|
APPEAL CASE 3 - Hesitation This appeal case comes
from the Summer NABC in Nashville Spingold Knockout
Teams Round of 8
Facts: The director was
called at the conclusion of play of board four. There was a BIT before West's
double. East thought the hesitation was 15 seconds - North thought it was 60
seconds N-S questioned the pull of the double with a correction to 6 ♠ The
Ruling:
The
director judged that an unmistakeable hesitation
occurred. The director judged that the BIT demonstrably suggested not passing
at either of East's turns. However, the director judged that there were no
logical alternative (LA) actions to the
actions taken by East. Therefore, in accordance with Law 16, the table result
of 6 ♠ by East making six,
E-W plus 980 was allowed to stand. The
Appeal:
: N-S
argued that West took about 60 seconds before doubling 4♠ and at least three minutes
before bidding 6♦. The BIT suggested that
East bid 4♠ rather than pass and also his correction to 6 ♠, since with a
balanced 11-13 HCP West would have no reason to need extra time to bid to
decide to double. East considered his 4♠ to be
very clear. His RHO was a sound player who would surely have wild
distribution for his 4♠ bid, and East would not get rich making a
penalty pass of a partscore with J-7 of trumps.
East had a two-suited hand with concentrated values in each suit. 4♠ was clearly indicated.
West stated that his 6♦ bid came much more
quickly than his double. East said that it was clear that North doubled 6♦ for a spade ruff, so
correcting to 6 ♠ was obvious E-W play that after esponder has shown values, and the next player makes a
preemptive bid, opener's pass requests that responder double If opener pulls
the double it shows two places to play (pass/double inversion). E-W also play that had opener's RHO overcalled at the one- or two level,
opener's pass would request responder to clarify his 1♥ response. While West was considering his
second call, East wrote notes to his screen mate (North) describing the
partnership agreements. He also wrote, "brand new situation; first time
at four level" and "I was never penalizing 4♠; Double was
slow but not relevant." The
Decision:
Behind
screens if it takes 25 seconds for the tray to return, there is considered to
be no BIT. In later rounds of bidding and in complicated auctions this time
may be extended. West could have spent a fair amount of time writing down the implications
of East's pass and the extent of the E-W agreements regarding this auction.
The fact that N-S waited until two additional boards had been completed
weakens their claim that there was a BIT. Nevertheless, the committee judged
that the amount of time the tray spent on the South/West side was enough to constitute
a BIT. West's BIT suggested
that he held spades, rather than a balanced hand, which made bidding 4♦ more attractive than
passing for East. Was passing the double a logical alternative (LA) for East?
Without the UI, East would know that West had either a positive response with
spades or a balanced hand. For bidding 4♦ to be the wrong action,
a parlay would be required. West would have had to hold a balanced hand, E-W
would have to be able to collect 800 versus a game, or EW would fail to
locate a making game or slam. Further, East might have to select an effective
opening lead from an awkward hand to lead from. Additionally, the rank of
East's suits made it likely that the auction would proceed comfortably if
East bid 4♦. The committee judged that
few, if any, of East's peers would seriously consider passing 4♠ doubled with the East
hand and none actually would. Thus, East had no LA to his selected 4♦ bid. The committee
also agreed with East that North was highly likely to be void in spades for his
double, and East's pull to 6♠ was clear. Therefore, the committee upheld the
director's decision to allow the table result of 6 ♠ by East making six,
E-W plus 980 to stand. DIC: Roger Putnam Chairperson: Doug Doub Committee Members: Ed Lazarus, Mike Passell,
Lou Reich and Danny Sprung |