Appeals Committee: Warren Lazer, Marilyn Chadwick, Michael Prescott

Board 24 Nil Vul Dealer West WEST NORTH   Q932   A   T54   AT942 EAST   J654   9852   Q872   5 SOUTH   -   QJT643   963   KJ83   AKT87   K7   AKJ   Q76 West North East South P P 3H X* 4H X* P 4S //      * South's initial double shows 16+     North's double shows 7+ (nothing to do with spades) Result:  4S NS +450 Tournament Directors 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. Reasons for 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. Opponents Submission:     Decision of the Appeals Committee:  Director's ruling (+reasons) upheld..

Back to Appeals | Home