APPEAL no. 48 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Joan Gerard | USA
Members | Barbara Nudelman Chris Compton Tommy Sandsmark | USA USA NOR
Scribe | Tommy Sandsmark | NOR

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Qualifying
Countries
France | v | Germany
Players
NS | Levy-Forges | Schmidt
EW | Z. Biro | G. Biro
Board
Board 25. Dealer North. EW Game
| ª | J 9 8 6 5 4 |
© | 8 5 4
¨ | K 7
§ | 5 4
ª | A Q |  | ª | 10 7
© | J 6 | © | A K 10 9 2
¨ | 10 8 6 3 | ¨ | 5
§ | J 9 8 6 2 | § | A K Q 10 7
| ª | K 3 2 |
© | Q 7 3
¨ | A Q J 9 4 2
§ | 3
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | Pass |  | 1§¹ |  | 3¨²
Dble³ |  | 4¨ |  | Pass |  | Pass
5§ |  | Pass |  | 6§ |  | Pass
Pass |  | Pass |  |  |  |
¹ 16 + ² Pre-emptive ³ Explained from West to South: 'For penalty'. From East to North: 'Optional' (understood by North) or '4+ ¨, but I may remove it!' (which is what West claims to have said.)
Result
6§=: -1370
Facts
The TD was called to the table after the end of the play. The problem seems to have been misinformation as to the meaning of the double of 3¨. Neither questions nor answers were written down. North should have inquired and East should have replied in a written form, as North did not speak English. Even if East said 'Optional', 4¨ is far from a good bid. It was hard luck for N/S that the opponents found the slam. The TD deemed the two replies to be almost identical.
TD's Decision
There was no misinformation, and according to law 75 C and 40 C the table score was ruled to stand.

Appellants
N/S
Players' Comments
N/S: North had a language problem, as he spoke no other language than French, and his partner translated for him. He said, though, that East had said to him that he was uncertain as to the meaning of the double, but he regarded it as 'optional'. When asked by the Appeals Committee how he could have heard and understood all this, considering his language problems, North stated that even if he couldn't speak English, he understood quite a lot. When asked by the Appeals Committee why the appeal had been launched, N/S stated that if North had had the correct explanation of the double of 3¨, North might NOT have bid 4¨, and the opponents might NOT have bid the slam. E/W: East denied categorically having said anything to the effect that he was uncertain as to the meaning of the double. He repeated what he told the TD that he had said.

Committee's Comments
The Appeals Committee acknowleged that there may have been a possible misexplanation. However, the double of 3¨ had nothing to do with the final result on the board. Therefore, the appeal was found to be without merit.
Committee's Decision
The table score stands
Relevant Laws
Law 75 C, Law 40 C
Deposit
Returned |
Forfeited | X

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page