American Contract

Bridge League
Presents

All That (“Appealing”) Jazz

Appeals at the 2003 Fall NABC

Edited by
Rich Colker
ACBL Appeals Administrator

Assistant Editor
Linda Trent
ACBL Appeals Manager
 CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
The Expert Panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Cases from New Orleans
Tempo (Cases 1-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Unauthorized Information (Cases 16-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Misinformation (Cases 20-33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Other (Cases 34-37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Closing Remarks From the Expert Panelists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Closing Remarks From the Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Postscript From the Director of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Advice for Advancing Players . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
NABC Appeals Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Abbreviations used in this casebook:

AI Authorized Information
AWMW Appeal Without Merit Warning
BIT Break in Tempo
CoC Conditions of Contest
CC Convention Card
LA Logical Alternative
MP Masterpoints
MI Misinformation
PP Procedural Penalty
UI Unauthorized Information

i ii
 FOREWORD
We continue our presentation of appeals from NABC tournaments. As always,
our goal is to inform, provide constructive criticism and stimulate change (hopefully
for the better) in a way that is instructive and entertaining.
At NABCs, appeals from non-NABC+ events (including side games, regional
events and restricted NABC events) are heard by Director Panels while appeals
from unrestricted NABC+ events are heard by the National Appeals Committee
(NAC). Both types of cases are reviewed here.
Each panelist is sent all cases and invited to comment on as many or as few of
them as he wishes. Some panelists may choose not to comment on every case.
Table rulings are normally made after consultation among Directors, which
typically includes the DIC of the event (who is responsible for the final ruling). This
is true even if on occasion we refer to a ruling as the table Director’s. In addition,
in 2003 we are witnessing an increase in Directors consulting with expert players
(or peers of the players involved in the ruling situation) on bridge-judgment issues
before making a final ruling. While this has not yet become policy (as it is in the
WBF) we enthusiastically applaud the Directing staff’s efforts in this direction.
At management’s request, only the DIC’s name is included in each write-up.
Additionally, we should bear in mind that in these pages we see only a subset of all
table rulings that are made at an NABC tournament—specifically those that some
players disagreed with. To that extent their representativeness of all rulings is open
to question.
In 2003, under the guidance of Joan Gerard as Director of Appeals and Barry
Rigal as Chairman of NAC, an attempt has been made to increase the presence of
top players on Appeal Committees. To this end a number of top players who are not
members of NAC have been asked to serve on Appeals Committees for one or two
nights at each NABC. We hope this will increase the level of bridge expertise (or
at least the perception of that level) that goes into each appeal decision. While the
cases here represent only the beginning stages of this effort, we hope this leads to
better appeals decisions—or at least better acceptance of those decisions in the
bridge community.
Ambiguity Department. Write-ups often refer to “an x-second BIT.” Our policy
is to treat all tempo references as the total time taken for the call (unless otherwise
specified) and not how much longer than “normal” the call took (which poses the
additional problem of what is normal for the situation). Chairmen and scribes
should adjust their reports accordingly.
Mild Disclaimer Department. While we make every effort to insure that write-
ups are complete and accurate, we cannot offer any guarantees. Since even minor
changes in the reported facts of a case can have a large affect on our evaluations,
the opinions expressed should be considered valid only for cases that match the
facts reported. Otherwise, discussions of cases reported here should be regarded
merely as theoretical exercises.
Suggestions for improvements are welcome. They may be sent via e-mail to:
rcolker@worldnet.att.net or via U.S. mail to the editor, c/o ACBL, 2990 Airways
Boulevard, Memphis TN 38116-3847.
Finally, my thanks go to everyone whose efforts contribute to these casebooks:
the scribes, reviewers and chairmen who labor to chronicle the details of each case;
the panelists for their hard work and devotion to a truly arduous task for which they
receive only praise (and occasional abuse); and, of course, Linda Trent, without
whose efforts these casebooks would surely be much the worse for it. My sincere
thanks to you all. I hope my efforts have in no way diminished your good work.
Rich Colker
May, 2004

iii iv
 THE EXPERT PANEL team.
Bart Bramley, 56, was born in Poughkeepsie, NY. He grew up in Connecticut and Jeffrey Polisner, 64, was born in Buffalo, NY and currently resides in Northern
Boston and is a graduate of MIT. He currently resides in Dallas with his longtime CA where he has been a practicing attorney since 1967. He is a graduate of Ohio
companion Judy Wadas where he is a technical analyst for a risk-management State University (BS) and obtained his JD from Case Western Reserve. He is
company. Bart is a sports fan (especially baseball and specifically the NY currently the WBF Counsel and former ACBL League Counsel. He is a member of
Yankees), a golf enthusiast, a Deadhead and enjoys word games. He was 1997 the ACBL and WBF Laws Commissions and former Co-Chairman of the ACBL
Player of the Year. His NABC wins include the 1989 Reno Vanderbilt and the 1997 National Appeals Committee.
Reisinger. In 1998 he was second in the World Par Contest and third in the
Rosenblum Teams. He also played in the 1991 Bermuda Bowl and captained the Barry Rigal, 46, was born in London, England. He currently resides in New York
1996 U.S. Olympiad team. Bart is currently the chairman of the ACBL Conventions City with his wife, Sue Picus. A bridge writer and analyst, he contributes to many
and Competition Committee. periodicals worldwide and is the author of the book, Precision in the Nineties. He
enjoys theater, music, arts, and travel. Barry is also an outstanding Vugraph
Larry Cohen, 44, was born in New York City and is a graduate of SUNY at commentator, demonstrating an extensive knowledge of bidding systems played by
Albany. He currently resides with his wife, Maria, in Boca Raton, Florida. He is a pairs all over the world. He coached the USA I team to the Venice Cup in 1997. He
former computer programmer and options trader but presently makes his living is proudest of his fourth-place finish in the 1990 Geneva World Mixed Pairs and
from writing/publishing bridge books/articles/software and playing bridge winning the Common Market Mixed Teams in 1987 and the Gold Cup in 1991. In
professionally. Larry has played bridge in special invitational tournaments in a 2003 he was appointed chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee.
dozen different countries. His biggest passion/hobby is golf and watching sports,
especially his beloved Yankees. He has won seventeen National Championships Adam Wildavsky, 43, is the proprietor of Tameware LLC, a computer consulting
and was second in the 1998 World Open Pairs and third in the 2000 World Teams company in New York City specializing in Extreme Programming. He has been
Olympiad. He also won the 2002 ACBL Player of the Year award. interested in the laws ever since he became the Director of the MIT Bridge Club,
more than a few years ago. Adam is a member of the NABC Appeals Committee,
Ralph Cohen, 77, was born in Montreal, PQ. He currently resides in Memphis, TN. a regular contributor to the Bridge Laws Mailing List and appeals editor for the
He has held several positions with the ACBL from 1971 until 1991 including Greater New York Bridge Association. He’s won three National Championships,
Executive Director from 1984 to 1986. He has been a member of ACBL Laws most recently the 2002 Reisinger Board-a-Match teams, and a Bronze medal for his
Commission since 1984 and is currently a Co-Chairman. He is a Vice-Chairman of third-place finish in the 2003 Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo. His study of the laws
the WBF Laws Committee. He wrote the Ruling the Game column for two years is informed by his study of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
along with other contributions for The ACBL Bridge Bulletin. He represented
Canada in the World Team Olympiad in 1964 and has won four National Bobby Wolff, 71, was born in San Antonio and is a graduate of Trinity U. He
Championships. He has been attending NABCs since 1947. currently resides in Dallas, TX. His father, mother, brother and wives all played
bridge. Bobby is a member of the ACBL Hall of Fame as well as a Grand Life
Ron Gerard, 60, was born in New York. He is a graduate of Harvard and Michigan Master in both the WBF and the ACBL. He is one of the world’s great players and
Law School (JD). He currently resides in White Plains, NY with his wife Joan has won ten World Titles and numerous National Championships including four
(District 3 Director), where he is an attorney. Ron is a college basketball fan and straight Spingolds (1993-96). He served as ACBL president in 1987 and WBF
enjoys classical music and tennis. He is proudest of winning both the Spingold and president from 1992-1994. He has served as tournament recorder at NABCs and is
Blue Ribbon Pairs in 1981. Each year from 1990 to 1995 he made it to at least the the author of the ACBL active ethics program. Among his pet projects are
round of eight in the Vanderbilt; he played in three finals (winning in Fort Worth eliminating both Convention Disruption (CD) and Hesitation Disruption (HD).
in 1990) and one semi-final without playing once on a professional team.
Jeff Goldsmith, 42, was born near Schenectady, NY. He has lived in Pasadena,
CA, for the last 20 years. He graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and
Caltech. He is a software engineer, focusing on computer graphics and animation
and internet programming, all with a heavy mathematical perspective. He created
computer animation for JPL for several years, including the movies about
Voyager’s encountering Uranus. He ice dances and plays many other games,
particularly German board games. His web site (http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff)
contains lots of bridge and other material.
Chip Martel, 51, was born in Ithaca, NY. He is a Professor of Computer Science
at the University of California at Davis, where he currently resides with wife Jan.
His other hobbies include reading and bicycling. Chip is Co-Chairman of the ACBL
Laws Commission, a member of the WBF Laws Committee and WBF Drafting
Committee for the new 2005 laws and serves on the ACBL Competition and
Conventions Committee. He has won multiple World Championships (most
recently the 2000 Bermuda Bowl), at least seventeen NABC Championships (we’ve
about lost count), and is currently ninth in world rankings. He captained and
coached our only world champion Junior team, as well as the bronze medal Junior

v vi
 CASE ONE client. (Why else was 35,000 MPs playing with 3000 MPs?) Exchange the [J for
the {J in the East and South hands and the auction would be the same up to the 4]
Subject (Tempo): The View From 35,000 Masterpoints bid—but without the hesitation. But would West have bid 5} or would pass be an
Event: Education Fund Charity Game, 20 Nov 03, Only Session LA? I agree with the Director’s ruling; pros with 35,000 MPs should be more
circumspect in these situations and set better examples.”
The Facts: 5[ doubled went down
Bd: 24 ] J1097 one, +100 for N/S. The opening lead =Ralph makes a valid point: pros should be extra careful not to take any action
Dlr: West [ AK3 was a small spade. The Director was that could have been advantaged by their partner’s tempo. On the other hand, many
Vul: None } Q7 called during the auction and again 3000-MP players (playing with a pro in a one-session black-point event) would take
{ Q1063 at the end of the round. The players a bit of extra time to work out that West was a passed hand and that 1NT was for
agreed that there had been a lengthy takeout (and probably showed less distribution than a jump to 2NT would have).
]4 ] AQ2 BIT by East over 2]. The Director
[ Q6542 [ J1087 ruled that passing 4] was an LA for Gerard: “I do not agree. A 100 percent action would have been to bid 2} or 3},
} A1095432 } J6 West and changed the contract to 4] then the appropriate number of notrump. To the argument that that might induce a
{ --- { K752 made four, +420 for N/S (Law 16A). misevaluation by East, the answer is that West could clearly pull even a slow
penalty double because his bidding plan would be clear from his hand. Who knows
] K8653 The Appeal: E/W appealed the what the intention of someone who didn’t do that was? A player who wasn’t going
[9 Director’s ruling. West said he to solo the five level would also bid 1NT, so how do we know that West wasn’t one
} K8 believed that his 5} bid was a 100% of those? East had a fair mitt of MP on his own, so it wasn’t as if 1NT then 5} was
{ AJ984 action for a player at his level. E/W the only sequence that he would understand. The Panel missed the inference from
both agreed that there had been a the experts’ comments. Two out of seven said that 1NT was the wrong bid and that
BIT and were willing to accept the they couldn’t know what to do having made that call. That’s almost 30 percent who
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 30-second estimate proposed by N/S. should have been deemed to have seriously considered pass an LA. The rest fell
Pass 1{ Pass 1] West had over 35,000 MP, East victim to the Intelligence Transfer (‘Maybe I don’t like 1NT but now I would bid
1NT 2] Pass(1) 4] 3,000, North 1260 and South 820. 5}.’) or to MP deference. Or maybe it was just too early in the tournament to be
5} Pass 5[ Pass thinking clearly. The correct ruling was reciprocal 450s (Director please note).”
The Panel Decision: Seven expert
Pass Dbl All Pass
(1) BIT (30 seconds)
players were consulted about West’s =Ron is right: The fact that two of the consultants wouldn’t offer an opinion due
action over 4]. One passed but said to a problem they had with West’s 1NT bid cannot simply be ignored. West’s 1NT
he did so because he believed he had bid makes his plan for the subsequent auction unclear: Might he not have bid 1NT
made the wrong bid at his previous to get his whole hand “off his chest” in one bid rather than planning to act twice?
turn and was now ill-equipped to make an intelligent decision. One expert refused Might he have miscounted his diamonds, thinking he had only six of them? Might
to offer an opinion because he so strongly disagreed with the previous bidding. The West have believed that only by bidding 1NT would he confirm holding at least
other five all said they would bid: two bid 4NT, two bid 5}, and one doubled. All five cards in each of his suits and that other sequences (such as 2} followed by
five who bid said they would not seriously consider passing. Based on the experts’ 4NT later) would show only four cards in the second suit (e.g., six-four or such).
input the Panel decided that pass was not an LA to the action taken at the table Ron is also right that if the contract is reverted to 4], the correct result is reciprocal
(Law 16). The table result of 5[ doubled down one, +100 for N/S, was restored. 450s, not the 420s assigned in the table ruling.
The next panelist is even more emphatic about the Intelligence Transfer issue
DIC of Event: Carey Snider that is present when consultants disagree with the earlier actions taken by the player
Panel: Ken VanCleve (Reviewer), Patty Holmes, Gary Zeiger whose subsequent actions they’re being asked to “evaluate.”
Players consulted: Bart Bramley, Bill Cole, Chip Martel, Mark Molson, Steve
Robinson, John Solodar, Eddie Wold Wildavsky: “The Director must not only rule that the losing action (pass in this
case) was an LA, he must also demonstrate that the UI suggested that the action
NTwo of our panelists were among the players consulted on this case. The first chosen would be more successful. That said, I think we’d all agree that that’s
believes the Panel Decision mis-characterizes his position… exactly what it suggested. As for the Panel’s decision, here’s what the ACBL
‘Tech’ files, the official guidance that is available to every Director (but for some
Martel: “As a player consulted, the description given isn’t quite right. I said I reason is not posted on the ACBL web site), say. ‘A logical alternative is a call that
would bid (5}) and that bidding was normal, but not as strong as the ‘wouldn’t would be seriously considered by at least a substantial minority of equivalent
seriously consider passing’ comment. This perhaps shows that it is tricky to extract players, acting on the basis of all the information legitimately available.’ The
the essence of the experts consulted.” player’s peers include only those who would have bid 1NT, so the first poll
question ought to be whether the player is comfortable with the auction so far.
=Unfortunately, opportunities abound for misinterpreting people’s positions in Given that, it’s not clear to me that the poll results are useful. All told, I’d say this
these write-ups. So Chip considers bidding (5}) a very attractive action, though not one is too close to call, but I like the Director’s ruling better than the Panel’s
so clear that it eliminates passing from serious consideration. Three other panelists decision. After the hesitation West ‘knows’ that it’s right to save, rather than
agree that pass is a serious consideration with the West hand—or at least that it’s suspecting it.”
so close that one should err on the side of disallowing the 5} bid.
=I would question Adam’s assertion that to be considered a peer a player must
R Cohen: “The write-up seems to indicate that West was a pro playing with a agree with the actions taken up to the critical point. I think the intention is that a

1 2
peer only needs to be someone who possesses, or can appreciate, or can assume the L. Cohen: “I don’t like West’s early bidding either, but I still feel ‘equipped’ to
mind set of a player having the same approximate skill and experience level as the comment on the case. With five-five or six-five, West clearly could not be allowed
player in question. He need not necessarily be someone who would have bid the to bid again after the huddle. But with twelve cards in two suits, it is in the ballpark.
hand the same way (or who accepts as reasonable the actions taken). If Adam’s I’d guess that 80-85 percent of 35,000 masterpoint holders would act, so I’d allow
requirements were in force I’d expect that in many cases it would be difficult if not it. Nice to see the poll roughly confirm that. Still, I wouldn’t have been shocked to
impossible to find an adequate number of players who would have bid the hand the see a poll of seven different experts produce a four-to-three vote, and a decision to
same way let alone possess the same skill/experience level as the player in question. disallow West’s action—and I could live with that as well.”
The most comprehensive and compelling argument for disagreeing with the
Panel and disallowing West’s 5} bid comes from… Rigal: “Sound Director ruling. We may disagree with West’s judgment (I do not
feel strongly about it myself) but if we are going to use the Panel system we should
Goldsmith: “I don’t agree with the Panel. Most of the issues are clear: there was abide by it. Here there is a single vote for passing 5}; is that enough of a mandate
UI, it suggested 5} over passing, and the non-offending side was damaged by to say that pass is a serious alternative? Given the caveat expressed by the passer,
West’s choice. So the only question is whether or not passing is an LA. I claim that and the strong feelings of the dissenters, I believe the Panel was right to make the
for this West it is, because he bid only 1NT at his first opportunity. If he had bid decision it did. Had even one of the five voters said that pass was an LA, I would
2NT I would have bought the poll results. If he had bid 4NT or 5}, reasonable probably switch my vote.”
choices, there would be no issue. His choice of 1NT suggested either that he wasn’t
planning to bid a whole lot on the hand or that he wanted to hear what everyone at Polisner: “This was a matchpoint event which makes passing 4] not an LA: all
the table had to say before committing himself. In either case, that implies that he partner needs for a play to make 5} is }Kxx and a high heart (i.e., switch the round
was at least considering not bidding to the five-level. Therefore, I judge that passing suits in East’s hand). It is not clear whether the seven players were consulted before
was an LA for him and I’d revert the contract to 4]. All in all, while I have no or after the Director’s ruling. If before, the wrong ruling was made; if after, it seems
problem with the wait-and-hear approach, a player who takes that tack and then gets correct to put the burden of appealing such a case on the ‘offenders.’”
UI gets the worst of it in a close case. No AWMW, of course; the Panel’s decision
is certainly reasonable. The Director’s ruling is also sensible.” =The results of any consulting done by a Panel in hearing an appeal goes in the
Decision section. Any consulting done by the Director in making a ruling would go
=Except, of course, for assigning 420s instead of 450s. in the Facts section. So the consulting here was done by the Panel after the ruling
One panelist agrees that E/W should not be allowed to take a questionable was made.
action that was suggested by UI, but refuses to redress the damage N/S sustained. I would like to have asked E/W what agreements they had about the constraints
various sequences (i.e., bidding 1NT first and then bidding again versus bidding 2}
Wolff: “E/W –420 and N/S either Average-Plus or –100, whichever is better. Even first and then bidding again) placed on West’s possible lengths, especially of his
though West may have bid without the help, he nevertheless should not be allowed second suit. Since West apparently made no argument that he had to bid 1NT first
to slither his way to a sure thing. Terrible decision and one we need to correct. N/S to show at least five cards in his second suit, we must assume that he had the option
should be treated to a neutral result, not one they didn’t earn. Remember, if E/W of bidding 2} (or higher, as both Ron and Jeff Goldsmith suggest) first and chose
would have gone down a lot or N/S would not have been able to make anything not to. It is therefore fair to assume that he was willing to show his hand in one bid
they would have profited by NPL.” and, even though his hand suggests a second action, abide by that decision (or take
a wait-and-see approach). Also, while East’s BIT is consistent with his considering
=This treatment of N/S seems both illegal and illogical. If West is not allowed the meaning of the 1NT bid, it is more suggestive of his thinking about bidding with
to bid 5} then N/S will play 4], which is not some improbable contract producing a fit for one or both of West’s suits. Although I consider it close, I’d disallow the
a “windfall” result for them but rather a “normal” contract that they actually bid at 5} bid and adjust the score to 4] made five, +450 for N/S.
the table—and would have played had West not (illegally) bid 5}. Law 12C2 says
that non-offenders (N/S here) are entitled to “the most favorable result that was
likely had the irregularity not occurred.” The only time the laws support assigning
the non-offenders a result like the one Wolffie suggests is if an irregularity, for
which they are in no way at fault, prevents a table result from being obtained (Law
12C1). So unless one believes that passing 4] with the West cards, though
unlikely, is at all probable, assigning N/S the result in 4] is the only logical and
legal course.
The remaining panelists all agree with the Panel’s decision, although some of
them, like some of the consultants, don’t like West’s previous bidding and some of
them, like some in the previous group, consider this a close decision. We begin with
the other consultant on our panel.
Bramley: “East’s huddle over a two-level bid could not have been based on a
possible penalty double. He must have been thinking about bidding, so the huddle
demonstrably suggests bidding to West. (Yes, East’s actual pass after huddling
suggests that he also has defense, but he cannot hold only defensive values.)
Therefore, the case hinges on whether pass was an LA for West. I don’t remember
which expert I was, but I trust that I was a 5} bidder. With at least two extra red
cards, bidding is automatic. I agree with the decision.”

