Appeals Committee: Appeals Committee: Michael Wilkinson (chair), Nick Rodwell, George Bilski Board 10 All Vul Dealer East WEST NORTH   AJ8752   Q743  3   AK EAST   Q104   985   KQ4   10975 SOUTH   K3   1062   A1095   Q832   96   AKJ   J8762   J64 Auction and Explanations West North East South     P P P 1S P 1NT P 2H P 2S* P 4S All Pass   * agreed break in tempo Play - N/A Result:        NS +650 Tournament Director's Statement of Facts and Ruling :    Relevant Law: 16 I consulted two players on their likely action as North. Both chose 3S but also said that they would give serious consideration to 4S. When I enquired about Pass, they both indicated that they did not believe it was a possible action. I therefore ruled that passing was not a logical alternative. Even if North had chosen 3S rather than 4 the South hand is such that they would be very likely to get to game. I allowed the table score to stand. As I had determined the Pass was not a logical alternative, I did not need to consider the other aspect of Law 16 - that bidding on rather than passing could have been demonstrably suggested by the UI. On this auction, there are a number of alternative actions that South may have been considering rather than showing a maximum. For example, 1225, 2263 shapes and various other possibilities, I do not believe that the slow preference to 2S qualifies as being demonstrably indicative of a maximum South hand - just a flawed one. Therefore, even if it had been determined that Pass was a logical alternative, I would not have ruled the North's action in bidding 4S was not demonstrably suggested by the UI and therefore there was no infraction Reason for Appeal: Bd 10. - East dealt and there were 3 passes to North who bid 1S. South bid 1NT and North 2H. South then took a long time before bidding 2S. The hesitation was obvious to all. North then shrugged her shoulders and bid 4S. My contention is that North was influenced by the hesitation of her partner. After the hand, the Director was called. The Director later ruled that the 4S should stand. Apart from this table less then ⅓ of the field bid game. There were other logical alternatives for North that were not taken and the decision should be reviewed and awarded against the offending side. Decision of the Appeals Committee:  The committee ruled that while 4S may have been suggested by the break in tempo, for the reasons outlined by the director 3S was not suggested over pass. However 3S was not considered automatic. So the committee ruled 70% of the time North would bid 3S which South would raise and 30% of the time North would pass. 70% of 4S maiking 5 30%  of 2S making 5. Back to Appeals | Home