Appeals Committee: Pauline Evans, Beri Folkard, Marcia Scudder

Board 7 All Vul Dealer South WEST NORTH   AT86   875   52   A654 EAST   -   AKJ94   K86   KQJ72 SOUTH   KQ   QT632   AQ43   83   J975432   -   JT97   T9 West North East South 3S X P 4H P 4NT* P 5C P 5H* P 6H //    * Agreed breaks in tempo 5C = 1 Ace Result:  6H NS: -1430 Tournament Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling: NS claimed that East's 6H bid may have been based on the unauthorised information obtained from West's break in tempo before bidding 4NT and 5H. It was ruled that there had been no infraction as it was felt that more than 70% of players in the East seat would have bid 6H, given that up to this point, he had shown no more values than the one ace promised in response to 4NT. Table score was allowed to stand. Reasons for Appeal: NWe think that if 5H was bid in tempo East may pass as they might miss 2 aces but after hesitation from West it was much easier for East to bid 6H. Opponents Submission:   Decision of the Appeals Committee: The Committee were of the opinion that a pass of 5H was a logical alternative on the East hand and it was felt that 70% of players in the East seat would not have bid on. (For example, there was the possibility of a hand where West held a singleton spade and doubleton king of diamonds with very strong hearts and clubs, where there were no losers except for 2 aces). Score adjusted to NS -680.

Back to Appeals | Home