3 4
 CASE TWO P. Maybe they should Alert 3NT as forcing. Since South said ‘with two doubletons
she was never passing,’ then when would she? With a singleton? A hand with a six-
Subject (Tempo): The “Rule” Of Two Doubletons plus-card suit has to have two doubletons (or worse, a singleton). If that ridiculous
Event: Life Master Women’s Pairs, 21 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session ‘two-doubletons’ nonsense wasn’t enough, she had the audacity to say they played
many four-three fits. Talk about self-serving. I’d throw the book at them and I wish
The Facts: 4] made five, +450 for I could do more than the AWMW. I don’t think the 4] bid was egregious enough
Bd: 32 Doreen Primeau N/S. The opening lead was the {2. (flagrant) to warrant a PP, but what annoys me is the tone and lawyering of N/S’s
Dlr: West ] A10854 The Director was called after the 4] arguments. Two tiny gripes about the write-up: (a) In the Appeal section we are told
Vul: E/W [ 10 bid. It was agreed that North broke about North’s thinking over 3[. Who cares? It’s irrelevant (it would only matter if
} 109864 tempo before bidding 3NT (E/W the BIT was disrupted and we needed clues as to whether or not there had been
said 2 minutes). South said that with one). (b) In the Committee Decision it says: ‘Although South said she would never
{ KJ two doubletons she was never pass 3NT…’ Give me a break. We know what N/S’s agenda was, who cares what
Carol Sanders Libby Fernandez passing 3NT. The Director ruled that South said?”
pass was an LA to 4] (Law 16) and
] 976
[ J84
] J2
[ Q96 that 4] was made more attractive by =It’s good to have Larry back again from his hiatus (we missed him in the last
the BIT. The contract was changed casebook). Breathe in, breathe out. There, now, isn’t it nice to release and vent?
} 72 } AJ53 to 3NT down one, +50 for E/W Good for your health.
{ A10843 { Q962 (Law 12C2).
Madeleine Berthiaume Gerard: “‘We play in lots of four-three fits’ is totally self-serving, though not quite
] KQ3 The Appeal: N/S appealed the up there with ‘I frequently bid out of tempo.’”
[ AK7532 Director’s ruling. West did not
attend the hearing. South explained Rigal: “Everything about the Director’s ruling and Committee’s decision, including
} KQ that she would never stay in notrump the AWMW, is perfect. We cannot ask for more, even if it is a slam-dunk case.”
{ 75 with two doubletons. She said she
did not consider bidding 3] over 1] R Cohen: “No arguments with the ruling and decision in this case. Players have to
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH and that her partnership played in understand that as they climb the ladder of bridge competition they must cease
lots of four-three fits. North said she some of the bad habits they innocently may have acquired in their early days of
Pass Pass Pass 1[ knew her partner had 17+ points and bridge activities.”
Pass 1] Pass 3[ over 3[ she was trying to decide
Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4] whether to bid 3], 4} or 3NT; she =The next panelist diplomatically looks past the problems with N/S’s arguments
All Pass finally decided on 3NT. North had to focus on just what the BIT suggests.
(1) Agreed BIT about 2150 MP, South 3000, East
7200 and West 17,700. Martel: “While pass is certainly the normal action over 3NT, the slow 3NT bid
does not point very directly to 4] (it’s more likely to be a hand considering passing
The Committee Decision: The 3[ or raising to 4[). Still, since it is abnormal not to pass 3NT, I have no real
Committee decided that passing 3NT was an LA for South. They believed that disagreement with the ruling.”
everyone would pass a promptly bid 3NT and that the slow 3NT bid suggested that
bidding on was likely to be more successful than passing. Although South said she =Chip may be right about the likely reason for the BIT, but whatever its source
would never pass 3NT, that option was removed once her partner broke tempo. The it surely suggests doubt about 3NT as a final contract. Perhaps North holds a partial
contract was changed to 3NT down one, +50 for E/W. The Committee also heart fit, extra spade length, prefers a minor-suit contract (holding, for example,
determined that pass was so clearly an LA and since N/S had raised no new something like ]Axxx [x }AJxxxx {xx) or even has borderline extra values (or
arguments beyond those already discussed with the Director and Screening controls) for a slam try. But what each of these has in common is that North will not
Director, the appeal lacked substantial merit. N/S were each assessed an AWMW. be unhappy to hear South bid again when one would be hard pressed to find another
experienced player who would do anything other than pass 3NT. 4] may not cater
DIC of Event: Ron Johnston to every possible reason for the BIT, but then no action does. (4[ overstates
Committee: Steve Weinstein (chair), Ellen Melson, Chris Moll, Tom Peters, Bob South’s desire to play in hearts—as indeed it could be argued her 3[ bid did—and
Schwartz (Linda Trent, scribe) many would have found another rebid such as 2NT, 3] or even 2[.)
=Many panelists find N/S’s arguments not only self-serving but totally lacking Wolff: “Agree.”
in credibility. Witness…
Polisner: “Routine.”
Bramley: “The argument that ‘Our partnership plays in lots of four-three fits’ is not
a credible one and, of course, having already shown at least a six-card suit, the =Really? Then how about…
argument that ‘she would never stay in notrump with two doubletons’ is equally
unacceptable. This is one of the finest examples of ‘Without Merit’ that we have Goldsmith: “Good job by the Committee. 4] of course is an illegal choice. It’s
ever seen.” possible that 3NT can go down a lot: diamond lead, three rounds of hearts as East
unblocks, then a club through and a misguess. That’s down four. Is that likely? A
L. Cohen: “Apparently, this N/S pair can never have the auction: 1[-1]; 3[-3NT; diamond is a reasonable lead given that the majors look to be running from East’s

5 6
perspective. Maybe leading the }A is better. Is this scenario likely? Maybe, maybe CASE THREE
not. Is it at all probable? Sure. Cashing out for down one is accepting a bad score.
I’d give E/W +50 and N/S –200. A real Committee would probably not be willing Subject (Tempo): If It Walks Like A Duck, Quacks Like A Duck…
to accept such a ruling.” Event: Open Pairs, 21 Nov 03, Second Session
=I think Jeff indulged in a bit of over-thinking here. The defense on which he The Facts: 5} went down one, +50
proposes to assign N/S –200 seems “a few matchpoints shy of Average-Minus.” Bd: 19 ]9 for E/W. The opening lead was the
On balance, for my money the best appraisal of the situation comes from… Dlr: South [ AK8 ]K. No Director was called at the
Vul: E/W } KQJ10863 time this board was played (on the
Wildavsky: “An easy case. I can hardy imagine why N/S appealed.” fourth round), but East approached a
{ 108 Director after the session saying that
=Indeed. ] A10654 ] K832 South had hesitated prior to bidding
[ J5 [ 76 5} and that North’s pass of 5} was
} 95 } A2 very unusual. The Director found the
{ AQJ6 { K9754 N/S pair, who denied a hesitation.
The Director ruled that there was
] QJ7 insufficient evidence of an
[ Q109432 unmistakable hesitation (Law 16A)
} 74 and allowed the table result to stand,
{ 32 recommending that East file a Player
Memo, which he did.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Appeal: E/W appealed the
1[ Director’s ruling. West did not attend
1] 2} 3} Pass the hearing. East told the Reviewer
3] 4NT Pass 5}(1) that South took 8-12 seconds to bid
5}; N/S both said they didn’t notice
All Pass anything and when pressed for a time
(1) Alleged BIT (5}=0/3 key cards) estimate both suggested 3-4 seconds.
When asked why she opened 1[
South said she thought she had pulled
the 2[ card from the Bid Box and only noticed what she had done after her bid was
on the table and West had already bid 1]. (At first she thought the 1] bid was
insufficient.) She said she didn’t know that she could call the Director and have her
inadvertent bid changed at that point so she just let it stand. (Later in the session she
consulted a Director who told her it could have been changed at that point.) Nobody
noticed any reaction by South when she realized her error. N/S were a new
partnership. North was asked why he didn’t correct 5} to 5[ when he knew his
partner had 0 or 3 key cards. He said that the bidding by his vulnerable opponents
convinced him that his partner had to have 0 key cards and there was no advantage
to correcting to 5[ if both contracts were going down. When asked if he considered
at the time what his partner might have held for her opening bid he said he did and
offered ]K, [Q, {KQJ and a singleton diamond. East said he thought South’s hand
indicated that she must have taken some time before bidding 5} and that she was
probably considering passing 4NT. In addition, after speaking with some good
players after the game he could find no one who would pass 5} with the North
hand. He thought it very unusual that a player of North’s caliber would risk the
disaster of missing slam and hurting partnership morale by not trusting his partner
and bidding a normal 5[. He also mentioned that perhaps E/W were psyching and
that the combination of South’s “psych” and North’s unusual pass of 5} should
result in the Rule of Coincidence being applied. The Reviewer informed him that
an adjustment could be made only if it was found that UI existed; unusual or
coincident actions in the absence of UI were normally handled by a Player Memo.
The Reviewer asked if West was available to comment on what happened at the
table. The interview was stopped while East tried to find her but he could not. North
had about 5800 MP, South 1800, East 4500 and West 1860.
The Panel Decision: The Panel focused on the issue of whether there had been an

7 8
unmistakable hesitation. The fact that E/W had not thought enough of the hesitation two? Anyway, what N/S did smells fishy, but I don’t see any reason to nail them
to call the Director at the time and that there was no clear evidence that South took for it. I wish South had used a Stop Card before attempting to open 2[—that would
more than 3-4 seconds to bid 5} led to the conclusion that there was no UI. The have avoided the problem. Anyway, to the relevant point: I’d presume that any pair
Panel did not believe that 3-4 seconds constituted a BIT, nor was it clear that E/W playing RKC would not be sure whether hearts or diamonds were trump (or neither)
would have obtained a better result even if North had bid 5[, although that was in response to 4NT. Therefore, it would be normal for South to take some time,
deemed irrelevant when it was judged that no BIT had occurred. The table result of maybe about the actual time taken. So, I think there was no BIT and the Panel
5} down one, +50 for E/W, was allowed to stand and E/W were issued an (through a different route) also concluded no BIT. End of case.”
AWMW.
=Even if South took 8-12 seconds to bid over 4NT it figured to be because she
DIC of Event: Terry Lavender was surprised by the 4NT bid or confused about which red suit North intended as
Panel: Matt Smith (Reviewer), Su Doe, Mike Flader, Charlie MacCracken trumps. To me 8-12 seconds is normal tempo in this situation and doesn’t suggest
Players consulted: none anything in particular. But even had there been an unmistakable BIT, why would
it suggest that South, playing only her seventh board with a first-time partner, had
=Echoing the sentiments of most of the other panelists (myself included) is… psyched?! (Apparently she hadn’t; she just inadvertently pulled the wrong card
from her bid box and didn’t know she could correct it.) North used the fact that his
R Cohen: “This case was a waste of everyone’s time. If a Director was not called opponents bid vulnerable to the three level to guess that 5} was a key card response
at the time of the alleged hesitation, or while the players were all still at the table, and that South had zero and not three key cards. He then passed 5} when correcting
there is absolutely no way to convince a Panel or a Committee that a BIT occurred, to 5[ was unlikely to cost anything and might easily have saved the day if South
and therefore no way to show damage and obtain an adjustment.” had shown up with three key cards. And even if North had corrected to 5[, is it
clear that E/W would have done any better than they did defending 5}?
Gerard: “What a bloviation. I didn’t understand E/W’s argument until I saw the Our last two panelists, while recognizing that a BIT did not suggest anything
magic words, Rule of Coincidence. I mean, North was risking the disaster of a in particular (and certainly not passing 5}), still think the AWMW was undeserved.
missed slam by not signing off in 5[. And as for partnership morale, I can
guarantee you that it was a direct function of the result on the board, as is normally Goldsmith: “I bet there was a hesitation. South had a real problem. I bet she was
the case in these types of partnerships. I guess E/W wanted a shot at a contract they thinking of passing 4NT to avoid getting to some really ludicrous contract. If there
couldn’t misdefend for down two or could produce this defense for down three: was a hesitation, however, what would it indicate to North? I have no idea. North
]A, {AQ, spade. Right. After West apparently tried to cash the ]A at trick three, wouldn’t have any idea, either. So how could it affect his decision? Since the UI
that was about to happen.” doesn’t convey any useful information, North’s choice is unconstrained. I don’t
think I’d award an AWMW. From their perspective, something fishy happened and
Polisner: “When there is no unmistakable BIT, the case is over.” they were damaged. They didn’t follow proper procedure, but they probably just
didn’t know any better. I’d explain the process to them and not ding them. Few
Wolff: “Well done.” ACBL players have much experience dealing with psychs (although this wasn’t
one; a psych must be intentional) and the ACBL’s rules on psychs are a bit
=The next four panelists collectively reflect my own thoughts on this case. byzantine, so players’ confusion seems understandable.”
Rigal: “Very well handled by the Director. The circumstances of the case are odd Wildavsky: “North’s argument regarding passing 5} is incomplete. If his guess
(no correction to 5[ to avoid missing the grand slam) but given no clear BIT and that his side was off three key cards was correct then passing could do no harm, but
no revealing tempo by South, E/W should have followed the Director’s advice. One likewise bidding 5[ was unlikely to do harm, and it had an upside: it might avoid
other factor: A hesitation in showing aces does not normally mean ‘none,’ it means the zero they’d get for playing a cold 7NT in 5}. It seems likely to me that North
some other number; most people can add up to zero. One other common feature of noticed his partner’s distress one way or another. Further, if South really intended
slow responses is remembering what form of Keycard you play, which carries no to open 2[ I presume that she’d have used the Stop Card, so I find her statements
implications at all. So the BIT certainly does not demonstrably suggest that passing suspect. That’s not to say that there’s a basis for adjusting the score, but the
is the winning option—quite the reverse. How did this get through screening?” AWMW seems undeserved.”
Martel: “While not addressed since it was determined that there was no BIT, even =In my experience many players do not use the Stop Card consistently—if at all.
if there had been a clear BIT, there should be no adjustment here. The likely reason (Also remember that South had “only” 1800 MP, which could affect this tendency.)
for the BIT is not a psych thinking of passing, but figuring out what 4NT is So even if North really did notice distress on South’s part, as Adam suggests (why,
(Keycard or takeout, and if RKC, in which suit) and remembering what the since the write-up gives no hint of such a reaction?), South’s reaction would
responses are. Since neither of these point to passing 5}, the BIT doesn’t matter.” normally reflect confusion about the meaning of the 4NT bid or which
suit—diamonds or hearts or neither—was trumps (and that 5} might not reflect the
Bramley: “I agree. East had already taken the only appropriate course of action, number of key cards South held). I would think that suspicion that South had
which was to record the hand. Filing an appeal as well was a complete waste of psyched her 1[ opening is the last thing that would occur to North.
time. The auction is peculiar, but N/S’s defense of their actions makes perfect I would do precisely as the Panel did: allow the table result to stand and issue
sense. A well-deserved AWMW. Here I would have found no BIT even if South E/W an AWMW for this total waste of the Panel’s time after they were told twice,
took considerably longer than 3-4 seconds, because the 4NT bid is unexpected and by two separate Directors (at the table and in screening), that the score could not
South might need time to figure it out.” legally be changed and that a Player Memo was the appropriate way to continue if
they insisted on pursuing the matter.
L. Cohen: “Why down one and not two? Maybe a silly spade continuation at trick

