## Anaheim Appeals

### Appeals Case 1 Subject: Unauthorized information Event: Grand National Teams Flight B, 10 August, second session
Board: 4 Both vul. Dealer: West WEST | NORTH A Q J 9 6 J K J 3 2 Q 10 5 | EAST
K 8 3 9 8 3 2 A 9 8 7 8 6 | SOUTH | 10 7 4 Q 6 5 4 Q 6 4 7 3 2
| 5 2 A K 10 7 10 5 A K J 9 4
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Pass | 1 | Pass | 2
Pass | 3(1) | Pass | 4NT
Pass | 5(2) | Pass | 5
Pass | 6 | Pass | 6
Pass | 6NT | All Pass
(1) Not Alerted; intended as a splinter, (2) One or four keycards The Facts: 6NT made six, plus 1440 for E/W. The opening lead was the K. 3 was intended as a splinter bid in support of clubs. South bid RKCB for hearts and then 5 to ask about the Q. North, believing that clubs were trump, decided he would not show the Q. Before the opening lead was made, North told the opponents about the failure to Alert. The Director was called. E/W believed that the failure to Alert could have influenced North to not show the Q. The Director ruled that even if North had shown the Q, South would never have had an auction ending at the seven-level because South knew that an ace was missing. The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. They believed that there was a fair chance that North would have bid at the seven-level if the 3 bid had been Alerted. North said that he had decided to not show his Q because he had only three clubs. South said that he believed hearts were trump but in any case would never bid over 6NT because he knew that an ace was missing. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that even if North had bid 6 over 5 the auction would have proceeded 6 - 6 - 6NT - Pass. The table result was allowed to stand. The Committee assessed a procedural penalty of 2 IMPs against N/S for violating Law 73C ("When a player has available to him unauthorized information . . . he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.") DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Jeff Meckstroth (chair), Lynn Deas, Walt Schaefer ### Appeals Case 2 Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, second semifinal session
Board: 3 Vul: E/W Dealer: South WEST | NORTH 6 5 4 3 2 9 4 3 2 7 6 A Q | EAST
J 10 8 J 10 6 A 8 2 10 9 7 6 | SOUTH | A Q K Q 8 7 K J 9 4 J 8 4
| K 9 7 A 5 Q 10 5 3 K 5 3 2
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Bill Pollack | Jonathan Greenspan | Michael Moss | Beverly Perry
- | - | - | 1
Pass | 1 | 1NT | Dbl(1)
Pass | 2 | Pass | 2
All Pass
(1) Intended as a support double, not Alerted The Facts: 2 made two, plus 110 for N/S. The Director was called after dummy was displayed. South believed she had made a support double. North did not believe that anyone played support doubles after 1NT overcalls. North was unsure as to the meaning of the double. The Director allowed the table result to stand since neither East nor West had any clear action. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. North and West were the only players to attend the hearing. West believed that had he known South was making a support double, he might have bid 2NT. He believed that North should not have removed the double. North said that South was a relatively inexperienced player (a student of his, though a Life Master). He had explained at the table that his partner might have meant the double as Support, though he wasn't sure. He believed that removing the double was the right action with his hand. The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that North went out of his way to explain the possibilities for his partner's double, that it was possibly meant as a Support Double, and that she was relatively inexperienced. At this point E/W could have asked North to leave the table and had South explain the intent of the double. The Committee believed that the decision North had made to bid 2 could just as well have worked out badly for his side. The result was "rub of the green" for E/W. The Committee allowed the table result to stand and believed the appeal just barely met the standard of having merit because N/S were not totally clear on their agreement. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Jon Wittes (chair), Harvey Brody, Dick Budd, Jerry Gaer, Dave Treadwell ### Appeals Case 3 Subject: Misinformation Event: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, second qualifying session
Board: 2 Vul: N/S Dealer: East WEST | NORTH 2 K J 10 8 6 5 3 J 3 A 10 4 | EAST
Q 10 7 A 7 A Q 9 2 Q J 6 2 | SOUTH | K 9 5 3 9 2 10 8 7 6 5 K 7
| A J 8 6 4 Q 4 K 4 9 8 5 3
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Lois Borak | Pratap Rajadhy | Eli Borak | Steve Landen
- | - | Pass | Pass
1NT | 2(1) | Dbl(2) | Rdbl(3)
Pass | 2 | Pass | Pass
3 | 3 | Pass | 4
All Pass
(1) Alerted; single-suited hand (2) Not Alerted; intended as Stayman (3) Alerted; bid your suit The Facts: 4 went down two, plus 200 for E/W. The opening lead was the K. After the hand was complete, the Director was called because the double of 2 had not been Alerted. East had meant his double as Stayman. West took the double to mean clubs. The Director determined through extensive questioning that even though E/W had been playing together for 20 years, they had not discussed this auction and, therefore, had no agreement. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. They each had played their partner to have club shortage because of the opponents' bidding and otherwise would not have bid 4. The Committee Decision: The Committee accepted the Director's representation that E/W did not have an agreement. The table result of 4 down two, plus 200 for E/W, was allowed to stand. The Committee also discovered that this appeal had not been screened. The Committee had every reason to believe that if management had provided proper screening and explained the appropriate laws to the appellants, this appeal would have been withdrawn. For these reasons, the Committee did not assess an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Martin Caley (chair), Doug Doub, Simon Kantor, Richard Popper, Judy Randal

