APPEAL No 9: “My partner thinks of many things”

Tournament Director: Mike Amos

Read postscript by Editor BridgeIndia - Here

Appeals Committee:- Frances Hinden (Chairman) Eddie Lucioni Jon Williams

MP Pairs Board no 7 Dealer South All Vulnerable

	♠ Q53 ♥ AQ2 ♦ AKJ72 ♣ 65		Bidding WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH P 1♥ 1NT (1) 2♥ P P 3♦ P P P (1) 15-17
♠ K976 ♥ KJ943 ♦ 54 ♣ A7	N W E S	♠ AJ2 ♥ T865 ♦ 86 ♣ J843
	♠ T84 ♥ 7 ♦ QT93 ♣ KQT92

Basic systems: North-South play Strong NT, 5 card majors. East-West play Acol

Result at table: 3♦ +1 by North, NS +130, lead ♥x

Director first called: After North bid 3♦

Director’s statement of facts: E/W called the TD after North’s 3♦ bid, claiming that South

had hesitated for some time before passing over 2♥. North agreed. TD was recalled at the

end of the hand. E/W argued that it was not normal to bid 3♦ after overcalling 1NT. TD

asked North why he bid 3♦. He said that E/W had a heart fit. He wanted to push them to

3♥. They’d stopped in 2♥. East was obviously weak,

Director’s ruling: Score assigned for both sides: 2♥ making by West, NS –110

Details of ruling: While North had bridge reasons for his call, his action would not be

chosen by the majority – it is not a 70% action. Pass is a logical alternative. Laws

16A2, 12C2.

Appeal lodged by: North-South

Director’s comments: When TD gave the ruling North said that South was an inexperienced

tournament player: she thought about many things. This does not change North’s

obligations in this matter.

Appeals Committee decision: Director’s ruling upheld Deposit forfeited

Appeals Committee’s comments: Only discussion was over whether we should keep the

deposit. A TD’s ruling is not an accusation of unethical behaviour; the Law is quite

clear that North cannot bid 3♦ here.

David Stevenson’s comments: Quite amazing that an experienced tournament player would risk

his deposit and waste everyone’s time.

Adam Wildavsky’s comments: Good work by the TD and the AC.

Barry Rigal’s comments: Everything fine with this; might the AC have considered a

procedural penalty on North just to let him know how out of lie he was? I think they did

the right thing – the temptation to bid with this hand is just enough, in the absence of

the UI, to let him get away with the loss of deposit without the PP.

Bob Schwartz’s comments: In matchpoints I am sure I would have bid again with the North

hand knowing that partner was short in ♥ and ♥ king likely onside. I am not sure I would

have bid 3♦. I might double allowing partner to play 2♠ if he so decided but would

correct 3♣ to 3♦. This could even allow partner to choose to defend 2♥. Did a BIT

suggest a 3♦ call would be more successful that a double?—no. Did a BIT suggest that

pass was likely to be unsuccessful--yes? A lot would depend on the quality of the

players so not passing is pretty close to 70% , but with the hesitation I would not have

bid at the table. Shame on South for not doing something after hesitating—I would double

for takeout or bid 2NT for the minors if it was available to me. Congrats on keeping the

money.

Jeffrey Allerton’s comments: A routine application of Law 16A by the TD. The AC were right

to keep the deposit.

Richard Hills’ comments: Since North (unlike South) admits to being an experienced tourna

ment player, then North should know about the principle of captaincy in the auction.

Given that North has described values and shape within a narrow range by overcalling

1NT, then South (being best placed to assess the combined partnership values) should be

captain of the auction. Therefore, Captain South's decision to defend 2H undoubled

should be respected. Or at least 30% of North's peers should so reason. Ergo, North is

required to so reason as well, given the "carefully avoid taking any advantage"

requirement of Law 73C. Instead, North wasted the TD's time with an ill-judged call,

then wasted the AC's time with an ill-judged appeal. One hopes that the retention of the

deposit will focus North's mind on Law 73C when North judges a call in future similar

circumstances.

EBU Laws & Ethics Committee comments: This is an example of a deposit being quite

correctly forfeited (N was not inexperienced).

Final summary by editor: A complete waste of everyone’s time. It is bad enough for an

experienced player to bid 3♦: to appeal as well is unacceptable!.

BridgeIndia.com editor post script ::--

Rule 73 C = Player receives unauthorised information from partner –

“When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner’s

remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste

or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his

side”.

In another country, the following occurred:-

Bidding

W N E S

-- -- -- 1NT(Precision)

X P X* 2C

3NT**All Pass

· Director was called who said the call by East was illegal and cancelled

the call and asked South to continue bidding. South bid 2C ( He had 6 card club suit-

3-2-2-6).

** Director was called again after 3NT bid by west. They were asked to continue

the play. Director was at the table all thru now.

Result :-Vulnerable 3 NT made.

Director ruled Table score stood. Appeal was made by South.

Appeal’s committee consisted of one senior and well respected international

player, another international player and a junior in directorship and bridge.

Junior was asked to give his opinion first. = Junior committee member said that West got

Unauthorised Information from East, West had 15 points with a 5 card broken Heart suit

and no running suit of his own. Hence his bidding of 3NT should be cancelled and the final

result should be 2C undoubled minus 3 = 150 points to EW with a warning to West.

The 2^nd committee member said that he would abide by the opinion reached

between the other 2 members.

The committee chairman (the senior well respected ) said that 3NT result should be

allowed. The junior wrote his dissent but that had no effects anywhere.

THIS IS THE CONDITION REGARDING APPEALS IN A non EBL COUNTRY