* South's initial double shows
North's double shows 7+ (nothing to do with spades)
Result: 4S NS +450
Statement of Facts and Ruling: At North's second turn to
call, a pass card was removed from the bidding box and subsequently
returned. North then chose to double.
North's uncertainty about their choice of actions
constituted unauthorised information to South.
It was ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 4S
by South. Under Law 16, it was considered that the unauthorised
information of North's actions may have suggested that bidding by
South would be a more successful action.
Score adjusted to NS +300.
Appeal: There are a number of issues here for me. At
no stage did the director ask us about what happened - he accepted
East's version in toto!
My partner was fidgeting with her bidding box - I did
not see her get a card out - she did not get it out and
subsequently put it back!!!
Even East, when were discussing the hand stated that
obviously it made no difference.
For me personally, I
see these actions of a personal nature - having nothing to
do with bridge.
of the Appeals Committee: Director's ruling