### Appeals Case 4 Subject: Played Card Event: Life Master Pairs, 11 August, first qualifying session

Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South | NORTH A K Q J 10 4 2 K 10 Q 10 8 2
WEST 9 7 6 5 8 4 2 A K 9 7 K 4 | EAST 3 J 9 5 J 8 5 4 A 7 6 5 3
| SOUTH 8 A Q 7 6 3 6 3 2 Q J 10 9

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | - | - | Pass
Pass | 1 | Pass | 1NT
Pass | 3NT | All Pass

The Facts: 3NT went down two, plus 200 for E/W. At 3NT, West led the 7. Declarer called for the queen. It won. Declarer then played the A, K, Q by calling for each. Then he called for the 10. Dummy did not play it, but said, what? Declarer repeated his call for the 10, but a bit softly. Dummy did not hear this call and asked, what? again. Declarer then said ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds, ten of diamonds loudly. The Director was then called and ruled that the 10 had been played. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. North and West attended the hearing. North explained that South was recovering from a grievous illness that may have affected his speech processes. North said that South was pointing toward the spade suit when calling for the 10. North said that was clearly South’s intention to play off the spades when he was calling for the 10. North likened South’s action to a repeated inadvertent designation and cited a Vancouver appeal decision in support of his contention. The facts were not challenged by West. She said that the problem occurred because North wouldn’t play the 10 when it was clearly designated. The Committee Decision: The ACBL and the bridge legislators have tried to create as level a playing field for all players as they can. The game is none-theless a game for thinkers. When plays are made carelessly, the carelessness cannot be excused and the laws themselves superseded. Law 47C says: "a played card may be withdrawn without penalty after a change of designation as permitted by Law 45C4b." Law 45C4b says, "a player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought. . ." The Laws Commission’s San Antonio meeting minutes contain the following note regarding Law 45C4b. "It was clear to the Laws Commission that: (1) The presumption must be that the card named was the one intended. (2) The burden of proof is on the declarer. (3) The standard of proof is ‘overwhelming.’ (4) In judging ‘without pause for thought,’ if the de-clarer has made a play after an inadvertent designation, a ‘pause for thought’ has occurred." In this case, despite the irrationality of the play of the 10, declarer’s repeated insistence on playing it made clear that its designation was intentional and not, therefore, subject to withdrawal. The Committee briefly considered an Appeal Without Merit Penalty Point for the appellants but decided against it for two reasons: (1) This appeal was based on a player’s health handicap and how the laws must be interpreted with regard thereto. While accommodation for handicap has been brought before committees before, the general public’s knowledge of the standards is suspect. (2) This appeal, based on Law 45C4b, had some similarities with the much publicized Vancouver appeal, which, though successful, had less merit than this one. In effect, this Committee believed that the Vancouver decision cast doubt in the bridge public’s minds about what constitutes cause for permitting the withdrawal of a designated card. Since the public’s confusion exists in part because of the National Appeals Committee’s own actions, it would be wrong to punish a player for bringing an appeal which was based on the Committee’s own published statements. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Doug Doub, Corrine Kirkham, Richard Popper, Judy Randel. ### Appeals Case 5 Subject: (Tempo) Event: Life Masters Pairs, 12 Aug, second semi-final session

