APPEAL no. 52 |

Appeals Committee
Chairman | Rich Colker | USA
Members | Eric Kokish Becky Rogers John Wignall David Stevenson | CAN USA NZD GBR
Scribe | David Stevenson | GBR

Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs | Semifinal
Countries
India | v | Denmark
Players
NS | Gupta | Tewari
EW | Askgaard | Mathieson
Board
Board 13. Dealer North. Game All
| ª | A Q 5 3 |
© | Q 7 2
¨ | 7
§ | Q 9 7 4 3
ª | 9 4 |  | ª | K J 10 8 6
© | A K 10 9 8 6 | © | J 3
¨ | A 9 | ¨ | K 6 3 2
§ | J 10 6 | § | K 5
| ª | 7 2 |
© | 5 4
¨ | Q J 10 8 5 4
§ | A 8 2
West |  | North |  | East |  | South
|  | 2©¹ |  | Pass |  | 3§
All Pass |  |  |  |  |  |
¹ Alerted; explained as 4414 or 4405 with short diamonds
Result
3§-2: -100
Facts
On both sides of the screen the 2© opening was alerted and explained as 4414 or 4405 with short diamonds. At the end of the round, after discussion between the players, West discovered that N/S's agreement was that the 2© bid could (infrequently) be made with four-three in the majors and a singleton diamond. The TD was called and West explained that, had he known that North could hold only three hearts he would have had a chance to find a heart contract. As it was, he had no chance at all.
TD's Decision
The TD ruled that the incomplete explanation given to West by South could have affected the result on the board (Law 75). Since the Directing Staff could not decide what result would have occurred had the infraction not occurred, they decided to assign an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1) of Average Plus (60%) to E/W and Average Minus (40%) to N/S.

Appellants
N/S
Players' Comments
N/S stated that they had described the 2© opening to their screen-mates as 4414 or 4405 because those were the distributions that were held most of the time. In addition to a verbal explanation (there were language problems), South offered his convention card to West for inspection. West admitted that he glanced at the card briefly, but did not examine it in detail. It contained complete and accurate explanations of the 2© opening in two places (the front and second pages) including that the bid showed 4414, 4405 or (unusually) 4(3)15 distribution with 11-15 HCP.

Committee's Comments
The Committee determined that, although East had not been accurately informed of the possible distributions for the 2© opening, an accurately filled out convention card was available to him and his actions were unaffected by the information in any case. West, on the other hand, had been offered (and even looked at) N/S's convention card. This was found to be an acceptable (and even desirable) way to communicate system information, especially when there are language differences, as here. The beautifully filled out N/S convention card contained all of the information West was seeking. Players are obligated to exhaust all reasonable means of obtaining the information they seek, including (written) questions, looking at the opponents' convention card, and even summoning a TD who speaks the opponents' language and can help with communication. West failed to make a sufficient effort to obtain the readily available information he needed. He relied only on South's verbal explanation when there was reason to have looked further.
Committee's Decision
The Committee restored the original table result (3§ down two, -100 for N/S) to both sides.
Relevant Laws
Law 75
Deposit
Returned | X
Forfeited |

Return to Top of page | To main Championship page