9 10
 CASE FOUR enough arguments for passing 2[ to make pass an LA to double. Therefore, the
Committee disallowed the double and changed the contract to 2[ down two, +100
Subject (Tempo): He Who Hesitates Is Lost for N/S. In discussing the merits of N/S’s appeal, one Committee member
Event: Life Master Pairs, 22 Nov 03, Second Final Session considered the double to be nearly automatic while several others thought it either
attractive or the percentage action. Thus, the appeal was judged to have merit.
The Facts: 2[ doubled went down
Bd: 24 Robert Cappelli two, +300 for N/S. The opening lead DIC of Event: Chris Patrias
Dlr: West ] AJ53 was the }10. The Director was Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Bart Bramley, Doug Doub, Danny Sprung,
Vul: None [ 102 called at the end of the auction. Howard Weinstein
South said that North took 5 seconds
} 10976
{ A84
to pass 2[; E/W said he took longer. =First, the one panelist who sat on this Committee has a bit to add to the reasons
The Director ruled that passing 2[ the Committee gave for their decision.
Vandana Vidwans Rajeev Gupta was an LA for South. The contract
] K764 ] Q8 was changed to 2[ down two, +100 Bramley: “A hard case for us. Another argument for passing 2[ is that if North
[ 9876 [ A43 for N/S. held a singleton heart he might judge wrongly to pull a double. Note that even with
North’s superb defensive hand the contract was only down two. That suggests that
} Q2 } J53 The Appeal: N/S appealed the pass was definitely an LA for South, who was at the bottom end of his initial double
{ 1076 { KQ532 Director’s ruling. N/S believed that and whose partner was a passed hand.”
Michael Alioto North took about 5-7 seconds before
] 1092 passing 2[. N/S said that they were =The remaining panelists mostly support the Committee’s decision…
[ KQJ5 aggressive doublers and had doubled
nine of the fifteen contracts they had R Cohen: “I agree with both the Committee and Director.”
} AK84 defended this session. South thought
{ J9 that with a good chance of five Wolff: “Okay.”
tricks in his own hand and his
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH partner marked with some strength =…though many find what they believe are flaws in either the Committee’s
based on the bidding, double was a investigative efforts or in the write-up (though they are generally not thought
Pass Pass 1NT(1) Dbl(2) standout action at matchpoints. He serious enough to reject the Committee’s final decision).
2[(3) Pass(4) Pass Dbl was surprised that the opponents
All Pass called the Director after seeing his L. Cohen: “The ‘nine of the fifteen’ doubled contracts does sound self-serving and
(1) 12-14 HCP hand. E/W judged that North paused was probably an exaggeration, but I suppose it could be verified. I do wonder why
(2) 13+ HCP for 10-12 seconds before passing nobody addressed the issue of methods. Most people play that after a double of a
2[. They did not think South’s weak notrump, a force is created (through 2], at least). So in the final of the LM
(3) Weakish with spades and hearts double was sufficiently clear to be Pairs, I’d wonder if N/S could even allow their opponents to play in 2[ undoubled.
(4) BIT allowed after North’s value- Other than that, well written and well-reasoned. Good decision.”
suggesting BIT. North had about
2600 MP, South 2400, East 700 and =We would hope the Committee investigated the forcing/non-forcing nature of
West 1000. the N/S auction, but if they did they certainly should have reported their findings.
As it turns out, several of the perceived flaws were not flaws at all.
The Committee Decision: Although N/S did not think North paused for as long as
E/W did, they did admit to a slight BIT. Further, North’s hand contained significant Gerard: “Unless I’m mistaken, South has a lot more than 2400 masterpoints.
undisclosed values which suggested that it would not have been easy for him to [Sorry, but not according to ACBL records. I suspect Ron has South here confused
pass smoothly. Thus, the Committee decided that there had been a BIT. It was with another player with a similar name.—Ed.] That changes the nature of the N/S
plausible that North held a long minor for his hesitation but lacked the strength to partnership. No further comment, it would be a rank injustice anyway.”
bid at the three level. However, it was far more likely that North held a hand similar
to his actual one: balanced, with respectable values but no convenient way to Martel: “Looks well reasoned. Only complaint is that I doubt 2[ showed a weak
express them. Opposite that type of hand the chance that a double would be hand. Likely it was the only way to show the majors with less than invitational
successful was much higher than opposite a hand of lesser strength. Thus, the UI values (so West could easily have 8-9 points).”
demonstrably suggested that doubling 2[ was more likely to be the winning action
for South than passing. Was passing 2[ an LA to doubling? North’s typical share =Perhaps that’s why 2[ was described as “weakish” rather than just “weak.”
of the combined HCP held by North and West was about 6-7 HCP, which might Regarding the issue of merit, there is some difference of opinion as to whether
produce a couple of tricks on average. Many successful matchpoint players would an AWMW was warranted.
choose to double with the South hand. On the other hand, North could have as little
as 2-3 HCP. West might hold the [A or a singleton diamond and 2[ doubled Polisner: “I am surprised the Committee was so inclined to believe that doubling
would make. If 2[ is down only one trick, the matchpoint difference between +50 was so attractive. Wouldn’t it be for takeout on this auction? I think most pairs
and +100 could be fairly small. Further, South’s double of 1NT may have pushed would play it for takeout and am surprised that North passed at the table rather than
E/W into an inferior contract, giving N/S a plus position on the board. South would bidding 3] or 4]. I think an AWMW should have been issued.”
have led a high heart against 1NT, quite possibly costing a trick. There are certainly

11 12
 +50 and +100. But they are going down two or three anyway, so that’s really
=Au contraire, counselor. When an opponent’s notrump opening is doubled for irrelevant. Result stands.
penalties, subsequent doubles are typically penalty (or show transferrable values in “It’s time to figure out a way to get players to stop telling Committees
a relatively balanced hand, willing to defend if partner passes). Had South’s initial nonsense like ‘We double very aggressively.’ It doesn’t do any good: such
double been takeout, subsequent doubles might also be takeout, as Jeff suggests. comments are rejected as self-serving. It only muddies the water. In close cases, I
think Committees tend to rule against players who tell them baloney like that, too.
Rigal: “Based on the length of the deliberation here I think the non-award of an That’s only human nature.”
AWMW is right. Given the MP stated for N/S, presumably it was not a client/pro
relationship. N/S’s methods are so flawed here that North virtually has to hesitate =My sense is that trying to get players not to make self-serving statements (even
in order to show this hand. That being so, the Committee’s decision was clearly the nonsensical ones) to Directors or Committees is like trying to get them not to take
right one: the example hands constructed at the time emphasize that the double is an action they find attractive after they receive UI from their partner that suggests
not gilt-edged (though guilt-edged is another matter).” that action. Players will convince themselves that any action they want to take is
clear-cut and they’ll take it anyhow, regardless of any UI that’s present. Similarly,
=The presence of a client/pro relationship is not always based solely on the pro’s players will make any argument to a Director or Committee, no matter how silly,
MP holding. There are many “Flight B” pros and even those in “Flight A” are not if it appears to justify their actions. People do not act logically in these situations
always hired strictly for their bridge expertise (many are hired for their pleasant, and they cannot appreciate the frame of mind they were in before the UI occurred.
calm, and complimentary demeanor at the table rather then their playing skills). That’s human nature.
The Committee’s performance was not the only target of criticism, as our next So where am I on this case? First, I agree with the Committee that it’s likely
panelist demonstrates. there was a BIT. Second, for the reasons I stated earlier, I would not accept N/S’s
claim that the actual auction was forcing without concrete documentation. Add to
Wildavsky: “The Director’s ruling is incomplete; let’s do these things by the book. that Bart’s point—that North might wrongly judge to pull a double with heart
Whether an LA is available is not relevant unless the Director concludes that UI shortness—and the fact that N/S’s argument—that North was marked with strength
was present and that it suggested one action over another. South’s argument that his based on the auction—does not hold up when North can hold as little as 3 HCP and
partner was marked with some strength was disingenuous. It was North’s hesitation I would not allow the double after the BIT. (By the way, a double of 2[ by North
which marked him with values. The Committee did a fine job, but I’d have found is best used to show constructive values, not a heart stack.) Thus, I would cancel the
no merit in the appeal.” double and change the contract to 2[ down two. As for the merits, I think it’s close.
I’m not opposed to issuing an AWMW to stress to South his obligation not to take
=I hope no one else seriously believes the existence of pass as an LA to double any questionable action once UI from his partner makes his action more attractive.
was used to justify the score adjustment here. I’m fairly confident that the Director But since several Committee members thought that South’s double was
also determined that there was a BIT, that the UI from it demonstrably suggested “automatic,” I doubt that an AWMW was possible.
the double, and that the failure to include it in the write-up was just an oversight (as
I’ve said before, we aren’t dealing with professional writers here). And just to be
fair to N/S, it is AI to them that E/W were unlikely to hold sufficient high cards for
game (25-26 HCP) when they stopped in 2[ (unless E/W were having an accident
and West intended 2[ as forcing, which seems unlikely). Thus, North was marked
with “some” values (but perhaps as few as 3 HCP) even absent any UI. (This also
relates to Larry’s suggestion that most people—perhaps even N/S here—would
treat North’s pass of 2[ as forcing. But if South can double 1NT with impunity
with as little as a balanced 13-count, it seems rather dangerous to play North’s pass
of West’s two-level runout as forcing when N/S’s combined assets might consist
of only about 16 HCP in two balanced hands, with no proven fit.)
Finally, one panelist allows the double of 2[, judging that “South’s passing 2[
is ridiculous.” (Note: His own preferred method—consistent with what Larry said
earlier—is that a double of 1NT creates a force through two of a suit.)
Goldsmith: “Again, all that’s at issue is whether passing 2[ was an LA. For me,
it’s not. I play North’s pass as forcing. I think most experienced regular partnerships
have an agreement about how far they are forced after 1NT is doubled. It’s too bad
that N/S didn’t have an agreement to that effect, though I have to admit that I don’t
write it on my CC, though one of my partners does so he can remember how far we
are forced (through 2]). Upon reflection, it’s time to start writing that down so that
we won’t get stuck in a position like this. It won’t do just to Alert the pass; that’ll
allow a pair to play slow passes as forcing and fast ones as not. (Is a forcing pass
here Alertable?) My personal judgment is that South’s passing 2[ is ridiculous.
South rates to have five tricks in his hand, and if partner were broke he’d be playing
1NT redoubled. Is it ridiculous to this South? I think so. If it were IMPs, there’d be
some reason not to double. But at matchpoints, I can’t see any, and in contrast to
the Committee’s opinion, I think there rates to be a significant difference between

13 14
 CASE FIVE Polisner: “Such an overwhelming opinion from the players consulted is important,
but not dispositive. I think a better procedure for polling peers is in two parts: (1)
Subject (Tempo): The Peers Speak What would your action be? and (2) Would you seriously consider the alternative
Event: AM Compact KO, 22 Nov 03, Second Session action? If many of the peers would seriously have considered passing, I would have
voted for the Director’s ruling.”
The Facts: 4] went down one, +50
Bd: 14 ] --- for N/S. The opening lead was the = A better procedure—and one with the advantage of actually being legal—is to
Dlr: East [ KQ1084 [K. The Director was called after the ask a number of players what call they would make and see if a substantial number
Vul: None } 9432 4] bid and told that East hesitated of them actually choose the LA. (If this sounds familiar it should, it’s the approach
{ J752 before passing 4[. (N/S thought she that’s currently used.) Most players don’t know what “seriously consider” means.
took 15-20 seconds; East thought 6-7 (Even the Laws Commission couldn’t agree on what it meant until fairly recently.)
] QJ10732 ] A9865 seconds.) West said he did not bid 3] The current definition of LA (Anaheim, Summer 2000) requires that “‘seriously
[9 [ A32 on the previous round because he did considered’ must imply that some number of one’s peers would actually make the
} KQ85 } J76 not want to push N/S into game. The call considered.” Thus, it is not sufficient for some consultants to simply say that
{ 106 { 94 Director ruled that there had been an they “seriously considered” an action if none of them would actually have taken it.
unmistakable BIT that suggested the Perhaps a more useful approach would be to ask each player not only what call
] K4 4] bid. The contract was changed to he would make but, after receiving his answer, to then ask him if he thinks it’s close
[ J765 4[ made five, +450 for N/S. and there are other actions that he might also take. For example, a consultant might
} A10 say, if pressed, that while he chose to bid 4] he considered passing, or that a pass
{ AKQ83 The Appeal: E/W appealed the could easily be right, or that it was close and on another day he might have passed.
Director’s ruling. West said he did Given such an approach it should be possible to conclude that pass was an LA even
not want to drive the opponents into if all the “primary” votes were for bidding 4].
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH game by bidding 3] over 3[, but Another suggestion for a possible tweak in our methodology comes from White
Pass 1{ once they bid game he thought that Plains.
1] Dbl 2{(1) 3[ bidding 4] was the right action. (He
Pass 4[ Pass(2) Pass thought his side had no defense Gerard: “Seeking enlightenment as to how bids such as 3] ‘drive’ the opponents
against 4[.) N/S said they did not to 4[. Is it a rule, like the Law? Oh well, I guess the peers all think that way so
4] All Pass push on to 5[ because they thought we’re stuck with this decision given our current system. By the way, I don’t for a
(1) Four-card limit raise the Director would roll the contract minute believe that any of the peers would bid 4] over 3[, so maybe the evidence
(2) BIT (“agreed”) back to 4[. N/S both thought West has to be adjusted.”
made an “illegal” bid which would
not be allowed to stand. East had =That’s a good point. If West bid 3] over 3[ would we then allow him to bid
about 2150 MP, West 320, North 1290 and South 700. 4] over 4[ in spite of the BIT? I’m not convinced.
Yet another suggestion for a possible methodological reform comes from our
The Panel Decision: The Panel polled a dozen players who were considered man in Pasadena.
West’s peers (about 350 MP). All but one said they would bid 4] over 4[; most
bid it over 3[ but said they would bid it over 4[ if they had passed 3[. The Goldsmith: “‘Four-card limit raise?’ How do they show three-card limit raises?
Reviewer explained to N/S that a hesitation does not necessarily bar the hesitator’s [I’d guess by bidding 2[, assuming the negative double promises hearts, thus
partner and that the opponents should continue to bid their hands as though no making a second cue-bid available.—Ed.] If there were some confusion about the
irregularity had occurred. Three experts were also consulted about West’s 4] bid. answer to that, E/W would have some trouble getting their 4] back. But otherwise,
One said he would not allow West to bid since he had passed over 3[. Two others 4] seems obvious. White at IMPs, what’s the downside, lose four? Then again, it
said they would allow the 4] bid. Because of the overwhelming evidence from the seemed obvious on the previous round. In fact, 4] is a pretty good contract. The
peers that the 4] bid was indicated, the Panel decided that pass was not an LA and reviewer did a good job. It’s worthwhile to explain to N/S that just because a
that Law 16 had not been violated. The table result of 4] down one, +50 for N/S, possible irregularity has occurred, it’s insufficient for them to assume that there was
was allowed to stand. one. They still have to play bridge. I don’t see either of them bidding 5[,
regardless, but it’s good to tell them that the hand isn’t necessarily over if there is
DIC of Event: Jeff Alexander a problem.”
Panel: Candy Kuschner (Reviewer), Ken Van Cleve, Matt Smith
Players consulted: Bill Cole, Mark Itabashi, Linda Lewis, twelve players with =One panelist suggests (illegally?) that some punishment is in order.
about 350 MP
Wolff: “N/S earned their +50 by using poor judgment. If E/W are allowed to keep
=As one might hope (and as the title suggests)… their –50 they should be penalized 1/2 to 3/4 of a board for what should be called
hesitation disruption (HD). It is time everyone wakes up and understands how to
R Cohen: “Well, the Panel followed the result of the consultants. This seems to be improve our game.”
SOP now (see CASE ONE).”
=It seems that we’ve been here before. Thinking is not itself an infraction,
=Given this approach, was some other decision possible? though taking a questionable action when UI from partner favors that action is. But
if peer input indicates that the action is clear cut, then there was no infraction and

