APPEAL no. 49 |

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
Austria | v | Sweden
Players
NS | Feichtinger | Strafner
EW | Nilsson | Eriksson
Board
Board 2. Dealer East. NS Game
| ª | 3 |
© | A 2
¨ | K 6 3 2
§ | A K Q 8 6 3
ª | K Q 9 8 |  | ª | A J 7 6
© | K Q 10 8 6 4 | © | J 9 5
¨ | J 4 | ¨ | 10 8 7
§ | 5 | § | J 9 4
| ª | 10 5 4 2 |
© | 7 3
¨ | A Q 9 5
§ | 10 7 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  |  |  | Pass |  | Pass
1© |  | 2§ |  | 2© |  | 3§
3¨¹ |  | 3NT |  | Pass |  | Pass
4© |  | Pass² |  | Pass |  | Pass
¹ Explained from West to South: 'Game try. has nothing to do with the ¨'. From East to North: no alert and no explanation. ² Alerted from North to East and explained as "Forcing". Not alerted from South to West.
Result
4©-2: +100
Facts
The TD was called to the table after the end of the play. North complained that if he had had the right information about the 3¨ bid, he would have doubled.Then his partner would have known about the double fit, and they could have reached 5 or even 6§ or 6¨.
TD's Decision
The TD only had access to E/W's convention card, and therefore it could not be proved which explanation was correct. According to law 75 C and the footnotes in D2, the TD ruled mistaken explanation. Because of North's failure to alert and supported by law 12 C1 he ruled that there could have been numerous continuations and therefore decided on an artificially adjusted score: 60% to N/S and 40% to E/W.

Appellants
E/W
Players' Comments
N/S: From South's point of view, the 3 NT bid only showed a heart stopper and no diamond stopper, while North believed to have shown a stopper in both red suits. E/W: East/West could offer additional proof as to their system, and had brought all their system sheets to the Appeals Committee. Since these were in Swedish, this information had not been available to the TD. However one of the members of the Appeals Committee had a very good understanding of the Scandinavian languages, and could ascertain that the non-alert to North (i.e. the 3¨ bid was a positive trial bid showing the suit) was, in fact, the right explanation.

Committee's Comments
Based upon the evidence presented by E/W, the Appeals Committee found that East had given the correct information. In a way, West had also given the correct information, as he had described what he could see in his hand. However, the laws require players when asked to describe what their system and conventions are and not what their hands are. Thus, there has been misinformation from West to South. But this is not the main issue here. By posing a number of questions to N/S, it became apparent to the Committee that the real complaint from N/S to the TD was not related to the 3¨bid at all. The fact that North volunteered 3NT vulnerable made his pass over 4© forcing. South did not realise that, or, if he did, he passed anyway. N/S therefore wanted the Appeals Committee to reopen the bidding, so that they could get a better score.
Committee's Decision
According to Law 75 D2 (the footnote did not apply. It was only South's passing a forcing pass that made N/S's result bad on this board. Therefore, the Appeals Committee ruled the score to be restored to the original table result: 4© by W with 8 tricks; +100 to N/S. Furthermore, E/W received a procedural penalty of 10 % of a top for the misexplanation.
Relevant Laws
Law 75 D2
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page