT. The TD adjusted the result to 6 by North made six, plus 920 to N/S. The Appeal: N/S appealed the TDs' ruling. In reviewing the auction for the CommitteeWest stated that, although he had been Alerted to both the 1 and 1 bids, he bid 1 without asking about their meanings - intending it as natural. After passing the tray he finally inquired about the Alerted bids' meanings and learned that 1 showed hearts. He then explained to his screenmate (South) that his 1 bid was intended as natural but would be explained as takeout on the N-E side of the screen. E/W told the Committee they believed South's 5NT bid could have been interpreted as Josephine (Grand Slam Force) and that North's hesitation suggested the 7 bid. Given that this was essentially a Hesitation Blackwood auction, they believed that South should not be permitted to override his partner's decision. When asked again about the timing of North's 6 bid East affirmed that it took 15-20 seconds ("No more, no less."). North told the Committee that his 6 bid was slow but perhaps was not as slow as East suggested -maybe 10 seconds or so. N/S further denied that 5NT could have been Josephine. First, it was not a jump (their partnership requirement for Josephine). South would have jumped to 5NT after his 4 bid was doubled if he had wanted to bid Josephine. Second, 5NT made no sense as Josephine in this auction. South cue-bid 4 only to hear North sign off in 5. Since South learned nothing from North's signoff that would have suggested investigating a Grand Slam - in fact, quite the opposite - 5NT could only be a "Choice of Slams" at the six level. Finally, N/S pointed out that had West not been negligent with his 1 bid, North would have had a 4 cue-bid available over South's 4 to unambiguously show heart shortness. (As it was, it could have suggested a 4 contract.) The Committee Decision: The Committee noted several important points regarding both the bridge issues involved in the situation and the informational considerations from the tempo. Regarding the bridge issues: First, two suits were bid and raised by N/S during the auction so that, from South's perspective, the appropriate strain was unclear. Second, N/S's assertions that 5NT made more logical sense as "Pick a Slam" (rather than Josephine) were accurate, although this argument was somewhat self-serving and had to be viewed with appropriate scepticism. Third, had South wished to investigate a Grand Slam the path he chose (first asking North to choose the proper strain; then raising his choice to seven) would be a logical one while other paths (such as recue-bidding 5) would have been more ambiguous. Fourth, North showed clubs four times in the auction (by passing 1, then by bidding 3 and 5, and finally by choosing 6 when offered a choice of slams), for which AKJxx seems likely to be a minimum holding. Given this, South can easily count thirteen tricks - one spade, one heart, five diamonds (assuming that North either holds the J or, if not, the suit splits three-two or the jack drops), five clubs and at least one spade ruff in the South hand. Fifth, the North club holding in the previous point is made even more likely by North's failure to bid 3NT over 3 as he would have with a denser spade holding (e.g., SKQxx and correspondingly weaker clubs). Sixth, North had minimum high-card values, club length and fit for South's suits which made it unlikely in the Committee's eyes that he would have thought seriously about bidding a Grand Slam - and thus was more likely to have been deciding between the minors for the six level. And seventh, West's negligence with his 1 bid contributed to some (unknown) extent to N/S's problems in the auction. Regarding the tempo issue: First, all WBF events are supposed to be conducted under the new (1999) WBF Code of Practice. This provides, in part, that behind screens, "It is considered there can be no implications if a tray returns after 15 seconds or less. This period may be extended in the later stages of a complicated or competitive auction without necessarily creating implications." By all accounts, North's 6 bid was made within (approximately) the 15 seconds specified by the COP. Thus, there should be no finding of unauthorized information. While the Committee was concerned that the COP has not been formally announced to the players in this event, according to the WBF's stated intentions and the Chief Tournament Director (William Schoder), the COP is nonetheless presumed to be in effect in all events here. (Plus, it was noted that the COP has been available on the Internet for some time now and has been disseminated by the WBF to all NCBOs well before the tournament began.) More generally, even had the Committee found that the COP was not in effect, the fact that this was the eighth round of a complicated (and competitive) slam auction suggested being more lenient about breaks in tempo. Second, it is not clear that there was a true break in tempo here. Much of the previous auction (prior to North's 6 bid, especially after things turned competitive) had to have been conducted at a deliberate pace. Thus, the putative 15 seconds for the 6 bid may not have been significantly slower than the rest of the auction. While the act of North's thinking may have been obvious to East (perhaps from his facial expression, body language or other indicators), that is not a consideration behind screens (where such information is not transmitted to one's partner). A call cannot be taken in isolation and judged "out of tempo" merely because the player thinks for a time before calling behind screens. The time to return the tray must be significantly longer than normal and expected within the context of the auction (and must be unambiguously attributable to a specific player). For these reasons the Committee was not convinced that a break in tempo occurred (either in fact or under the COP). Moreover, even if it did occur it seemed unlikely that it conveyed useful information to South that was not obvious from the authorized information from the auction itself. The Committee therefore restored the table result of 7 by North making seven, plus 1440 for N/S. The Committee wishes to make two further points regarding this case and its implications. First, the TDs' adjustment of N/S's score seems out of keeping with the conditions of contest (in particular, the COP). In addition, their decision to adjust the score to plus 920 rather than plus 940 seemed rather odd. Wouldn't North make thirteen tricks without any jeopardy to the contract? Second, even though no score adjustment was made by the Committee in the present case, players should be aware that hesitations in slam auctions always involve some risk. While it is rarely possible to make difficult calls quickly, it is always possible to make easy calls more slowly and deliberately. This has the beneficial effect of giving one's screenmate less useful information regarding the ease of one's calls and additionally produces a more even tempo which avoids transmitting unauthorized information across the screen to partner. (It works even better without screens!) Also, in their COP the WBF states that it "considers it desirable that players should vary the tempo randomly when returning the tray under the screen." This acts effectively to further reduce the possibility of transmitting unauthorized information to partner. As we enter the 21st century, players must develop good playing habits which will make bridge not only a more enjoyable game but one which will be decided at the table and not by Appeals Committees. Isn't that the Olympic Spirit?