15 16
nothing that’s legally punishable. To punish someone for merely thinking is make. (Ten percent will vote for Nixon—no matter what.) As for the expert
draconian. consultation, I agree that it was inappropriate in this case to consult experts about
Resigning himself to the results of the peer poll is… the actions of a player with only 320 MP. (Of course if the Directors needed input
on the play/defense to assign an adjusted score—which was clearly not the case
L. Cohen: “The Panel Decision seems to start in the middle. First, they need to here—such consultation might have been appropriate.) I doubt that the experts were
establish that there was a BIT. East said 6-7 seconds; they need to say why they are asked about the laws or whether 4] should be allowed. More likely they were
presuming the BIT. Next, did East’s slow pass suggest one action over another? I’m asked about West’s action over 4[, just as the peers had been. But when a Director
not positive. Why couldn’t East be thinking of a penalty double with: ]Axxx asks an expert for a bridge opinion (obviously for the purpose of making a ruling)
[KQ10 }xxx {Qxx (in which case West’s 4] would be very wrong)? Anyway, and the expert guesses what happened at the table, he may respond with a “legal”
if we agree with the BIT and agree (not clearly) that the slow pass indicated West’s opinion (e.g., “I wouldn’t allow West to bid over 4[ since he passed 3[.”) even
4], then we can pick up where The Panel Decision begins. I’d bid 4] with West’s though he wasn’t asked for one.
hand, but wouldn’t think it clearly meets the criteria. But, as the title says, the peers Whether the evidence is “overwhelming” or not is clearly a judgment call. Are
have spoken, so I’d go with their vote.” eleven votes in twelve for bidding 4] “overwhelming” evidence that 4] should be
allowed? Thirteen in fifteen? Seventeen in eighteen? (You get the idea.) The Panel
=The following panelists have diametrically opposing views of the table ruling… judged that eleven out of twelve was overwhelming (I happen to agree; one can
always find an odd-ball vote in any poll, especially as the sample size gets larger).
Bramley: “A better table ruling would have made an appeal by N/S meritless. This And passing 4[ does not need to be found to be “illogical” in order to allow the 4]
is a great example of a double shot, since N/S admitted that they stopped bidding bid; passing needs to be ruled out as an LA (that is, it needs to be shown that one
their cards in expectation of a favorable ruling. Sorry, no can do.” cannot find a significant number of West’s peers who would actually pass 4[). If
two or three out of twelve peers would pass 4[, then pass is an LA and 4] must be
Rigal: “Again, I’m very happy to see the Directors not imposing their judgment in disallowed, even if the Director thinks passing is illogical. (The peer poll would
cases like this, but ruling for the non-offenders and making the offenders bring their then show that, for the level of player involved, passing is a possible action.) We’ve
case to court. This one is actually close enough that I could have understood it if the seen many instances in the past of players who gave passionate but irrational
Director said that passing 4[ was not an LA. But the fact that a small minority of excuses to try to justify their illogical actions. Players take illogical actions all the
the consulted players did pass makes the initial Director ruling right. The Panel, I time. Just because we find that an action is illogical doesn’t mean that the player (or
think, were swayed by their own feelings to let the 4] bid stand because they his peers) would not take that action at the table. If some of the player’s peers
thought it so obvious. As in CASE ONE, I am not convinced that the expert poll would have taken it, then unless the player makes a compelling case to the Director
points to that but I think justice was done. However; I admit I am looking at it from at the table that the LA action was impossible (perhaps citing systemic constraints),
the point of view of a player with more than 320 MP; we have to consider the we should be prepared to entertain the possibility that the player might have taken
appropriate level of player to come to the right decision.” it, especially given that UI was present to help him avoid it.
Putting aside my own views of the relative merits of bidding 4] over 4[
=…and there’s still a nit to be picked in the details of the write-up; and more on versus passing (I would have acted over 3[ but, as Barry already pointed out, our
the Panel’s methodology. opinions are irrelevant here), the peers make it clear that pass was not an LA. Thus,
while I do not like the Panel’s decision, I must support it since I would have made
Wildavsky: “The Director’s ruling is again incomplete; it neglects to mention that exactly the same decision given the results of the peer poll. (I also support the
he considered pass an LA to 4]. (The Director is supposed to use the definition of Directors’ ruling since they probably did not have access to an extensive player poll
LA contained in the Tech files; see my comment in CASE ONE.) I don’t like the at the time they made it.)
Panel’s methodology here for several reasons. ‘All but one said they would bid 4]
over 4[; most bid it over 3[ but said they would bid it over 4[ if they had passed
3[.’ (a) The actions of a player who would bid 4] over 3[ are not relevant. What
we want to know is, of those who passed over 3[, how many bid 4] over 4[? (b)
One player would pass 4[? Apparently he did not say that he’d seriously consider
passing but that he would pass. That seems clear enough. Under our current
standards I believe that makes pass an LA. (c) Why were three experts consulted
as to whether the bid should be allowed? They are experts on bridge play, not on
the laws. As I understand the intent of the Panel process it is for the players to
render bridge judgments and for the Panel to apply the laws given those judgments
as they apply to the facts of the case. The poll of West’s peers ought to have been
the only poll that was relevant. (d) The Panel’s write-up uses this phrase: ‘Because
of the overwhelming evidence from the peers that the 4] bid was indicated…’ Why
is the evidence overwhelming? To allow the bid the Panel must find that pass would
have been illogical. One of the peers said he would have passed. Is the Panel saying
that this player’s action, because it was chosen by a minority, was illogical? All
told, I find that the Director did a better job than the Panel.”
=To save time (and space) readers are invited to reread my response to Adam’s
comment on CASE ONE. In addition, finding one player in twelve who would take
a certain action (or even admit that he seriously considered it) does not an LA

17 18
 CASE SIX addressed this question nicely in 1995. His example is available on The Bridge
World’s web site:
Subject (Tempo): No LA to Reopening http://bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samed.html.
Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 23 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session One pair of sentences apply equally well to the case at hand: “Would it have been
obviously foolish to pass, an egregious error, absurd? No, it wouldn’t—pass would
The Facts: 2] doubled went down be right quite often.” Another way to consider the case is to look at the behavior the
Bd: 18 Peter Bertheau one, +200 for E/W. The opening law is intended to achieve: to encourage players to bid in tempo. We all know that
Dlr: East ] 97 lead was not recorded. The Director 10 seconds is an eternity in a low-level auction. No player in an NABC event
Vul: N/S [ Q10984 was called at the end of the auction. should need 15 seconds to decide what action to take with the West hand. Anyone
} KQ All four players agreed that West who takes that much time must do so with the full realization that his side will be
broke tempo before passing 2] (no given no benefit of the doubt concerning any close decision by his partner. Rulings
{ K652 Stop Card was used). The Appeal such as this one allow an advantage to accrue to a player who breaks tempo with
Joe Quinn Ira Hessel Form indicated that all four players the West hand. If this continues our game will be the poorer for it.
] AJ3 ] 62 agreed that West took 15 seconds to A methodological change would help here. I suggest that a Director should rule
[ A7 [ K62 pass 2] but this changed when the that an action has no LA only when he has taken a poll of the player’s peers and
case was screened (see below). The found no one who would choose a less successful call. One advantage of this
} J10432 } A765 Director ruled that although there approach would be to make the results of the poll available to the Committee should
{ 1093 { AJ74 had been a BIT, there was no LA to the decision be appealed. I took an informal poll after the Committee rendered its
Jessica Piafsky reopening with a double with the decision. The first four people I asked, all better players than I, said they’d pass.
] KQ10854 East hand (Law 16). The table result The next three said they’d double but that they thought it was close. Poll results will
[ J53 was allowed to stand. not always be dispositive. A player can always try to explain to the Director or
Committee why he believes he had no LA. For instance, some pairs note on their
} 98 The Appeal: N/S appealed the CC that “At the two level we always reopen with a doubleton in the opponents’
{ Q8 Director’s ruling. East did not attend suit.” I would allow a member of such a pair to reopen here. The note must be on
the hearing. When Screening the card, though, apart from anything else the opponents have a right to know.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Director presented the facts he told
the Committee that in screening DIC of Event: Steve Bates
1} 2] West said he thought he hesitated Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Lowell Andrews, David
Pass(1) Pass Dbl All Pass over 2] for about 10 seconds, or Berkowitz, Adam Wildavsky
(1) BIT perhaps a bit less, while N/S thought
the hesitation was longer than 10 =Just in case you thought the dissenter already said all there was to say, he has
seconds, but not egregiously longer. one further point to share with us.
When N/S were asked if they had anything to add they said no, they believed the
reason for the appeal was clear from the facts. North was an expert internationalist Wildavsky: “I dissented on this case and nothing I’ve learned since causes me to
from Sweden who played only occasionally in North America. North had about 710 change my mind. One thing disturbed me about the Committee’s deliberations more
ACBL MP, South 1010, West 7030 and East 6470. than anything else. No other Committee member was willing to concede that saying
that pass is not an LA is equivalent to calling pass illogical.”
The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that there had been an
unmistakable BIT which made bidding with the East hand more attractive than = Perhaps that’s because the two are not equivalent. Although I already addressed
passing. However, the Committee also believed that few if any players in East’s this problem in the previous case, here’s another way to think about it. Suppose the
peer group would pass 2]. Thus, the double and the table result were allowed to East hand was so bad that almost no one would seriously consider reopening and
stand. One member of the Committee believed strongly that pass was an LA, so no forcing his side to defend 2] doubled or play in a possible four-three fit at the three
AWMW was assessed. level. For example, give East ]Jx [QJx }Kxxx {KQxx (or something similar if
you think this is too good). Now West could certainly hold a hand that’s close to
Dissenting Opinion (Adam Wildavsky): I disagree with the Director’s ruling and a penalty double of 2] (e.g., ]K108x [Axx }xx {Axxx), or one that’s just short
Committee’s decision. The Committee agreed that East had UI that made double of the values (or shape) needed for a negative double, but with which 3{ or 3}
more attractive than it would have been otherwise. That means we can allow East would play quite well (e.g., ]xxx [Kxx }xx {A10xxx). So no one will claim that
to double only if there is no LA. Many players would pass out 2] with the East a double of 2] with that East hand is “illogical” but at the same time no one (or
hand; a pass would in no way be illogical. The Committee agreed that one or two only a few members of the lunatic fringe) would actually reopen. So saying that a
players out of ten would pass, but did not concede that that made pass an LA. In call is not an LA is not equivalent to saying it’s “illogical,” only that it’s a very
1992 the ACBL Laws Commission clarified the meaning of the term “LA” as “an unpopular action.
action that some number of your peers would seriously consider in a vacuum.” This As for Adam’s claim that if even one player would seriously consider passing,
was further clarified in 2000 with “It is generally accepted, however, that ‘seriously pass must be an LA, that ignores something important: the Law of Large Numbers.
considered’ must imply that some number of one’s peers would actually make the (The LoLN predicts that large samples will tend to better reflect the makeup of the
call considered.” Knowing that at least one or two players in ten would pass is not population from which they come.) Ignoring the role of sample size misses a key
necessary to make pass an LA, but it is certainly sufficient. What matters is whether factor in determining the outcome of polls. For example, suppose passers make up
an advantage might have accrued from the UI. If 10 or 20 percent of players would a very small segment of the player’s peer group, say 3 percent just for illustrative
pass then the call is logical according to the definition above. Edgar Kaplan purposes. (Other percentages will produce similar results.) Poll three peers and the

19 20
chance that none of them will be a passer is over 91 percent. But poll twelve peers statements were being made about West’s tempo. But one thing we know is that at
(as in CASE FIVE) and the chance that none of them will be a passer is only about the table, where the most reliable information is usually obtained, an impartial
69 percent. In other words, the chance of turning up at least one passer in the poll Director heard everyone agree that West took 15 seconds (not 10) to pass 2].
has risen to over 30 percent—almost one-in-three—even though passers make up
only 3 percent of the peers. So if a single passer makes pass an LA, as Adam Goldsmith: “It’s curious that a Committee would decide that 10 seconds constitutes
claims, then we can virtually guarantee that pass will be an LA by taking a large a clear BIT. I believe that it can be, but the rules say that regardless of the use of a
poll and we can minimize the chance that it will be an LA by keeping the poll size Stop Card, West must wait 10 seconds. In practice, very few do, so the legally
small. mandated hesitation can be a BIT. Was West deciding what to do or just waiting?
Note: This principle makes it possible to increase the chances that any poll will He could have bid 2NT or 3}. 3} seems like an underbid. Obviously, however, he
turn out the way we wish by controlling the sample size. For example, suppose we was thinking of 2NT if anything, since he passed the double despite five-card
estimate that only 10 percent of a player’s peers would make a certain bid that we support for partner. All in all, I still can’t tell if there was a real BIT. Is reopening
wish to impose on the player. (Don’t try this yourself, kids.) If it only takes one peer automatic? At BAM, I doubt more than one in a hundred would pass (the one being
in the poll making the bid for it to be an LA, then by polling only three peers we Marshall Miles).”
stand only a 27 percent chance of being able to impose it as an LA. But if we
increase the sample size to five we increase our chances of imposing the bid to =Hmm. why are some panelists so willing to accept as gospel the revisionist
about 41 percent. And by increasing it further, to twelve, we increase our chances statements of the offenders over those of the opponents, the Director, and even their
of imposing the bid to over 72 percent—that’s better than a two-in-three chance that own admissions at the table? And why does BAM scoring make reopening so
our poll will allow us to impose a bid that only 10 percent of the peers would make. attractive (as opposed to, say, matchpoints)?
I was in Adam’s poll and said that I’d reopen, but I thought it was close and Think you’ve heard everything there is to hear about this case? Well, fasten
that some players would pass (making pass an LA). Similar reactions come from… your seatbelt ‘cause you ain’t heard nothin’ yet.
Bramley: “No. I wouldn’t pass, but I know many people who would. Wasn’t one Gerard: “Everyone go stand in the corner. First the majority for not giving us its
of them on the Committee? So why couldn’t the Committee see that pass was an reasoning and forcing us to rely on the dissent for the details. Then the dissent for
LA? At a minimum the Committee should have given a split decision against both the obligatory Kaplan quote and the ever-so-annoying didactic manner. Then both
sides, –200 to N/S and +100 to E/W. But really they should have ruled reciprocally, sides plus the Director for misanalyzing LAs and demonstrably suggested.
cancelling the double and assigning the result for 2] down one to both sides. The “I have no idea what percentage action a reopening double is. I would double
dissenter was correct.” without much thought but admit that others might view it differently. However, to
answer one expatriate Appeals Administrator, this is not a miserable 12-count. [I’ve
L. Cohen: “I must be out of touch—with at least four Committee members, never characterized the East hand at all, and certainly not as a ‘miserable’ 12-count.
anyway. With 1=4=4=4 I could see that ‘all’ Easts would reopen. But with a And while I may be a lame duck AA, expatriate, never!—Ed.] Perfect it’s not, but
minimum and a doubleton spade and only three cards in the unbid major? it’s nearly all primed with plenty of trick-taking ability and support. And if you pass
Personally, I would double (I think, although not 100 percent, it’s a losing action and it’s wrong you will normally get a bad board, probably almost as bad as if you
to sell out here) but it’s close. I know that no Easts in the classes I teach would bid and it’s wrong. The Committee gave us its best guess that double is an 80-90
think of acting. True, this was a different level of East player but still, why is percent action. Let’s call it 85, which means that pass in their view is a 15 percent
double so automatic? For sure this appeal had merit, so much so that I would have action. Others say pass is closer to a 40 percent (said expatriate AA) [I said no such
decided the other way. Good job, Adam. Disappointing to see my partner in crime thing.—Ed.] or nearly 100 percent (said annoying didactician) action. These are just
deciding the other way. As Zia would say, I’ll have to ‘ring him up and give him a bunch of different opinions. Forcing Directors to take a poll before issuing their
a firing.’ AWMW? Give me a break!” rulings would lead to additional administrative responsibility they didn’t bargain for
and a revival of the cry to get rid of Committees. I mean, if the Directors have to
Rigal: “To my mind the Committee, and the Director especially, were way off base. take a poll just in case the Committee might find that there is no LA (or that there
With a 12-count and a doubleton spade the number of hands where action is wrong is, for that matter), why can’t a Panel apply the results as well as a Committee? And
is surely large enough that pass must be an LA. I’m surprised that such an eminent the dissenter’s poll is suspect anyway, since (gasp!) it agrees with his position.
Committee bought the Brooklyn Bridge here. The dissent goes further than I would “So the Committee said that only 15 percent would pass and that that doesn’t
in trying to find new ways to define LAs, but it’s general import is clearly correct make it an LA. The dissent said that as many as 15 percent would pass and that that
to my mind. By the way, I could have lived with a non-reciprocal decision here, but does make it an LA. Too bad neither one of them understands the law. If the 15
my preference would be to let the non-offenders get the benefit of the doubt.” percent represents the same number that would seriously consider passing, then I
think the Committee is right. After all, in the old days this wouldn’t have met the
Wolff: “Ridiculous. If West makes a quick pass and East passes what are N/S’s one-in-six standard and it’s not ridiculous to use that as an informal guideline. But
rights? Obviously none, so why should E/W get all the best of it?” more likely the fact that 15 percent would pass means that some greater number
would seriously consider it, which should be enough to tilt pass into the LA
=Some panelists question whether there really was a BIT… category. The law envisions a two-step process: would ‘some number’ seriously
consider it and would ‘some number’ (of that number) actually do it. The actual
R Cohen: “Why was there a BIT? After the Skip Bid wasn’t West required to doers have to be less than the serious considerers, it’s subject to mathematical
pause before making a call? Isn’t that what he did? Did the Committee consider this proof. So I would say that the Committee’s 15 percent guess indicates that enough
factor in determining an ‘unmistakable hesitation’? The write-up is not conclusive of the peers would seriously consider pass to constitute some number, and that the
in this regard. The final decision was correct, but perhaps for the wrong reason.” 15 percent itself is some number of that number.
“But everyone is treating West’s slow pass as demonstrably suggesting East’s
=Perhaps the write-up isn’t clear because by the time of the hearing, conflicting double. The aforementioned AA says ‘you know what he has, making double a 100

21 22
percent action.’ [There must be some other expatriate AA out there.—Ed.] In my CASE SEVEN
experience, good players know to pass quickly with a clear penalty double. Just
think of all the times you had the overcaller married; did you ever have to sit there Subject (Tempo): Double Double Huddle Trouble
and stew about passing? No, to hesitate in that situation means you don’t know Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Second Final Session
what to do. That West eventually passed out East’s double didn’t mean that he
always thought he had a penalty double; at some point he decided to pass but only The Facts: 5] doubled went down
after considering other options. There are at least four of those other options and all Bd: 12 Bill Schreiber one, +200 for E/W. The opening
of them would have produced a better result than pass if East couldn’t reopen. So Dlr: West ] KQJ632 lead was the }A. The Director was
in addition to deciding what to do, West had to decide whether it was likely that Vul: N/S [ Q4 called after the play ended. All four
East would pass it out. That doesn’t demonstrably suggest anything to East. If West } 64 players agreed that East hesitated
is considering whether to bid an immediate 2NT or 3} or 3[ and decided he wasn’t before he doubled 4]; East thought
worth it, it is not more attractive to bid with the East hand than to pass. I suppose { 632 he took 7-9 seconds, the other three
it would be okay if West were considering 3{, but opposite anything other than that Dave Treadwell Darwin Afdahl players all thought he took 10-12
or converting the double East probably doesn’t want to get involved. All sides think ] 10 ] --- seconds. The Director ruled that
that East knew that West would sit it out, while in my view that would have been [ K852 [ A976 there had been an unmistakable BIT
the continuation I would have least expected as East. that demonstrably suggested
“The bottom line is that pass was an LA but double was not demonstrably } 109875 } AKQJ3 bidding 5[ and that pass was an LA
suggested, so the result stands. Maybe next time we can explain ourselves as the { 854 { KJ107 (Law 16). The contract was changed
majority or avoid dragging our fingernails across the blackboard as the dissent. And Bob Schwartz to 4] doubled made four, +790 for
it would help if someone had a firmer grasp of the principles involved, since you ] A98754 N/S.
really should know the law whether you’re legislating or pontificating.” [ J103
The Appeal: E/W appealed the
=Most of Ron’s analysis of the LA issue (excluding the statements he mistakenly }2 Director’s ruling. South did not
attributes to me) is right on target, but his arguments about what the BIT suggests { AQ9 attend the hearing. East said that
(in his next-to-last paragraph) require comment. Regardless of how many options over 4] he was thinking about
West had to consider before he finally passed 2] (penalizing 2] and whether East WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH whether to double or bid 4NT. He
would reopen if he passed; raising diamonds competitively, or more strongly; Pass 2] Dbl 4] thought about it for 7-9 seconds and
bidding 2NT or 3{), the fact that he had to think for noticeably longer than 10 then doubled. West said he did not
seconds had to mean that he either had values or something else that East would Pass Pass Dbl(1) Pass consider pass to be an LA with his
find useful (spades; moderate diamond support; clubs but not hearts, else he would 5[ Pass Pass 5] hand. North said that after the
negative double), all of which make reopening more attractive/safer. So why does Dbl All Pass bidding but before the play,
none of this demonstrably suggests anything to East? If West decided he wasn’t (1) BIT everyone agreed there had been a
worth an immediate 2NT, 3} or 3[, doesn’t that suggest that E/W likely have a BIT. He added that the Director, in
good save over 2], which N/S will probably make? True, West could have a sloppy delivering the ruling, said he had
hand such as ]Jxx [Axxx }Qxx {Qxx opposite which there are simply too many polled several players and their opinion was that pass was an LA for West. The
losers (not to mention no good suit in which to play), but West could also hold one Committee learned that the defense had gone: }A (West playing a high diamond
of the hands I gave earlier, after Adam’s comment. Heck, as little as ]xxx [xxx calling for a heart switch), then [A and a heart. They also learned that in assigning
}KQxx {109x makes 3} a good save—especially if no one can double. And a score for 4] doubled the Directors considered a possible club switch by East at
finally, we tend to overlook that when a player huddles, suggesting a desire to enter trick two and rejected it. East had about 9140 MP, West 23,700, North 4070 and
the auction, his partner tends to envision all the good things that can happen if he South 3780.
bids again (after all, East has good, prime values even though he’s minimum—see,
I don’t think it’s a miserable 12-count), much to the exclusion of the bad things. It’s The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that East had taken about 10-12
only human nature to be optimistic. seconds to double 4] and that a pause of about 5 seconds would have been proper
So my bottom line is that I agree with the dissenter (though not with his tempo. Therefore, a BIT had occurred. Next they considered what action the BIT
didactic about LAs) and would force East to pass 2], adjusting the score to suggested and decided it did not demonstrably suggest any one action over another
reciprocal 100s. But just to demonstrate the diversity of opinion on this case… (which made it unnecessary to verify the results of Director’s poll or to consider
whether East might have shifted to a club at trick two defending 4] doubled, thus
Martel: “Pass seems like an LA to me, but given the unclear facts about the setting the contract one trick). The Committee restored the table result of 5]
hesitation the decision is okay.” doubled down one, +200 for E/W.
Polisner: “Assuming that E/W use negative doubles (not stated) the auction is DIC of Event: Steve Bates
routine and an AWMW should have been issued.” Committee: Steve Weinstein (chair), Larry Cohen, Ed Lazarus (scribe), Chris
Moll, Eddie Wold
=Hmm, how many players do you know with 6500-7000 MP who don’t use
negative doubles? =Once again one of our panelists sat on the Committee, and he gets to go first.
L. Cohen: “I still agree (and I like the perfect and concise way that Ed wrote it up).
I just hope Gerard doesn’t mention the LOTT. If he does, I’ll have to e-mail him all

