APPEAL no. 4 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Joan Gerard | USA
Members | Chris Compton Jean-Louis Derivery Barbara Nudelman David Stevenson | USA GDL USA GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Mixed Pairs | Session 3
Countries
France | v | The Netherlands
Players
NS |  |
EW |  |
Board
Board 25. Dealer North. EW Game
| ª | 6 5 |
© | J 10 7 5
¨ | 6 5 4 3
§ | Q J 8
ª | J 9 7 2 |  | ª | A K Q 3
© | K Q | © | 9 8 6 3 2
¨ | Q J 9 8 | ¨ | —
§ | A 7 5 | § | 10 9 4 3
| ª | Q 10 4 |
© | A 4
¨ | A K 10 7 2
§ | K 6 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | Pass |  | Pass |  | 1NT
2¨ |  | Pass |  | 2©* |  | 3¨
Dble |  | All Pass |  |  |  |
* Alerted
Result
3¨ doubled minus two
Facts
The meaning of 2¨(1) was that it showed diamonds plus either hearts or spades. On West's convention card it said "DON'T". West did not speak English or Dutch and attempted to explain the meaning using first pen and paper and subsequently the bidding cards. South did not speak English or French. The original description written on the paper was "R=4: H or S=4" and was far from clear. The TD was called at the end of the auction and recalled at the end of play.
TD's Decision
N/S 60% - E/W 40%

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
East interpreted for West who only spoke Dutch, and South, who spoke French and a very small amount of English, was accompanied by a friend as an interpreter. West explained that he had attempted to explain in writing what the bid meant. When that failed he used the bidding cards. He was adamant that he used the bidding cards at that time, and again after the TD arrived. East was extremely surprised that the description "DONT" on her convention card could be considered inadequate. South explained that "R=4" meant nothing to her, R not being a suit as far as she was concerned, and while she did not really understand what was being written she eventually decided West was showing one ªor both© of the majors©. She was adamant that the bidding cards were not used as a description at that time, only later after the TD was called. She said she would never have bid 3¨ if she had known that West had four diamonds.

Committee's Comments
The Committee believed that this was a pure misunderstanding. West did his best to make clear the meaning of the bid, and South had tried to understand it. However, a correct explanation had been made, and it was up to South to understand it or seek help via the Tournament Director. The Committee also felt that West would have done better to call for help from the Tournament Director, once he realised there was a problem in understanding his explanation. The Committee noted the regulation in the Conditions of Contest that Appeals Committees would not consider matters that were solely caused by one side's inability or unwillingness to express themselves in English but considered it did not apply to this case. They also noted the regulations concerning filling in of convention cards, and considered that the use of the name of a convention that is not a standard world-wide convention was completely inadequate. They also did not understand why an artificial adjusted score had been awarded. They also comment that if writing descriptions it is more sensible to use suit symbols, which everyone understands, rather than suit initials, which are different in different countries.
Committee's Decision
The Committee ruled: Table score stands (3¨ doubled minus two). 15% of a top Procedural Penalty to East-West for Inadequate description of convention on convention card and failure to explain it helpfully.
Relevant Laws
—
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page