APPEAL no. 23 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Bobby Wolff | USA
Members | Virgil Anderson Rich Colker John Lenart Dan Morse | USA USA NZD USA
Scribe | Rich Colker | USA

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Qualifying
Countries
Great Britain | v | Israel
Players
NS | Smith | Czerniewski
EW | Sagiv | Poplilov
Board
Board 3. Dealer South. EW Game
| ª | K 5 |
© | A Q J 7 2
¨ | 6
§ | K J 10 8 5
ª | A 9 8 4 3 2 |  | ª | 10 7 6
© | K 9 | © | 6
¨ | Q 7 5 4 | ¨ | A K 10 9 8
§ | 7 | § | Q 4 3 2
| ª | Q J |
© | 10 8 5 4 3
¨ | J 3 2
§ | A 9 6
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  |  |  |  |  | Pass
2ª¹ |  | 3ª² |  | 4ª |  | All Pass
¹ Alerted and explained on both sides as 'strong' ² Some sort of two-suiter; undiscussed
Result
4ª+1: -650
Facts
The TD was called at the end of the play. N/S contended that they were damaged because they were not given the proper explanation of E/W's methods. In the post-mortem West indicated that he had misbid when he opened 2ª, intending it as weak. When he realized his mistake (almost as soon as he began describing his bid as weak to South) he changed his explanation in mid sentence to reflect E/W's agreement (strong/ACOL). East also explained the 2ª bid as strong to North. The E/W convention cards had 2©/2ª marked as ACOL on page 2. (The section of the front page of E/W's convention card marked 'SPECIAL BIDS THAT MAY REQUIRE DEFENSE' listed 2© and 2ª openings as showing five-five two-suiters, 6-10 points, including the major opened and a lower suit. However, N/S agreed that neither North nor South ever looked at these cards.) East expressed surprise at the mismarked front page of their card, reconfirmed that they WERE playing strong major-suit opening two-bids, and suggested that the error must have been due to their 'doing the card through the computer.'
TD's Decision
The TD determined that the mismarked section on the front of E/W's convention card was a computer error which could not have affected the table result, since neither opponent looked at E/W's convention cards. Since East and West both explained 2ªas strong, and since the second page of the E/W cards were both consistent with this explanation (marked as ACOL), the TD ruled that N/S had been properly informed of the meaning of 2ª as per E/W's agreements. The fact that this did not correspond with West's hand was true, but irrelevant. West was obligated to explain the meaning in his partnership of his bid and was not obligated to disclose the contents of his hand. The TD allowed the table result to stand.

Appellants
N/S
Players' Comments
N/S contended that both West and East's hands were consistent with a weak 2ª bid, and that this was consistent with the way the front of their card was marked (2ª=5ª + 5 any, 6-10). If North had known that 2ª was weak he would have bid a systemic 4§, showing clubs and hearts, and South would then have bid 5©. They also stated that if West had chosen this moment to psych his strong 2ª opening, East appeared to have underbid. In response to questions from the Committee, E/W indicated that they were not a practiced partnership. They had filled out their convention card by starting with one used by their spouses and modifying it using the WBF Convention Card Editor, deleting parts they weren't playing and adding their own variations. They believed they had failed to delete the two-suited major-suit openings played by their spouses from the front of the card and then simply not noticed their oversight. West explained that when he opened 2ª he had done so reflexively, as he played weak two-bids with most of his other partners. When he (almost immediately) realized his error he began to explain his bid as weak, but then remembered his obligation to disclose his partnership agreement, and not his hand, to his opponent. He did this. East explained that she described West's bid as strong and, after North bid 3ª, she decided that with only 9 points and little bidding room she would just bid game rather than show her diamonds.

Committee's Comments
Two Committee members (Lenart, Morse) left the hearing at the end of the testimony due to other commitments (this was the third appeal heard by this Committee during the current sitting) and did not participate in the discussion or the final decision. One indicated before he left that he favored assigning N/S Average Plus and E/W Average Minus. Dissenting Opinions (Colker, Anderson): We disagree with the Committee's decision. While it is disruptive and generally not good for our game when players forget their methods, these things do happen. Under the present laws, as long as the opponents are properly informed of the systemic meaning of a player's bid (not necessarily his actual hand) there has been no infraction unless the partnership is found to have an undisclosed understanding, which was clearly not the case here. We also find it likely that West's initial few words to South, his halting speech pattern and sudden change in explanation conveyed to his screen-mate the idea that his hand did not match his bid. We would have preferred it had West simply and completely volunteered his error to his screen-mate, but the laws do not require players to do this, and Active Ethics is not yet the law. Similarly, we find East's conservative 4ª bid not to be an egregious action; rather, we would characterize it as a non-aggressive (perhaps less-than-expert) call, typical of the level of bridge involved here. We believe that the problem with the E/W convention cards stemmed from the pair's failure to notice and remove a reference on the front of the card to the two-suited major-suit openings played by their spouses when modifying the computer file from the spouses' card. The methods were not part of E/W's system, nor did the presence of the error have any bearing on the present situation (except for the inquiries needed to determine this). Finally, we believe N/S's problems stemmed solely from their failure to have adequately discussed their conventional defenses to strong opening bids. We regret that we cannot find any basis in the laws for adjusting either side's score from that which occurred at the table. We believe that the TDs got this one exactly right. We, too, would have allowed the table result to stand for both pairs and then strongly advised E/W to be more careful with their bidding in the future and to immediately correct the deficiencies with their convention cards.
Committee's Decision
The Committee (Chairman) adjusted the score for E/W to average minus based on the following: (1) West forgot his methods; (2) West did not disclose the intended meaning of his 2ª bid on his side of the screen, as per Active Ethics; (3) E/W's convention card was not filled out properly; and (4) East chose a conservative 4ª bid with a hand that warranted a slam try, while at the same time West held a weak hand consistent with East's (conservative) action. The Chairman also adjusted N/S's score to the better of the table result or Average Minus, in recognition of N/S's responsibility in not having adequately discussed their conventional defenses to the opponents' strong, natural opening bids.
Relevant Laws
—
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page