23 24
the adjustments needed on this deal.” more than their game or even the value of a slam, if one makes (the {Q must be
onside). So passing 4] doubled has quite a bit going for it, even with a BIT, and it’s
=Oh no, not that! But in a brilliant act of clairvoyance (or is it precognition?) difficult to make a good case that the (questionable) BIT “demonstrably” suggests
Ron manages to avoid the threatened lesson in LOTT adjustments. pulling.
The following panelists echo many of these points.
Gerard: “Is pass really an LA to 5[? It’s not like the auction went 4]-Dbl-P. LAs
come before demonstrably suggested.” Martel: “Good job by the Committee. The BIT certainly does not suggest 5[.
Partner could have lots of reasons for a slow double, including having a defensive
=Or after, whichever order is found to be easier or more convenient. hand where he is afraid partner will pull. My only concern is that if the choice is
The other panelists agree with the Committee’s decision. even if they’re not in between passing and bidding 5[, perhaps pass is so clear that 5[ shouldn’t be
total agreement with the reasoning behind it… allowed (if one bids 5} or, better, 4NT, it’s normal to bid) since it suggests that
West did know what his partner had.”
Wildavsky: “(a) Was the Stop Card used before 4]? Did West hesitate for 10
seconds? If so, then East had already had substantial time in which to contemplate Polisner: “Since double in this situation is normally takeout or cooperative, West
his decision. Still, this is not relevant to the present case because both the Director had no LA. Additionally, since East may have been thinking about whether to bid
and the Committee concluded that UI was available. (b) The proper poll question 4NT or double (as he claims and I believe him), certainly the BIT was not a doubt
is not whether pass is an LA, but what the player himself would do at the table. It about making a penalty double. Thus, West was free to do as he chose.”
is the job of the Director or Committee to determine whether an action is an LA, it
is not a matter to be decided by a majority of players. I learned this from Ron =One thing the panelists are not in agreement about is whether it should have
Gerard, though he is not a fan of polls. While I have the greatest respect for Ron’s been clear to rule the other way at the table.
legal acumen, given the ACBL’s current standard for LAs it seems to me that a
properly constructed poll can be of great value to the Director or Committee. (c) If Goldsmith: “The Committee got it right for exactly the right reason. I’m pretty
the Director asserts that UI demonstrably suggests an alternative action he must surprised that the Director in a national event didn’t consider that aspect of the
(yes) demonstrate why. (d) Let me try to demonstrate that the UI suggests bidding. problem. This was an easy one. Most of the time a slow double here shows more
I can think of three reasons for the hesitation: (i) The hand is too weak to double interest in defense than offense, so if anything, passing is indicated by the UI. West
again. (ii) The hand has too much shape; the player was considering bidding 4NT should be congratulated for his honesty…too bad he didn’t make that point at the
instead. (iii) The hand has such strong trumps that the player was afraid his partner hearing.”
would pull a double. Of these, the third (strong trumps) seems unlikely: with strong
spades partner would often overcall in notrump at his first turn. [Unless he’s too R Cohen: “I can buy both the Director’s ruling and Committee’s decision as being
strong for a direct 2NT—Ed.] The first two reasons make pulling more attractive correct on this deal. It was close enough for the Director to rule as he did and to
than sitting, since 4] will likely make. I would then turn to whether pass is an LA. force E/W to take this to a Committee, who rectified his decision.”
I tend to think it is not, but I wouldn’t mind seeing a poll of West’s peers. All told,
I think the Committee may have made the right adjustment for the wrong reason.” Rigal: “Excellent decision by the Committee to correct the (pardonable but) wrong
Director’s ruling. We’ve seen enough slow take-out doubles of high-level contracts
Bramley: “I agree with the decision, but I disagree that 10 seconds is a BIT on this to know that a slow double tends to say ‘I want you to pass though my double is
auction. Reopening over 4] is a serious action that requires some consideration. take-out’ and not ‘I really want you to take out my take-out double.’ Whatever our
Anything less than 5 seconds would be too fast, so 10 seconds cannot be a BIT. obviously high opinions of West’s game might be, he knows enough to remove a
However, the Committee is correct that a BIT in that position would offer no take-out double—especially with a hand like this. I’m surprised the Director was
demonstrable suggestion. This was another weak Director’s ruling. When will we called, let alone that E/W had to appeal it.”
absorb the concept that a hand that is a takeout double of a suit can’t later become
a penalty double of the same suit?” =The Committee may have been a bit too harsh in judging that 10-12 seconds in
this auction was a BIT, but even if we accept their judgment, adjusting the score
=I agree with both of Bart’s points. While taking 10 seconds to make the second fails on the issue of “demonstrably suggests” and may also fail on the LA issue. So
double might be approaching BIT territory, it still seems within normal bounds for the table result stands, okay?
considering whether to reopen over 4] (a serious action indeed). And of course
since East’s double of 2] was takeout, his double of 4] is simply more of the Wolff: “Okay.”
same, albeit obviously willing to hear West pass. To return to some of Adam’s
points, it’s true that if East’s hesitancy is because of marginal values (assuming we
are willing to call this a BIT) it suggests pulling. But if East is too shapely to risk
defending (i.e., a spade void or a significant concentration of values, both of which
he has) he might still have enough high cards (he has an 18-count) to justify a
double. So both of these do not equally suggest pulling. In addition, East could have
a hand that was too good to overcall 2NT directly and now he would prefer to
defend (especially at this vulnerability) but is afraid West will pull a double. East
could also be close to the slam range, perhaps he has something like ]x [AQJx
}AKQx {AKJx. He would certainly not have been worried about West passing his
double of 2] but he might be wary that West would pass a double of 4]. Notice
also that 4] doubled is likely to go for anywhere from 500 to 1100, and net E/W

25 26
 CASE EIGHT how long something took at the table.”
Subject (Tempo): But He Was Thinking! =I’m reminded of a Groucho Marx quote: “There’s one way to find out if a man
Event: Stratified BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Evening (Only) Session is honest—ask him. If he says ‘yes’ you know he is crooked.”
The informal demonstration Jeff describes has been confirmed many times by
The Facts: 3] went down two, psychologists who study time perception. In fact, according to those studies, since
Bd: 33 ] 106 +100 for N/S. The opening lead was Jeff’s subjects weren’t doing anything but waiting during the to-be-judged period
Dlr: North [ KQ93 the }10. The Director was called they were actually more likely to be accurate than a person who was deep in
Vul: None } J64 after North’s double. East claimed thought during the interval. That is, a person who is busy thinking about something
{ K975 that South broke tempo before will perceive time to pass more rapidly than someone who is simply waiting,
passing 2]. The Director ruled that passively. (This should be somewhat intuitive since most people have the sense that
] 95 ] KQJ84 there should be a 10-second pause “time sure drags” when they’re idle while “time flies” when they’re having fun.)
[ 74 [ 862 after a Skip Bid (the Stop Card was While Jeff doubts that people can judge time accurately, Adam expresses the
} AKQ872 } 95 used) so there had been no opposite opinion…
{ Q62 { J83 irregularity. The table result was
allowed to stand. Wildavsky: “I love the Panel’s fact-finding methodology. Max Hardy used to ask
] A732 players to demonstrate the length of a pause at the table. It can be enormously
[ AJ105 The Appeal: E/W appealed the revealing, as it was here.”
} 103 Director’s ruling. Only East attended
{ A104 the hearing. East said that there was =Sorry, Adam, but the scientific evidence is all on the other side. That’s not to
a BIT over 2]. East was asked to say there aren’t considerable individual differences in this ability or even that there
demonstrate what happened. She aren’t differences from one type of situation to the next. The one thing we can say
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH took out her Stop Card and left it on with confidence is that, for whatever reasons, we all agree with the Panel’s
Pass 2] Pass(1) the table briefly after bidding 2]. decision.
Pass Dbl Pass 2NT She said that South then thought
3] All Pass before passing. When this was timed R Cohen: “Everyone was on base except East and West. East had no appeal and
East had South passing after only West turned a plus into a minus.”
(1) BIT claimed by East about 7.5-8 seconds. She then
repeated her demonstration and left Polisner: “Excellent process and decision.”
her Stop Card out longer, which
increased the time to about 11 seconds. When she was told that that was still within Rigal: “As in CASE TWO, we cannot ask for more. Nice and efficient write-up, by
the allowable limits she said “but South was thinking,” then said she had left her the way.”
Stop Card out for 7-8 seconds, which raised the total time to 13-14 seconds. North
had about 11,000 MP, South 170, East 2100 and West 180. Wolff: “Okay.”
The Panel Decision: The Panel found that East had demonstrated no BIT. The =Our final panelist expresses an opinion that comes closest to my own about this
table result was allowed to stand and E/W were issued an AWMW since East was and similar cases.
unable to produce any evidence of an irregularity.
Bramley: “Another demonstration of how most players routinely expect to read
DIC of Event: Matt Koltnow their opponents’ tempo. They are aggrieved if their opponents don’t give them a
Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Patty Holmes, Candy Kuschner reliable read. It wouldn’t occur to them to feign a problem over a Skip Bid, so they
Players consulted: none reported cannot credit their opponents with doing so. Perhaps I am being too harsh. The
valid concept of not using deceptive tempo is also firmly ingrained, and that is a
=The panelists are pretty much in agreement with the Panel’s decision. good thing. But until players learn to appear to think in tempo-sensitive situations
they will never understand how essential a habit it is in all situations.”
L. Cohen: “South’s hand indicates a BIT, and my feel tells me that there was one.
But I agree that it wasn’t ‘proved.’ West should have attended. Maybe he could =Bart has hit the nail squarely on the head. The problem is not that South took
have added enough information to prove the case.” longer to pass 2] than he was entitled to (or than was required), but rather that it
was clear to everyone that he was really thinking. I personally find East’s attitude
=How much disproof is needed beyond the complainant demonstrating twice that naive and quite objectionable. South did precisely what he’s supposed to—appear
South’s pause was well within the 10 seconds required by the Skip Bid? to be thinking, not just idling—while East expected him to make his mental activity
obvious to everyone at the table. However, I must disagree with Bart on one point:
Goldsmith: “Was South thinking? Doesn’t look like it. It just goes to show that that East was concerned with reading her opponent’s tempo. I think her concern
people do not have any sort of sense of how long 10 seconds is. I did an experiment was that North had UI—knowledge that South was really thinking. If one examines
once in which I had 30 people judge how long a 10-second wait was. They were not this type of situation carefully the one thing that becomes clear is that when one is
given access to watches or clocks and were asked not to count, just to judge and tell really thinking it is usually impossible to conceal that fact from the other players.
me when 10 seconds was up. The average time judged to be 10 seconds was 4 Thus, the only way to play the game ethically is to make sure that even when you
seconds. The median was a little lower. So I never believe anyone when they say don’t have anything to think about, you still give the appearance of thinking.

27 28
 CASE NINE On the other hand, how about little lights on the Stop Cards which go off 10
seconds after being placed on the table? It shouldn’t be hard to get them made at
Subject (Tempo): Trust What I Say, Not What I Do several for a dollar. Again, an AWMW for N/S. Did they even look at their
Event: Side Game, 25 Nov 03, Evening Session opponents’ hands?”
The Facts: 5[ went down two, +100 =Perhaps the little lights blinded them.
Bd: 30 ] AKQJ1096 for N/S. The opening lead was the
Dlr: East [ 109 ]2. N/S called the Director after East Rigal: “The absence of a properly used Stop Card makes the N/S case very weak.
Vul: None } K74 passed 4] saying that East broke I’d buy into the decision not to give an AWMW only if the players had really
{2 tempo. The Director timed each demonstrated more of a case than they did. Again, well done by the Directors, too.”
side’s demonstration of how long
]8 ]5 East’s pass took: N/S indicated 13-14 R Cohen: “Gotta hesitate over Skip Bids. Director and Panel were both correct.”
[ KQ54 [ A8763 seconds, E/W 5-7 seconds. North did
} J102 } 863 not use the Stop Card for her 4] bid; Wolff: “Okay.”
she claimed she said “Skip Bid” but
{ AKQ86
] 7432
{ J1053
neither of the E/W players heard her. =The next panelist correctly notes that the failure to use a Stop Card does not
The Director ruled that East had not affect the next player’s obligation to pause for about 10 seconds and at least appear
[ J2 taken longer than the expected 10 to be thinking.
} AQ95 seconds before acting over 4]. Since
{ 974 there was judged to be no infraction, Polisner: “I guess I’m confused about the use or non-use of the Stop Card. I
the table result was allowed stand. thought it was immaterial and that the Skip Bid regulation applied either way. If I’m
correct, why is there always a discussion about whether or not the Stop Card was
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Appeal: N/S appealed the used? The only issue is whether or not there was an appropriate 10-second pause
Pass Pass Director’s ruling. North did not attend during which the next player appeared to be thinking about his/her action. In this
1{ 4] Pass(1) Pass the hearing. South said that although case, if there was not an unmistakable BIT, there can be no adjustment. Since the
Dbl Pass 5[ All Pass the Director timed his side’s estimates Director was called at the earliest possible time, I might have been convinced that
of the BIT at 13-14 seconds, he there was a BIT, but I don’t think West had an LA in any case.”
(1) Disputed BIT believed East hesitated for about 20
seconds. The Reviewer then re-timed =I think the non-use of the Stop Card weakens the complainants’ case (mainly
South’s estimate of the BIT and again because using a Stop Card gives the next player a few extra seconds to prepare
it came out at about 13-14 seconds. However, South insisted that the BIT must have himself mentally for what’s about to happen), but it should only become relevant
been 20 seconds. E/W said they thought East took about 7 seconds to pass 4]. if the decision is borderline. So, how can we improve our procedures—either those
(When the Reviewer asked East to demonstrate his tempo over 4] it took about 9 surrounding the use of the Stop Card or those Directors and Committees follow in
seconds.) West said she thought she had a clear double of 4] with her extra values. adjudicating these kinds of cases—short of the fantasy-like suggestion of placing
North had about 3500 MP; South 5400, East just under 500 and West about 2100. little lights on the Stop Cards (which still won’t help if the use of Stop Cards is not
made mandatory)?
The Panel Decision: There was no consensus among the players about the BIT;
E/W believed East took less than 10 seconds and N/S believed he took at least 20 Wildavsky: “The decision is fine as far as it goes, but it shows one of the faults of
seconds. The Panel believed that even if East had taken the 13-14 seconds N/S’s our current Stop Card procedure. It is not tenable for any pause from 5-15 seconds
demonstration indicated that would not have been unreasonable, especially given to be considered to be in compliance. By varying between those extremes players
North’s failure to use a Stop Card. Thus, the Panel decided there had been no can transmit just as much UI as if they waited between 0-10 seconds, the difference
unmistakable BIT and the table result was therefore allowed to stand. The Panel being that without the mandatory pause the opponents would at least be privy to the
also discussed the merits of the appeal and decided not to assess an AWMW. same information (see my Closing Comments for my proposal for improvement).”
DIC of Event: Jay Magid =For those who may not wish to invest a fair part of their next half-life in reading
Panel: Candy Kuschner (Reviewer), Ken VanCleve, Gary Zeiger Adam’s Closing Comment (I should talk, right?), he suggests that the ACBL return
Players consulted: none to the pre-1995 procedure. Back then the next player could not bid until the skip
bidder picked up his Stop Card.
=What’s that, Yogi? It’s déjà vu all over again? Then… Our next panelist suggests a way to decide these cases that’s quite workable…
Bramley: “Where’s the merit?” Martel: “The decision here is certainly reasonable (particularly since double is a
normal action even if not automatic). Still, I do have a concern that we may be
Goldsmith: “AWMW. No question about it. Even if East had thought for an hour, giving players too much room after a Skip Bid since most players do not pause even
West’s double is automatic. And East’s hand is pretty clear evidence that he wasn’t close to 10 seconds when a Skip Bid is Announced. When there is no Stop Card or
thinking about action. What was he supposed to bid, 5{? Again no one has any idea Announcement, I’d guess 3 seconds to be the average time taken when the next
how long things take. Doing this sort of ‘show me how long it took’ demonstration player has no problem (it might be less). In addition, even if 10 seconds is taken,
is a waste of time. Players can’t do it, either. The only way they’d ever be most players can tell if their partner is thinking or waiting. Bottom line: in these
consistent is if they counted out the time, and that’d be cheating the test anyway. disputed sorts of cases over a BIT, particularly after a Skip Bid, Committees should