Appeal Case 13 Event: Transnational Teams Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chair), Ernesto d’Orsi, Nissan Rand. Players: Ron Smith (North) Kyle Larsen (South) USA Gene Simpson (East) Hamish Bennett (West) USA

Board 4 Dealer West | NORTH J 10 2 K Q J 3 A Q 9 4 9 6
WEST 9 5 A 10 6 5 5 2 Q 10 7 5 2 | EAST Q 8 4 - - K 10 8 7 6 3 A K J 3
| SOUTH A K 7 6 3 9 8 7 4 2 J 8 4

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Pass | 1 | Pass | 1
Pass | 1NT | Pass | 2(1)
Pass | 3 | Pass | 4
All Pass

(1) double checkback Defence took two club tricks, shifted to Spade, declarer drew all three rounds of trumps and claimed four, saying "you get the Heart Ace". East/West acquiesced (Law 69A). After the match, E/W approached the Director saying they believed they should get another trick because they would get a second Heart trick. Expert players were consulted by the Director (WBF Code of Practice procedure) and four of seven played the Heart Ace when a small Heart was led at trick 6. The play was ruled to be at worst inferior, not irrational. Under Law 69B the acquiescence could not be withdrawn. The players: had nothing relevant to add to these facts. The Committee: agreed that the Director had ruled correctly. The Chairman remarked: Since the word "irrational" should be, and has been, interpreted in a bridge context to be a wild emotional action which is also contrary to any bridge logic the committee has no option but to allow the claimed contract to be made. Having said this it is the committee's recommendation that declarer consider a concession of one down since (a) the contract cannot be made by simple but adequate defense, and (b) to concede would be the moral and ethical action and thus within the spirit of the game. The players: Declarer immediately conceded down one and the committee authorized a change of score accordingly.