Board 25 E/W vul. Dealer North | NORTH 7 6 5 2 - K Q J 7 4 2 J 6 5
WEST A Q J 10 8 A K 3 A 10 3 9 2 | EAST - Q J 10 9 7 6 4 8 6 A K Q 7
| SOUTH K 9 4 3 8 5 2 9 5 10 8 4 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | 3 | 4 | Pass
4NT | Pass | 5(1) | Pass
5NT | Pass | 6(2) | Pass
6(3) | Pass | 6(3) | Pass
7(3) | All Pass

(1) One or four keycards (2) Showed the K (3) Break in tempo The Facts: 7 made seven, plus 2210 for E/W. The opening lead was the 9. The Director was called after the 7 bid. There was no disagreement that there had been a break in tempo. The Director ruled that passing 6 was not a logical alternative for West (Law 16). The table result was allowed to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. The total time taken to make each bid by E/W was disputed. 6 had taken from 10 to 30 seconds, 6 had taken from 30 to 60 seconds and the 7 bid had taken from 10 to 30 seconds. The 6 bid was directed to a spade control. There were no slow bids earlier. East’s pause over 6 was partly based on his surprise that he had the Q and could not understand why West had not asked for it. West confirmed that his final thought was still about whether to bid 7NT. E/W were a partnership of three to four years who have played together on average once a week until recently. West has approximately 3500 masterpoints, East approximately 6000 masterpoints. The Committee Decision: The Committee found it easy to determine that East’s failure to bid 7 was a serious bridge error (he could see that his diamond loser would go on a spade.) That being the case, there was no reason to stop West from playing bridge. While there was a very small sample of hands where East could not make 7 ( - QJ109xxx Qxx AKQ), the grand slam would still be somewhat better than a ruffing finesse. If partner produced an eighth heart or a fourth club the grand slam would be excellent. If partner had a spade the grand slam could not be worse than a spade finesse and the jump to 4 indicated a very good hand. Accordingly, while the hesitation had been established and pointed toward a 7 bid, the Committee could find no logical alternative to West’s raising to 7. Therefore, they allowed the table result of 7 made seven, plus 2210 for E/W, to stand. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Bart Bramley, Ed Lazarus, Barbara Nudelman, Becky Rogers.