29 30
pay more attention to whether the bid by the partner of the player who broke tempo CASE TEN
suggests that information was conveyed. Of course the credibility of both sides
counts too, and if frequent complainers are disbelieved, that’s not so bad.” Subject (Tempo): Captured By The Void
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 26 Nov 03, First Session
=…while our final panelist seems to have resigned himself to his fate.
The Facts: 6[ made six, +980 for
L. Cohen: “Somewhat like CASE EIGHT (another ‘he said, she said’). Here it Bd: 8 ] --- N/S. The opening lead was the ]K.
seems like a few more seconds are indicated, but in this case the hand doesn’t Dlr: West [ A932 The Director was called right after
indicate it as much as the one in the previous case. In both cases I can live with the Vul: None } KJ875 the 6[ bid and told that South broke
determination that there was no BIT. Unfortunately, there is never any way to know { KJ52 tempo before bidding 5[; E/W said
on these borderline time estimates. My gut tells me that there usually is a ‘break’ South took 20 seconds; N/S agreed
that lets an attuned partner know what is going on. But by law that ‘break’ isn’t ] K109652 ] Q843 only that it took him more than 10
really a break. I wish everyone would just bend over backwards to ignore such [ Q5 [ 107 seconds. N/S said they had no way
breaks—but they don’t. And I wish the other side wouldn’t call the Director when } A32 } 94 to show a void over 4NT (5}=1 or
it’s close—but they do. And there will always be wars and border disputes and { 94 { Q10863 4 key cards). The Director ruled that
death and taxes.” a BIT occurred that created UI
] AJ7 which demonstrably suggested
=Sigh. [ KJ864 bidding 6[. The contract was
} Q106 changed to 5[ made six, +480 for
{ A7 N/S (Law 16).
The Appeal: N/S appealed the
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Director’s ruling. West did not
Pass 1} Pass 1[ attend the hearing. North said he
2] 4[ 4] 4NT thought about bidding 6[ directly
Pass 5} Pass 5[(1) over 4NT and that his spade void
was enough to warrant it. N/S said
Pass 6[ All Pass they had no partnership agreement
(1) Significant BIT, agreed about how to show a void in
response to 4NT. South said that
after North’s 5} bid he was trying
to decide whether to bid 5[ or six. E/W said there was a significant BIT (20
seconds) by South before his 5[ bid and that after they saw North’s hand come
down as dummy they believed that passing 5[ was an LA. North had about 1900
MP, South 110, East 700 and West 870.
The Panel Decision: Four expert players were asked what action they would take
with the North hand with the information that 5} showed 1 or 4 key cards and that
there was no agreed way to show a void in responding to 4NT (no indication was
given of any BIT). All of them passed 5[. When asked if a BIT before the 5[ bid
could suggest further action all agreed that it could. A group of six of North’s peers
were similarly polled. Two passed while the rest bid 6[, concerned about the
undisclosed spade void. The two who passed said they had 12 HCP and had already
bid their values. Based on Law 16A, which says that a player may not choose from
among LAs one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by UI,
the results of the polls which clearly established pass as an LA to 6[, and Law
12C2 the Panel changed the contract to 5[ made six, +480 for N/S. Finally, given
that a few of N/S’s peers bid on to 6[ the appeal was judged to have merit.
DIC of Event: Dianne Barton-Paine
Panel: Patty Holmes (Reviewer), Candy Kuschner, Gary Zeiger
Players consulted: Jim and Corrine Kirkham, Jan Martel, Sally Woolsey, six of
N/S’s peers
=Our panelists all agree with the decision not to allow the 6[ bid—as I do. Most
of them also accept the Panel’s excuse for not assessing an AWMW—that a few
(actually, four out of six) of N/S’s peers bid on to 6[—I do not.
Three “hawks” are with me on the AWMW issue.

31 32
Goldsmith: “Good job by the Panel until the end. An AWMW is called for. I for the well-being of others. Our bridge laws protect non-offenders from damage
would have not bothered with the poll and would have given N/S a PP at the table. while at the same time allowing them to keep a fortuitous good result, just as they
Someone with 1900 MP shouldn’t be using Hesitation Blackwood. Sure, you have would get to keep a good result if an opponent miscounted his aces in response to
a surprise void. When partner announces you are off two key cards, you are done.” Blackwood or revoked in their favor. If the table result is a good one for them, they
were not damaged and keep it; if the table result is a poor one for them, then they
Wildavsky: “Again, the Director’s comments are missing a vital step. Before were damaged and they’re entitled to redress (they get assigned the most favorable
adjusting the score he must also determine that the alternative (pass here) was result that was “likely” had the irregularity not occurred).
logical. Surely it was, but the ruling must say so. The fact that a majority of the If Wolffie thinks the laws would be fairer his way, he should work to get them
peers who were polled bid 6[ with no UI does not give this appeal merit. It seems changed (to be fair, he’s been trying to do this for years now, to no avail)—not take
likely to me that they all seriously considered passing; I’d have liked to see the poll them into his own hands and encourage others to do the same. Remember, our job
ask that as well. This could serve as a template for polling: (a) Do you agree with as Appeals Committee members is to enforce the laws, not make up our own.
the auction so far? (b) What call would you make? (c) Did you seriously consider Our final panelist seems intent on instilling bad behavior in our up-and-coming
any other calls and if so, which?” players by assuming their hesitations contain no information that’s useful to their
partners. Warning: Children and other impressionable individuals should not read
=Adam is right: a majority vote is irrelevant to the AWMW issue. Bidding on the following comment.
to slam after partner signs off in a Blackwood auction always requires initiative and
independent thought. Adding “Hesitation” to Blackwood introduces a salient cue Polisner: “When a player with 110 masterpoints hesitates after receiving a
to question partner’s decision to stop rather than just follow orders and pass. Some Blackwood response, it doesn’t mean anything. As such, the BIT doesn’t convey
players will have needed that cue to question partner’s decision. Thus, if any any information and North can do whatever he/she wants.”
appreciable number of the player’s peers pass the signoff (and thirty-three percent
is certainly appreciable), the player in receipt of UI must pass as well, no matter that =Good grief!
his rationalization for bidding on is seductive and no matter that some of his peers
bid on—even if a substantial majority of them do (and here only “a few” did).
Bramley: “Yes. Bidding 6[ with the undisclosed void was possible, but hardly
automatic with a 12-count. Pass was an LA. Charitable not to give the AWMW.”
=Yes. Charity should begin and end at home—not in the appeal room.
And now for the “bleating” sheep.
L. Cohen: “Because a few did bid 6[ I suppose there was merit. So, good job.”
Rigal: “Given that we have the correct Director ruling supported by (in some
instances) a majority of the consultants, we know how the Panel should vote, as
they did. Passing 5[ has to be an LA. Pedant’s corner: Once we’ve decided to vote
against N/S we don’t fail to give an AWMW just because someone supported the
action that North should not have taken; we need a decent percentage to take that
action (or relatively few people to take the LA). The fact that four out of six of
North’s peers bid on, however, is enough to argue against an AWMW.”
R Cohen: “If the spade void did not warrant a bid beyond 5} over 4NT, it cannot
be accepted after the 5[ bid in the circumstances described. Over and out.”
=As he did in CASE ONE, the next panelist wants to illegally deny E/W redress.
Wolff: “N/S get rolled back to +480, E/W get –980 since with NPL N/S had to
guess the heart.”
=Wolffie wants non-offenders in these situations to keep their table result (even
though it was achieved illegally) as long as the contract reached requires some luck
to make (what he calls Normal Playing Luck, NPL). His argument is that they’d
have happily kept their good result had contract gone down, so it’s only fair that
they also keep it when the contract happens to make. And I must admit there’s a
rough sort of justice to that approach. The problem with it, though, is that players
who produce a lot of table action (i.e., UI)—even though unintentionally—will
inflict a lot of damage on innocent opponents and their negligence will affect the
outcome of the event. The laws of bridge, not unlike our civil laws, are there to
protect innocent people from damage caused by carelessness or reckless disregard

33 34
 CASE ELEVEN it would have been relevant to E/W’s score had the 5[ bid been deemed egregious.
If so, E/W would keep their table result. However, 5[ was definitely not egregious,
Subject (Tempo): The LOTT Made Him Do It—But Only When Pushed so the Panel gets to skate on that point. Also, this appeal deserved an AWMW. That
Event: Wednesday Senior Pairs, 26 Nov 03, Second Session would have been a more effective way of teaching these players the difference
between the Law of Total Tricks and the Laws of Bridge.”
The Facts: 5[ went down one, +50
Bd: 12 ] 96542 for N/S. The opening lead was the Wildavsky: “Appellants ought to be informed in screening that the Law of Total
Dlr: West [ AK3 ]K. The Director was called when Tricks is not one of the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Someone might also tell
Vul: N/S } 542 North bid 4]. East did not use the North that the LOTT does not apply unless both sides have their high cards in their
{ 64 Stop Card for his 4[ bid. E/W told long suits. The Panel’s decision was fine for a while, but it veered off the tracks
the Director that South took more towards the end. E/W may have to keep their score in 5[ if the 5[ bid was judged
] J3 ]A than a minute to pass 4[; North said ‘irrational, wild, or gambling.’ I find it was none of those things, but the Panel
[ QJ87 [ 106542 South did take some time to pass 4[ ought to have addressed that issue. As for South losing out on his AWMW because
} K1086 } 93 but agreed only that it was more than he failed to attend the hearing, the Panel’s logic is backwards. By skipping the
{ AK10 { QJ832 10 seconds. The Director changed hearing South lost one chance to be educated; the AWMW was all that was left.”
the contract to 4[ by East made
] KQ1087 four, +420 for E/W (Law 16A). =“Irrational, wild or gambling” is the WBF’s standard for denying non-offenders
[9 redress, but the ACBL’s standard is equally vague: “…in order to fully protect his
} AQJ7 The Appeal: N/S appealed the rights to petition for redress following an infraction by an opponent, a player must
{ 975 Director’s ruling. Only North and ‘play bridge’ at some reasonable level; an egregious error may well be grounds to
West attended the hearing. North cause him to be awarded the score actually achieved” (Indianapolis, Fall, 1991).
said that his side had ten spades and But this may all be academic, since only one panelist faults East’s 5[ bid…
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH the Law of Total Tricks dictated that
1} Pass 1[ 1] he bid 4]. When asked why he did L. Cohen: “North’s 4] after the BIT bothers me (Law or no Law). I would not
2[ 2] 4[ Pass(1) not bid it a round earlier he said it allow a player who bid 2] the first time to bid 4] now. If he wants to quote the
Pass 4] 5[ All Pass was because he didn’t know how Law, how about adjusting downward for being 5-3-3-2 and unfavorable and all his
high E/W were going to bid. West cards being in the opponents’ suit? In the Panel Decision it says ‘The Panel did not
(1) Slow (agreed; duration disputed) said there was a considerable BIT consider the merits of 5[ because…’ Why not? Don’t E/W have to continue to play
over 4[—more than 1 minute—and bridge? Can they bid 7[ as a two-way shot, knowing that if it makes, good, and if
he believed it was logical for North not, the contract might get rolled back to 4[? So clearly the 5[ bid should have
to pass 4[ because of the vulnerability and his previous bid of only 2]. N/S each been addressed. And I think it is a horrible bid, maybe bad enough to fall into the
had between 200 and 300 MP; West about 7700 and East 12,600. egregious/failing-to-play-bridge category.”
The Panel Decision: Four experts were consulted about North’s action over 4[ =On the other side of the AWMW issue are…
(without any BIT). They all passed. Three of them said they would have taken a
more aggressive action in place of the 2] raise. Four of North’s peers were also Rigal: “I can live with the Panel’s decision on the AWMW. Up to that point they
given the North hand and the auction to 4[. All of them also passed 4[ though they handled the case well, and they are closer to the players than we are reading about
also indicated that they would have taken a different action in place of the 2] raise. it. But it does emphasize a point we see a lot: Nobody likes to be seen as a hard
Three of the peers later said they thought they could not take action after the BIT. man; we have to steel ourselves to awarding AWMWs ‘with tough love.’”
Since there had been an agreed hesitation of more than 10 seconds and since
passing 4[ was clearly an LA to bidding 4] for both the expert and peer groups, Goldsmith: “Well done. So we now have a precedent: Players with under 300 MP
the 4] bid was disallowed and the contract changed to 4[ made four, +420 for do not get AWMWs. I agree with that in principle.”
E/W. The Panel did not consider the merits of the 5[ bid because the 4] bid had
deprived E/W of an equitable result. However, the Panel did discuss the merits of =We’ve had that precedent for years now (though it’s been violated a few times).
the appeal. Since the South player did not attend the hearing and both N/S players Inexperienced players are not usually issued AWMWs unless a serious ethical issue
had under 300 MP, it was decided that it would be more constructive and is present that needs to be driven home. (By the way, I agree with education here.)
educational to discuss UI and its implications with them than to issue an AWMW. Other voices in support of the Panel’s decision…
DIC of Event: Kathy Whidden R Cohen: “There was an ‘unmistakable hesitation’ with UI implications. Result,
Panel: Patty Holmes (Reviewer), Su Doe, Candy Kuschner an appropriate score adjustment.”
Players consulted: Ralph Cohen, Marc Jacobus, Kyle Larsen, Jo Morse, four other
players considered North’s peers Polisner: “Assuming there was a BIT in excess of 13-14 seconds (see CASE
NINE), I agree with the Panel.”
=The panelists all support this decision, although two of them want the AWMW =And finally, one panelist still (illegally) refuses to protect the innocents.
and, along with one other panelist, take issue with the Panel’s failure to address the
merits of the 5[ bid before adjusting the score. (Happily it didn’t matter.)
Wolff: “N/S –420, E/W –50 or Average, whichever is higher.”
Bramley: “Not quite. The merit of the 5[ bid was not relevant to N/S’s score, but

