APPEAL no. 25 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Steen Møller | DEN
Members | Grattan Endicott David Stevenson | GBR GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Semifinal
Countries
USA | v | The Netherlands
Players
NS | Hampson | Greco
EW | Ramer | Paulissen
Board
Board 1. Dealer North. Love All
| ª | 8 7 2 |
© | A 10 6
¨ | Q J 10 8
§ | J 9 6
ª | K Q 5 |  | ª | A 9 6 4
© | K J 7 5 3 2 | © | Q 9 8
¨ | K 5 | ¨ | A 7 6 4 2
§ | 7 5 | § | 10
| ª | J 10 3 |
© | 4
¨ | 9 3
§ | A K Q 8 4 3 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | Pass |  | Pass |  | 1NT¹
Dble² |  | Rdble |  | 2§³ |  | Pass
2© |  | Pass |  | 3© |  | All Pass
¹ 14 - 17 HCP ² One-suiter ³ Asks for suit
Result
3©+2: -200
Facts
The Director was called by East/West at the end of the play. It was suggested that North's actions 'fielded' South's strange 1NT opening.
TD's Decision
Table score stands. Law 75A. There was no evidence of undisclosed partnership agreements.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
East suggested that it was possible that North/South were known in their home country for agreements over psyches, in which case an alert would be required for the 1NT opening. He agreed that he had stronger methods of trying for game, but decided against using them because he felt with all the points shown around the table his partner must be weak. West said the double could be made with as little as K Q J 10 x with nothing outside. North said that he could never remember South psyching an opening bid before, and that they had been playing together for four years. He did not really believe that his opponents produced overcalls that asked to go for 1100, and believed they were merely appealing because they had got a bad board through their bidding. His methods allowed him to bid 3NT direct, and he probably would have if he had a fifth diamond. South said that he decided to try something because they were not doing very well, and their opponents appeared to be getting all decisions right. He said that if his partner had doubled 3© he would not have passed.

Committee's Comments
The Committee asked the Chief Director whether North/South were known for a history of psyching in the ACBL. He said he had no knowledge of such a history. Law 40A says: 'A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.' The Committee reminded players that psyches are perfectly legal if not protected by a partnership understanding. There was no evidence of such an understanding here and it appeared that East/West had not bid their hands to the full. Since there is no understanding there is no reason for any alert of the 1NT bid nor any case for any adjustment.
Committee's Decision
Director's ruling confirmed - table score stands.
Relevant Laws
Law 75 A, Law 40 A
Deposit
Returned |
Forfeited | X

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page