### Appeals Case 6 Subject: Tempo Event: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, second final session
Board 1 None vul. Dealer North WEST | NORTH 9 8 J 5 2 J 10 6 A J 10 7 5 | EAST
K 7 10 4 A Q 9 8 2 Q 6 4 2 | SOUTH | A 10 5 3 2 K Q 7 3 5 3 8 3
| Q J 6 4 A 9 8 6 K 7 4 K 9
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Arnold Malasky | Gary Macgregor | Dick Wegman | James O'Neil
- | Pass | Pass | 1
Pass | 1NT | Pass(1) | Pass
Dbl | Pass | 2 | Dbl
All Pass
(1) Break in tempo The Facts: 2 doubled made two, plus 470 for E/W. The opening lead was a small diamond. The Director was called after the 2 bid and before South doubled. N/S alleged there had been a break in tempo by East over 1NT; E/W did not notice one. The Director ruled that passing 1NT was a logical alternative for West. Balancing was made more attractive by the break in tempo. The contract was changed to 1NT down one, plus 50 for E/W. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East said that he paused for perhaps 10 seconds to consider his action over 1NT. West said that he did not notice any break in tempo and that he thought his action was justified, both vulnerable at matchpoints. North and South both stated that they noticed an unmistakable break in tempo. The Committee Decision: The Committee judged that a hesitation had likely occurred, based on the statements of three of the four players. The Committee believed that pass was a logical alternative to double since in theory East could have held a 4-4-2-3 five count and the break in tempo demonstrably suggested action on West's part. Whether the break in tempo was based on extra high cards or extra distribution, West's double was more attractive with that knowledge. The Committee therefore canceled West's double and reverted the contract to 1NT. In 1NT with the likely spade lead, the play was projected as follows: spade ducked to West's king, low diamond to North's 10, 9 ducked all around, club to the king, Q to the ace, spade cashed, club finesse, A. Different variations were possible but seven tricks seemed both probable and likely. The Committee considered whether N/S's defense to 2 doubled had been egregious, in which case N/S would have failed to take advantage of the opportunity for a better score than was available in 1NT. This was not judged to be the case since the K shift at trick three, although a favorite to succeed, was not clear. The contract was changed to 1NT made one, plus 90 for N/S. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee:Ron Gerard (chair), Lowell Andrews, Mark Bartusek, David Berkowitz, Ed Lazarus ### Appeals case 7 Subject: Miscellaneous Event: Life Master Pairs, 13 August, first final session
Board 8 None vul. Dealer West WEST | NORTH 6 2 J 8 7 5 4 2 10 3 6 5 2 | EAST
9 8 7 5 10 9 J 7 2 K Q J 10 | SOUTH | A 4 3 A 3 A 8 6 5 4 A 4 3
| K Q J 10 K Q 6 K Q 9 9 8 7
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Andre Rakhmanin | Mike Passell | Larry Washington | Eric Greco
Pass | Pass | 1(1) | Dbl
1NT | All Pass
(1) Alerted; explained as "could be short" before South doubled The Facts: 1NT made one, plus 90 for E/W. The Director was called at the end of play. South had not been told that E/W open 1 with any strong notrump hand. South stated he might have bid 1NT rather than double had he received a proper explanation of the 1 bid. The Director ruled that there had been no damage and allowed the result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. Only South attended the hearing. South stated that upon receiving the explanation "could be short" he assumed that it was the normal 4-4-3-2 distribution. Had he known that it could have been a strong notrump, possibly with longer diamonds, he would have overcalled 1NT, leading to the possible N/S results of 2 down one or E/W contracts of 2 or 2NT down one. South said that beating the opponents to 1NT at neither vulnerable would have been clear if he knew East could have had a strong notrump. The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that South had not done enough to explore the implications of East's explanation. For example, when asked what E/W's notrump range was, South said he did not know at the time but now knew it to be, "11 to 14, or maybe 10 to 12." Because knowledge of E/W's notrump range was critical to South's decision, failure to inform himself of that fact was in no small way responsible for South's dilemma. Also, relying on the opponents to have specifically a 4-4-3-2 weak notrump in the finals of the Life Master Pairs was an inference that South took at his own risk. Finally, it was possible that South would have been worse off had he overcalled 1NT since E/W scores of plus 100 (2 doubled) or plus 110 (in 3 after doubling North's transfer response) were reasonably likely. The Committee allowed the table result to stand since South had not sufficiently demonstrated damage solely from the opponents' actions. E/W were assessed a five matchpoint procedural penalty for failure to disclose their agreement adequately. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Mark Bartusek, Bob Gookin, Ed Lazarus, Lou Reich