35 36
 CASE TWELVE South might pass 3], led the Committee to decide that no score adjustment was
appropriate for the non-offenders. The table result was therefore allowed to stand
Subject (Tempo): A Tough Crowd To Please for E/W.
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs, 27 Nov 03, First Final Session
DIC of Event: Sol Weinstein
The Facts: 2] made three, +140 Committee: Richard Popper (chair), Mark Feldman, Tom Peters, Ellen Melson,
Bd: 4 George Jacobs for N/S. The opening lead was the Eddie Wold
Dlr: West ] A104 [A (East discarded an encouraging
Vul: Both [ 9542 diamond; a heart was continued). =First, what does South’s huddle suggest?
} 7652 E/W called the Director after the
round ended and complained that Rigal: “Tough case; I think the Directors were too lenient toward the offenders, or
{ Q10 South had broken tempo before he maybe misjudged the inference from the slow 2]. They might more reasonably
Fred Gitelman Brad Moss bid 2]. North said he did not notice have come to the same conclusion because of no damage, but that is another matter.
] 653 ] J87 a BIT, East thought South took 30 Overall, I’m happy with the Committee’s adjustment; the defense to 3NT would not
[ AQ10863 [ --- seconds, South thought he took 5-6 have been impossible for E/W to find but at the hearing E/W were very up front that
seconds; West thought he took 15- it would not have been automatic to find it at the table. Their doubt may have been
} A104 } QJ983 25 seconds. The Director allowed translated into the Committee’s decision, which is a little unfortunate, since if they
{3 { J7654 the table result to stand, ruling that had been firmer they might have got more. Virtue is its own reward, they say.”
Alfredo Versace while 3] was an LA for North the
] KQ92 UI did not demonstrably suggest =Yes, E/W were not their own best advocates, but both get high marks for
[ KJ7 one action over another (Law 16). veracity in my book.
}K The Appeal: E/W appealed the Wildavsky: “The Director’s judgment looks seriously flawed. A quick, enthusiastic
{ AK982 Director’s ruling. E/W said that 2] would suggest bidding on, so of course the slow 2] suggests that North should
facing an in-tempo 2] bid raising pass. I don’t understand why the Director would go out of his way to rule in favor
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH to 3] was normal for North, after of the offenders.”
which South was likely to try 3NT.
1[ Pass 1NT Dbl Some defenses would defeat 3NT, =Right. A slow 2] suggests either inadequate spades (a four-card suit or a weak
2[ Pass Pass 2](1) some would let it make. (East said five-bagger) or a hand that may not be worth a second bid. If South has a good hand
All Pass he might discard an encouraging with inadequate spade length he’d double a second time or bid notrump, which is
(1) BIT (disputed) diamond if West led the [A against where the next two panelists go wrong.
3NT.) E/W said they gave North’s
hand to a number of players, all of Polisner: “Doesn’t Ron Gerard say that huddles show extras in this situation? Did
whom raised to 3]. Given this, E/W believed they were entitled to the opportunity the Committee feel it showed less than the 19 HCP South had (albeit a lousy 19)?
to be +100 (they said 3NT by South had frequently been defeated). N/S said that I do not believe the BIT demonstrably suggested anything and would have allowed
E/W did not consult any players before calling the Director. North said he was not North to take whatever action he deemed appropriate, including pass which could
inclined to invite game because of his partner’s notoriously aggressive tendencies, be a big loser opposite many hands South could have for his 2] bid.”
which he had been complaining about for the entire tournament. He believed that
game was unlikely with both opponents bidding. South believed that passing 3] Goldsmith: “4] isn’t happening. South will either pass 3] or (more likely) bid
would be normal; for one thing, his heart honors were unlikely to be useful in 3NT. 3NT. Yes, he has a 19-count, but he’s already taken a huge gamble and won it.
South agreed to a BIT. North had about 8575 MP, South (an Italian internationalist Bidding game is probably not necessary even if it makes. I think the chance of
who plays in North America only at NABCs) 2000, East 5800 and West 6700. 3NT’s going down is minuscule on this auction. It might go down if East had
passed 1[. When West has reason to think East has an entry, he’s not going to
The Committee Decision: The Committee believed there had been a BIT, noting plunk down an ace. While that’s interesting, it’s also irrelevant. South’s hesitation
that only North had failed to notice it, and believed it suggested that North “go low” might mean any of a number of things, so to expect North to infer that he ought to
when 3] was the appropriate bid with the North cards (the pass of 2] was not pass 2] from it is hard to believe. If anything, the hesitation mildly suggests action
judged egregious enough to warrant a PP). South was admittedly one of the world’s over inaction; if partner doesn’t think 2] is the right contract, then perhaps it isn’t.”
top players, but in spite of his statement to the contrary the Committee believed it
was unlikely that he would have passed 3]. In deciding how to adjust the score, the =Next, would North’s hand dictate another bid if South bid 2] in tempo?
Committee observed that several final contracts were possible, including 3], 3NT
and 4]. (Passing 2] would not be allowed.) Thus, 3] made three or a game going R Cohen: “A perusal of the footnote to Law 16A2 indicates that E/W should have
down one or two tricks were the Committee’s remaining options. Against 3NT called the Director when the dummy was spread. E/W were probably pleased that
West might still lead the [A. If East pitched an encouraging diamond West might North did not make a game try, and were rewarded by the Committee with the –140
well cash the }A leading to down one; if East discarded a discouraging club a shift their inaction deserved. As to N/S, a PP would not have been out of line, but the
to the }A to produce down two was still possible, though less likely. Given the Committee’s adjustment was adequate. Heck, the North hand is almost worth a 3[
caliber of the defenders, producing a sequence of plays to defeat 3NT was cue-bid based on his previous calls.”
conceivable. Thus, the offenders were assigned the result for 3NT down one, –100
for N/S. However, the difficulty of the defense, coupled with the likelihood that =I think Ralph places too much emphasis on the timing of the Director call. It
37 38
can be important to call the Director promptly, but that’s not always true. A good CASE THIRTEEN
reason to call immediately after a BIT is to reduce the chances that the opponents
will not acknowledge it later. (If we all called the Director for every BIT they’d do Subject (Tempo): Walking With Dinosaurs: The Old “I’d Always Bid With That
nothing but take table calls.) Also, calling immediately, before you’ve seen the Hand” Defense
other hands and before any further calls have been made, will—together with the Event: Stratified Mixed Pairs, 27 Nov 03, First Session
alleged hesitator’s hand—help establish the BIT as fact. (I always try to get my
opponents’ agreement that there was a BIT: “Can we agree that so-and-so hesitated The Facts: 7} made seven, +2140
before his last call?” Only if they do not agree do I call the Director before I have Bd: 20 ] 10973 for E/W. The opening lead was a
good reason to suspect I may have been damaged.) While not calling promptly may Dlr: West [ 7652 spade. The Director, who was
weaken a borderline case (see my response to Jeff Polisner’s comment in CASE Vul: Both } Q6 called after the 7} bid, asked East
NINE), it should not jeopardize a clear one. South admitted that he broke tempo (at { Q109 about the auction. She said her 3]
least at the hearing), so that was not a problem here. bid had shown spades and 4] was
Not calling the Director when the dummy comes down falls into much the ] --- ] AQ864 intended as a close out. She thought
same category as not calling at the time of the BIT. If N/S had gone down in 2] [ KQ10983 [ --- West’s 4{ and 5} bids were cue-
when they were cold for 3NT, or suffered a similar disaster, there would be no need } AK8 } J109532 bids. The Director ruled that the
to call the Director at all since E/W would not have been damaged. So waiting to { AKJ3 { 86 BIT gave East UI that West had
see if there was resultant damage should not bias E/W’s case and did not, as Ralph real diamonds and was not just cue-
argues, warrant the –140 they were assigned—at least not on that basis alone. ] KJ52 bidding a control, which suggested
I do agree that North’s hand warrants action over 2], and perhaps a 3[ cue-bid [ AJ4 bidding 7} over passing. The 7}
is the right advance. After all, Make South’s small heart a fifth spade and even with } 74 bid was disallowed and the contract
seven wasted HCP in the red suits 4] would probably be a make. { 7542 changed to 6NT down two (on a
The next panelist disagrees with the Committee’s reason for assigning the non- spade lead), +200 for N/S (Laws
offenders the table result; he’d assign that score too, but for a different reason. 16A2 and 12C2).
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Gerard: “The Committee was doing okay there up until the end. Personally I would 2{ Pass 2](1) Pass The Appeal: E/W appealed the
bet on +600 after a low diamond lead as the most likely result, but down one was 3[ Pass 3] Pass Director’s ruling. East said she was
at all probable. For the non-offenders, South’s passing 3] didn’t become any more 4{ Pass 4] Pass too upset at the ruling to attend the
likely than it was when considering N/S’s adjustment. The real point is that there hearing. In screening, the standard
was no damage to E/W because they were unlikely to defeat 3NT by the requisite 5} Pass 6} Pass set forth in the laws for allowing a
12C2 standard. Maybe this is what they meant, but it would have been nice to see 6NT(2) Pass 7} All Pass bid that was suggested by UI from
it in print. I’m amused: Does North complain about South’s notoriously aggressive (1) One major, with 2 of top 3 honors partner was explained to West, who
tendencies when they compare scores in the major team events?” (2) BIT (several minutes) still chose to assert that he would
always bid over 6NT with the East
=And finally, the next two panelists observe that the four players here are no hand and that he didn’t think the
strangers to Appeals Committees at NABCs. hesitation suggested bidding. He estimated the hesitation at 2 minutes and did not
object when N/S said it was even longer. West admitted that East had said at the
Bramley: “A steel cage match. These four players are surely the leaders in ‘Most table that she thought 4{ and 5} were “cue-bids” but added that she (East) didn’t
Appeals’ over the last 5 or 6 years, so giving both of them the worst of it feels right. say they were cue-bids for spades. N/S both said they looked at the clock (they were
[Not a good reason.—Ed.] The Committee’s line of reasoning to adjust the N/S worried that the round would be called) and timed West’s hesitation at 5 minutes.
score is acceptable, but I could just as easily accept letting the table result stand for They said East said at the table that she thought 4{ and 5} were “cue-bids.” They
both sides. The parlay needed to get E/W a plus score is very thin, particularly the believed the hesitation showed doubt about the 6NT bid and prompted East to pull
sequence of defensive plays. My own recollection is that both sides have lost far to 7}. East had about 2200 MP, West 1400, North 2300 and South 1400.
more cases than they’ve won, but Pavlovian feedback seems to have had little effect
on them.” The Panel Decision: Four experts were consulted about the auction. All four said
they thought it made no sense and that they’d pass 6NT and wouldn’t even consider
L. Cohen: “I kind of like the Committee’s decision; no candy for either side. A few another bid. Three of the four thought a substantial hesitation was UI that suggested
too many appeals from these guys lately (sorry to say this, since some of them are pulling 6NT; one didn’t think the hesitation would tell him anything. Six other
good friends). Not to be holier than thou, but David and I haven’t appealed a case players with 1500-2500 MP were also consulted. All six passed 6NT with the East
in 10 years. These guys seem to be in every casebook (at least once).” hand when given the auction as a bidding problem (with no BIT). When asked later
all six said that a hesitation by partner before bidding 6NT expressed doubt about
=I agree with allowing the table result to stand for E/W, but beyond assigning the final contract and suggested bidding again. Four other players with 1500-2500
an adjusted score to N/S I do not have a strong preference between down one and MP were given the North hand as an opening lead problem; all four selected the
down two in 3NT. I’m not sure that down two is so much less likely than down one ]10 as their lead against 6NT given E/W’s auction. Because of the overwhelming
that it should not be considered at all probable, but it’s close, so take your pick. consensus of the 1500-2500 players, East’s 7} bid was disallowed and the contract
changed to 6NT down two, +200 for N/S. E/W were each issued an AWMW.
Wolff: “Confusing, so I’m not commenting.”
=Okay then, be that way and don’t take your pick. DIC of Event: Terry Lavender
Panel: Ken Van Cleve (Reviewer), Matt Smith, Gary Zeiger

39 40
Players consulted: Alan Falk, Bobby Levin, Mike Passell, Eddie Wold, ten players [AKQxx }Ax {AK and carry on to seven? East had to “know” (or at least
with 1500-2500 MP suspect) that West had diamonds to bid 7} (unless the bidding was completely
irrational). Also, why didn’t the BIT simply suggest that it took West a long time
=Most panelists support the Panel’s decision, saying little beyond some form of to convince himself to try notrump rather than diamonds (at matchpoints) holding
“well done” and providing no analysis of the implications of the BIT. Unfortunate. something like ]— [AKQJx }KQxx {AKxx or ]K [AKQxx }Axx {AKxx? In
either case no seven-level contract has any play while 6NT makes in the first case
R Cohen: “Except for E/W, well done by all involved, including the AWMW.” if the ]K is onside or a non-spade is led and in the second case if diamonds break
two-two.
Goldsmith: “Five minutes? West should get 5 yards. Otherwise, everything was The most astute and comprehensive argument for allowing the table result to
well done. Besides, bidding that bad ought to result in a silly contract.” stand comes from…you guessed it, who else?
Wildavsky: “Good.” Gerard: “Sorry, 6NT was self-Alerting. The BIT had nothing to do with it. It was
6NT that gave East the AI that West had real diamonds and was not just cue-
Bramley: “Okay.” bidding a control. In fact, the BIT was redundant because there’s no way to pound
out 6NT in tempo. If West had taken the dog out and then bid 6[ or 6] (on a
Rigal: “Nicely done all around. The opening leaders are a great deal better than I. different hand), East would be barred. But 6NT is not a signoff for suit play, it just
(Note: South might have doubled 6NT if East had passed. What would have gives meaning to the earlier auction. All the experts who said the auction made no
happened then?)” sense would be singing a different tune if East had ]AKxxx [J }Qxxxx {xx. That
they and the peers all passed meant merely that they were annoyed at partner for
=If Barry’s point is that E/W might then have escaped to a better contract that’s throwing a curve and decided that it was time to shut down the thought machine.
not the most unfavorable result for E/W nor is it the most favorable result for N/S. Also, there was no way for East to know what the BIT suggested. West could have
If his point is that East might pass 6NT doubled, that hardly seems likely. held ]K [AKQxx }AQx {AKQx and 7} would not have been a wonderful
choice. The only contrary argument is that 6} was a strange bid for someone who
L. Cohen: “After CASES EIGHT and NINE it’s nice to not have to determine if thought 5} was a cue-bid, therefore East must have already been playing West for
there was a BIT. This sounds like the longest BIT in casebook history. Anyway, real diamonds and shouldn’t be allowed to rebid the same values in the face of a
East got what she deserved. It is clear to disallow 7} and clear to issue an AWMW. substantial BIT. That’s punishing East for loose language. ‘Cue-bid’ didn’t mean
To pull is borderline flagrant and almost in the PP zone. A little too much ink was stiff ace, it just meant something short of the expected length for a real suit. That
wasted on the meaning of West’s 4{ and 5} bids. I also might have considered may have been questionable as to 4{, but not as to 5}.”
down three (maybe declarer takes a club finesse at some point, but I suppose that
is too unreasonable).” =There were an awful lot of thinking shutdowns here, as indicated by the failure
of the supporters of the Panel’s decision to provide any analysis of what the BIT
=Too much ink may have been wasted on the 4{ and 5} bids, and it’s true that suggests. Now, anyone care to rethink that AWMW?
6NT might go down three rather than two—but it’s all irrelevant (as we’re about to And finally, I have no idea how or why our last panelist proposes the following
see). The next three panelists examine the implications of the BIT and come to a far parlay…
more sensible conclusion than the previous group.
Wolff: “A testy case. If a pair plays a ‘home brew,’ rulings involving hesitations
Martel: “There is no question that passing 6NT is an LA. However, whether the should be biased against them. Here, even though I have sympathy for E/W, I
slow 6NT suggests 7} is very questionable to me. Obviously this was a weird would award them –200 in 7} and give N/S an Average to PTF.”
auction, so it’s normal to take time over 6} (to figure out what partner has and what
he means by this). In addition, West could easily have been choosing between 6[, =If E/W are permitted to bid and play 7}, on what basis can we force them to
6] and 6NT. Since East has minimal hearts and spades, it’s not clear that she wants go down (two tricks no less!) when they made the contract at the table?! And if the
to bid 7} and risk ending up in 7[ or 7].” BIT did not suggest one action over another, how can we adjust the scores when
there was no damage to the opponents? And if one thinks there is a connection
=Exactly, and the next panelist provides one very important additional point. between the BIT and the result, how can we legally justify assigning N/S only an
Average (not even the “ususal” Average-Plus)? And if there is no connection
Polisner: “I think this is more difficult than the results of the poll indicate. After between the BIT and the result, doesn’t giving N/S even an Average disadvantage
West bid 6NT, East, on previous belief that the two prior bids were cue-bids, should the rest of the field (since then N/S deserve to keep the table result)? All things
have reconsidered and worked out that West showed the type of hand he actually considered, this looks like another (illegal) punishment imposed on a player for
had. Of course, East’s story falls apart as she would not have ‘cue-bid’ diamonds simply thinking (see my previous comments on this issue), or maybe for playing a
on her hand if she really believed what she told the Director. She knew that West “home brew” even though there is none here—unless having a requirement that a
had diamond length/strength. Couldn’t West have been thinking about bidding 6[, positive suit response to a 2{ opening shows two of the top three honors is
6] or passing 6}? I think so. If the BIT did not demonstrably suggest bidding 7}, considered a home brew (and despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the
the table result should stand. I may well be in the minority here.” problem).
= You are, but when has that bothered you before? (Besides, you’re in good
company.)
Who, holding East’s cards and thinking West’s 4} bid was a cue-bid in support
of spades, would return cue-bid 6} when West might hold something like ]Kxxx

41 42
 CASE FOURTEEN about bidding again with a two-suiter than a one-suiter had sufficient logic to judge
the appeal to have merit.
Subject (Tempo): Next Time Don’t Just Think, Bid!
Event: North American Swiss Teams, 28 Nov 03, Second Qualifying Session DIC of Event: Gary Zeiger
Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Bob Schwartz, Aaron Silverstein, Danny Sprung,
The Facts: 3NT went down two, Adam Wildavsky
Bd: 31 Richard Lesage +100 for N/S. The opening lead
Dlr: South ] AJ7 was the }5. E/W called the =A majority of the panel supports the Committee’s decision, judging that the BIT
Vul: N/S [ 53 Director after play ended saying does not demonstrably suggest any particular lead. First, counsels for the defense
} 75432 South took 20-25 seconds to pass explain why they believe the BIT does not suggest anything in particular.
3NT. N/S estimated the time as
{ 872 around 15 seconds while a kibitzer L. Cohen: “The huddle shouldn’t really indicate one lead over another. To see this,
John Schermer Neil Chambers thought South’s pass took about consider a slow double. Then what? No matter what lead the opening leader selects,
] 42 ] K109653 12-15 seconds. North was asked you could always argue that he took advantage of the tempo. I’m a bit uneasy with
[ A87 [ KQ2 what a double of 3NT by South this decision (and the next one), but I can’t find a convincing argument to disallow
would have meant; he said it the lead.”
}8 } 109 would have asked for a heart lead
{ AKQJ1053 { 64 and added that the only other lead =Paradoxically, it’s easy to be uneasy but not so easy to be uneasy. Got that?
Jean Castonguay he considered was the ]A. The
] Q8 Director polled three players, Wildavsky: “I haven’t changed my mind. I agree with the decision, but I do think
[ J10964 giving them North’s hand and the the appeal had merit. I can see another Committee deciding differently.”
auction. Two of them thought the
} AKQJ6 BIT suggested a heart lead (South Wolff: “Okay.”
{9 might have been thinking of
doubling 3NT); the third thought it =Not everyone in this group thinks the appeal has merit, though the strength of
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH did not suggest any particular lead. their feelings varies.
The Director ruled that the BIT did
1[ not demonstrably suggest a Rigal: “I’m not convinced of the merits of the argument that led to no AWMW. It
3NT Pass Pass Pass(1) diamond lead and allowed the is really not clear that a BIT demonstrably suggests diamonds; end of story to me.
(1) BIT table result to stand. I can go along with not giving an AWMW, though, on the grounds that simply
talking through the issues involved took rather longer than the write-up suggests.”
The Appeal: E/W appealed the
Director’s ruling but did not attend the hearing (their team captain presented the Polisner: “The BIT could mean any number of things: a possible double, a two-
appeal). The E/W captain pointed out that South hesitated significantly before suiter, a heart lead, a one-suiter. Thus, no particular information was conveyed. I
passing 3NT. Since it was normal to lead partner’s suit, a heart was the normal lead would have awarded an AWMW.”
and North should not be allowed to make an unusual lead after the BIT. Upon
further questioning by the Committee about why the BIT suggested a non-heart Goldsmith: “I think the slow pass does suggest that South has some surprise
lead, the captain offered that the most likely reason for a BIT was that South was defense, if only North can find the right lead. What’s the normal lead? Probably the
thinking about bidding a second suit with a two-suiter, making a lead other than a ]A to look at dummy and guess the shift. Still, it is hard to argue with leading one’s
heart more attractive than it would have been without the BIT. N/S said the auction longest suit. In these cases, normally the hesitator’s partner leads a short suit and
clearly indicated that the opponents were prepared for a heart lead, the likely result hits partner. Those are easy to adjudicate. (I really enjoy having RHO be asleep in
of which was that they would win one or more hearts to go with a large number of an auction like this and inadvertently take 5 seconds to pass. LHO leads a stiff,
tricks in a long minor. Since North’s holding of five diamonds meant that West’s blowing the hand, and then yells at his partner. Happens all the time.) This one is
minor was almost certainly clubs, they thought a heart lead would have been a poor a tough call. I think a diamond lead is pretty normal. Leading a heart is more
choice. N/S also suggested that there were several possible reasons for the BIT discouraged by the auction than the hesitation and after that it’s a toss-up. Most
other than South’s holding a second suit. South might have been considering would probably lead a diamond, being too chicken to lead the ]A. Result stands.
doubling or rebidding a long heart suit as well as bidding a second suit. Therefore, It’s not at all close to an AWMW.”
the BIT did not demonstrably suggest some lead other than a heart. North had about
3090 MP, South 4050, East 8900 and West 6620. =And now for the (minority) prosecution.
The Committee Decision: The Committee agreed with N/S that the BIT did not Bramley: “I disagree. The huddle did demonstrably suggest a non-heart lead. If
demonstrably suggest a non-heart lead. North’s diamond length and heart shortness South suspected that a heart lead would set the contract, he would just pass, not
made it at least as likely that South would show up with long hearts as with a double. He could have been thinking of bidding 4[, but his failure to do so after
diamond-heart two-suiter. Since the BIT did not demonstrably suggest the lead huddling suggested that he did not have a long one-loser suit. His most likely
chosen, the table result was allowed to stand. In discussing the merits of the appeal, reason for huddling was the possession of a second suit. Ergo, leading a non-heart
the Committee thought there was very little justification for it, especially given the was suggested. The real question is whether there was an LA to leading a non-heart,
E/W team’s initial failure to suggest any meaningful relationship between the BIT and the answer is clearly yes. A heart lead is always an LA on this auction. I would
and the choice of leads. However, the argument that a player is more likely to think have adjusted the score to 3NT making four for both sides. Opening leads are

43 44
notoriously difficult, but when leader’s partner huddles (especially in passout seat) CASE FIFTEEN
and leader makes an unusual choice it is probably not just a lucky shot.”
Subject (Tempo): Sorry, But You Can’t Lead Anything
R Cohen: “Had South passed in reasonable tempo, wouldn’t his partner have led Event: Reisinger BAM Teams, 28 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session
a heart? The BIT informs his partner that he is unhappy with the auction and some
desperate measures may be in order. Doesn’t the preamble to Law 16A state “…the The Facts: 3NT made four, +630
partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could Bd: 5 Jessica Piafsky for N/S. The opening lead was the
demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information”? Dlr: North ] J83 [2. The Director was called when
If South exchanges the red king-queen holdings with East, with the same suit Vul: N/S [4 East broke tempo. All four players
distributions, he wouldn’t be unhappy passing in proper tempo, expecting a heart } AKQ65 agreed to about a 30-second BIT.
lead. Actually, South must be very circumspect—whatever lead he wants—to bid The Director discussed the lead
in a tempo that conveys no UI to North. A fast pass could be equally revealing that { 9743 with several other Directors and
he wants a heart lead. My adjudication is +430 for E/W.” Seth Cohen Richard Gertner three players, two of whom led a
heart and one a club (without the
= I have several thoughts about this one. First, the argument that the BIT suggests
]2
[ Q109652
] A1065
[ KJ3 BIT). The Directors themselves
a non-heart doesn’t really stand up to inspection. Suppose South has longish but were ambivalent about the lead but
broken hearts and helpful cards in two of the other suits, something like ]Kxx } 10872 }9 after considering the input ruled
[AQ108xxx }AJ {x. Surely he’d think twice about rebidding his hearts over 3NT, { J8 { K10652 that East’s BIT demonstrably
but ultimately he’d decide not to because of the vulnerability and the fear that West Barry Piafsky suggested a heart lead. Since a club
has two or three trump tricks to go with three or four side-suit winners. Note in this ] KQ974 lead (East’s “suit”) would have
case that a diamond lead establishes two or three diamond tricks for declarer to go [ A87 allowed South to take twelve
with his seven clubs while if hearts are 7-2-2-2, declarer having king-doubleton, a tricks, the contract was changed to
heart is the only lead to set 3NT. So while South’s tempo does suggest he does not } J43 3NT made six, +690 for N/S (Laws
hold a balanced minimum, it does not demonstrably suggest a secondary diamond { AQ 16A and 12C2).
suit. He could have been thinking of doubling with good hearts or bidding with long
but weakish hearts. He could have extra high cards or, perhaps even more likely, WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Appeal: E/W appealed the
a second suit that he can’t conveniently show—spades. Pass 1{ 1NT Director’s ruling and were the only
Second, the word “demonstrably” in “demonstrably suggests” implies that players at the hearing. West, who
there must be a clear connection between the UI and a specific action or class of 2[ 3NT Pass(1) Pass had been on lead, said he thought
action (such as bidding versus passing, or leading a heart versus leading a non- Pass about the implications of the BIT
heart). It’s not enough just to find a logical connection between the UI and the (1) Agreed BIT before leading and decided he
particular action taken (such as leading a non-heart in the present case) unless no should ignore the UI and make
similar connections exist between the UI and other possible actions (or, if these do what he thought was the “normal”
exist, unless they’re markedly less likely—either on logical or practical lead from his hand—a heart. Had he led the {J (his partner’s “suit”) he said he
grounds—than the one favoring the winning action). believed that would have been taking advantage of the UI from the BIT. E/W said
Third, I disagree with the premise that had South passed in tempo, North would they had no agreement about what lead a double of 3NT by East would have
simply have mechanically led a heart. North gave some cogent reasons for leading requested. West had about 2100 MP, East 1400, North 1000 and South 970.
a diamond (West was prepared for a heart lead and figured to have a lot of tricks in
a minor which, from North’s hand, figured to be clubs—hence the diamond lead) The Committee Decision: The Committee spoke to the table Director about the
and his statement that his second choice of leads was the ]A was equally reasoning behind the ruling. He said he consulted several players, including Chip
perceptive and made it clear that he knew a heart lead was not his most attractive Martel. While Chip, like the Directors, was “in the middle” about the implications
choice and that he was not inclined to simply lead reflexively. of the BIT, he thought there was some indication that the hesitation suggested a
Fourth, the range of opinions expressed by the panelists and the consultants heart lead. The Committee decided that there was an agreed BIT and determined
strongly argues that no one particular lead was demonstrably suggested over others. that E/W had no agreement as to what lead a double of 3NT by East would have
And finally, while it is not a factor in the present case (since everyone agreed called for. Thus, they had to decide whether a logical connection existed between
that South took an excessive amount of time to act in passout seat: 15-20 seconds), the BIT and a heart lead. They believed that a heart was the logical lead from the
I think it is important to mention that a player in passout seat is obligated, just like West hand, perhaps a 70-85 percent action. A club lead was judged a 15-30 percent
the players we’ve discussed in several of the previous cases, not to take his action action and thus was considered an LA. It could be argued that because of the BIT
too quickly. A considered, deliberate pass—even if South has no intention of doing neither a heart nor a club lead could be allowed. But surely it could not be argued
else—is appropriate since a quick, easy pass would transmit just as much UI as a that both leads were demonstrably suggested by the BIT. Thus, it was decided that
long, agonized one. since West had clearly made the “normal” lead from his hand, he had satisfied the
For all of these reasons, I agree with the Director and Committee that South’s Law 73C requirement that he not allow the UI from the BIT to affect his action. The
BIT did not demonstrably suggest any one action over another and that North was table result of 3NT made four, +630 for N/S, was restored.
therefore free to take any action he chose without constraint. The table result stands.
DIC of Event: Steve Bates
Committee: Larry Cohen (chair), Ralph Cohen, Eric Kokish, Ed Lazarus, Mike
Passell

45 46
 a long, agonized huddle, and you hold ]Qxx [Jxx }Jxxx {xxx, you must be
=Wait a minute. Law 73C does not say that a player who receives UI from his allowed to pass since there is no LA (even if you believe the BIT exposes a psych
partner should not allow the UI to affect his action; that he should take his “normal” by partner). Law 73C tells us about communication; it tells a player who has UI
action. It says that a player in receipt of UI from his partner should “carefully avoid from his partner what his obligations are, a priori, with respect to his subsequent
taking any advantage that might accrue to his side”; in other words, he must decide actions. Law 16, on the other hand, tells us (among other things) what to do when
what the UI suggests and avoid any action—even a “normal” one—if the UI makes UI is initially made available and what to do after an opponent has taken an action
it more attractive and take a non-suggested LA if one exists. Right, Adam? that may be illegal because of UI. It defines the term “LA” to help us understand
which actions are considered illegal in such situations and which are not.
Wildavsky: “‘Thus, it was decided that since West had clearly made the ‘normal’ And why couldn’t East have been thinking about doubling? After all, he did
lead from his hand, he had satisfied the Law 73C requirement that he not allow the open 1{—a bid often made on a non-suit. So with good clubs (say {AK109xx) and
UI from the BIT to affect his action.’ This is a common misconception, one a side entry there was a real danger that West would lead his own suit. So even with
apparently shared by the West player. I am astonished and chagrined to find it in a not-so-good hand East might have been considering doubling for a club lead—if
a case write-up. Here is the text of Law 73C: ‘When a player has available to him a double asked for a club lead (maybe East was pondering that). And how likely
unauthorized information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, was West to lead a heart if East didn’t double? And even if East was thinking about
gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must bidding, he could have been thinking about bidding 4{ and not 4[. (North could
carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.’ The ‘carefully easily have short clubs if his suit was diamonds; after all, this was BAM.)
avoid’ phrase does not mean that a player must do what he would have done
without the UI. Rather, he has an obligation to lean over backwards to avoid the Martel: “After further consideration, I think that there is enough of a connection
possibility of gaining any advantage through the UI. This is just another way of between the hesitation and heart support to force a club rather than a heart lead.
phrasing the player’s Law 16 obligation: he must not choose an alternative While not certain, heart support is the most likely reason for the huddle.”
suggested by the UI unless it would be illogical. As Michael Rosenberg has pointed
out, it’s not enough to avoid paying attention to partner’s tempo or mannerisms. =The remaining panelists believe, and as the write-up suggests the Committee
One must be actively aware of them in order to avoid taking any action that might did and as I do too, that the UI did not suggest any particular lead. Even so, several
be suggested by them. Here, rather than ignoring the UI, West must decide as best of them complain about one or more aspects of the write-up.
he can what it suggests. The laws require him to do the opposite of what is
suggested, so long as it is not illogical, and there’s no way he can fulfill this Bramley: “The Committee implies that the huddle did not demonstrably suggest
obligation without attempting to figure out what the UI suggests. a heart lead. I agree, but I wish they had said so explicitly. Otherwise, if the huddle
“As ever, cases like this are best done ‘by the book.’ Was there UI? Yes. Did did demonstrably suggest a heart lead, and if a club lead were an LA—even a
it demonstrably suggest one action over another? I’d say yes, and I’d be prepared minority LA—then the decision should have gone against the heart leader. If the
to demonstrate it, but the Committee could find otherwise. They are the ones to club lead had been deemed a serious minority action, then a split decision would
judge the matter. Were there LAs to the heart lead? Certainly a club lead would not have been appropriate.”
have been illogical, so yes, I agree with the Committee there. I prefer the Director’s
decision to the Committee’s, but even were the Committee’s score adjustment Gerard: “Just like the new Medicare law, there’s a big donut hole in the middle.
correct I would object to their method and to their mis-characterization of the laws.” Law 73C is fine for assessing PPs, but you still need to look at Law 16 in judging
the merits. Unless I missed it, I don’t see where the Committee answered its own
=Two other panelists disagree with the Committee’s judgment—not to mention question as to what the BIT demonstrably suggested. Just because West refused to
their view of the laws. Let’s hear from them first. be influenced by/couldn’t figure out the UI doesn’t mean he gets a pass. If there
was a logical connection between the BIT and a heart lead, he can’t lead it. I vote
Goldsmith: “The Committee’s reasoning isn’t exactly legal, but I’m not convinced no. And all that sewage about the meaning of a double is just that—whatever lead
the UI laws work well for opening leads so I understand their difficulty. If they are it would have called for, it can’t be used just to hold down the second and third
quoting law, though, they ought to get it right. Law 73C is used in some cases overtrick. This is sloppy thinking/scribing from an unlikely source.”
where Law 16 doesn’t apply; when a player uses UI to choose an action which is
not an LA, yet is suggested over LAs by the UI, then Law 16 doesn’t apply (since Rigal: “This case was far from easy, as the Committee found, though the Director
it only discusses LAs). Here there were plenty of LAs, so Law 16 is the one to to my mind did exactly the right thing when he left it up to the offenders to appeal.
consider. So step-by-step: Was there a hesitation? Yes. Did it suggest a heart lead? E/W made a good case that once East hesitated West was screwed whatever he did.
Yes, I think so. Partner has limited values, so he can’t be thinking of doubling; he He made the best of a bad job by leading the normal thing on his hand (the heart
must be thinking of bidding. Bidding anything but 4[ seems very unlikely; North intermediates make it the lead least likely to cost a trick). He should not be
can’t be very short in clubs or he’d have bid something other than 3NT. All in all, punished unless we introduce a law that says ‘whenever someone hesitates his side
partner’s hesitation probably suggests hearts. Is any other lead an LA? Yes, is fined.’ We know some people who would like that.”
certainly. Was the non-offending side’s bad result a direct consequence of the
infraction? Yes. Conclusion: adjust the score. No AWMW or any complaints about =Speak of the devil…
West’s choice. He claimed he tried to do the right thing. Those who try do not
always succeed.” Wolff: “Okay.”
=Regrading Jeff’s interpretation of the difference between Laws 73C and 16, I Polisner: “Since West must decide between the rounded suits and if the BIT did not
do not believe Law 16 applies to actions that are LAs and Law 73C to those that are demonstrably suggest which, he was free to lead either.”
not. If an action is demonstrably suggested by UI, but there are no LAs, the action
must be permitted. For example, if LHO opens 1{ and partner overcalls 1NT after L. Cohen: “Same comment as in the previous case.”

47 48
 CASE SIXTEEN Wildavsky: “Fine work by the Director and the Committee.”
Subject (UI): I Can See Clearly Now Bramley: “Classic.”
Event: Life Master Women’s Pairs, 22 Nov 03, First Final Session
=One panelist who sat on this Committee has some second thoughts about giving
The Facts: 4[ made six, +480 a different score adjustment.
Bd: 11 Peggy Sutherlin for E/W. The opening lead was
Dlr: South ] 109854 the ]10. The Director was R Cohen: “In retrospect, we might have awarded N/S +630. However, I am
Vul: None [3 called after the 4[ bid and satisfied that justice was served, including the AWMW.”
again at the end of play. Both
} 72
{ QJ875
pairs acknowledged that after =How could N/S possibly be allowed play 3NT? Since North passed 3] before
asking about the notrump range, the infraction (East’s double), the only way to redress the damage is to disallow the
Deanna Goh Cynthia Colin West hesitated for 10-15 illegal double and impose a pass, ending the auction in 3].
]2 ] A63 seconds before passing. N/S did The next panelist votes to penalize another so-called “home brew” (which this
[ KJ98642 [ 107 not believe double was a call time turns out to be a popular and widely-played convention).
that most players would make
} Q104 } AK853 with the East hand. East said Wolff: “Okay, but again a home brew that should be penalized when a hesitation
{ 92 { K64 she had three top tricks and a occurs.”
Karen Allison likely ruff. West said she could
] KQJ7 never leave the double in with = So it’s okay to think as long as your bids have all been totally natural, but not
[ AQ5 her weak hand and was thinking if any of them were conventional (even if the one you’re thinking over is not)? So
that she regretted not having now we are just penalizing anyone who plays a convention and who then dares to
} J96 overcalled 3[ initially. The think later in the auction.
{ A103 Director ruled that there was UI Good grief!
from an unmistakable BIT and
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH that Law 16 does not allow a Rigal: “Right decision all around, but the write-up implies that the pass had to be
hesitator’s partner to select from clear for E/W to receive an AWMW. It does not have to be that clear; rather, it
1NT(1) among LAs one suggested by would have to be clear to act for such an action to be allowed.”
2{(2) 2] Pass 3] the UI. The contract was
Pass(3) Pass Dbl Pass changed to 3] made four, +170 =I don’t think the write-up implies that the Committee thought that passing 3]
4[ All Pass for N/S (“the most favorable had to be clear for them to assess an AWMW. Rather, I think they were saying (or
(1) E/W: not Announced; N/S: disagreed result that was likely…,” Law at least trying to say) that passing was so obviously the proper action that not only
12C2). should it have been the one chosen at the table, it made issuing the AWMW easy.
(2) Alerted; unspecified one-suiter However, Barry is correct in saying that bidding would have to be clear-cut for East
(3) Notrump range asked, followed by a The Appeal: E/W appealed the to be allowed not to pass.
10-15 second hesitation Director’s ruling. West did not My problem with this decision is that passing was so obviously called for after
attend the hearing. East said she the BIT, and East’s double was so clearly flagrant, that E/W should have received
believed she had good defense a PP in addition to the AWMW. Our last two panelists agree.
and could beat 3]. When the Committee asked why she hadn’t acted over 2] she
said she was concerned that her partnership had no agreements as to what values L. Cohen: “I think an East who is willing to sell out to 2] and then acts over 3]
her bids would show. She also said the notrump range had not been Announced but after a BIT is going beyond an AWMW and into PP territory. Those arguments
was clarified for her at the time of the 2{ bid. N/S believed that pass was an LA about how much defense she had to 3] ring pretty hollow when in fact 4] was
and, especially in view of the long hesitation, that the double and the 4[ bid should cold.”
not be allowed. East had about 2760 MP, West 1600, North 9950 and South 6400.
Goldsmith: “Perfect, except if ‘pass was so clear’ then a PP might have been in
The Committee Decision: The Committee believed that pass was clearly an LA order.”
and in view of the marked hesitation should have been the action taken at the table.
In fact, the Committee believed that the pass was so clear under the circumstances
that E/W were each assessed an AWMW.
DIC of Event: Ron Johnston
Committee: Jon Wittes (chair), Ralph Cohen, Steve Garner, Ed Lazarus, Riggs
Thayer
=The panelists unanimously support the Committee’s decision, including the
AWMW.
Polisner: “Routine, including the AWMW.”

49 50
 CASE SEVENTEEN Gerard: “Okay, I plead multiple mea culpas.
“First, it should have been down two in three of a minor. We counted losers
Subject (UI): The Exception To The Rule? instead of winners. I suspect the outcome would have been the same. Next, it is
Event: NABC Women’s BAM Teams, 23 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session clear that 3{ does not exist. As opposed to 2NT over a 1NT opening, where a case
can be made for a natural 3{ bid, here the 2-3-4-4 bids 2{ rather than 1NT. The
The Facts: 3NT made three, +600 language in the opinion about the possibility of 3{ at BAM comes directly from
Bd: 13 Sylvia Summers for E/W. The opening lead was not two of the members who had only volume on their side, not logic. It was my fault
Dlr: North ] 762 reported. The Director was called for letting them highjack the proceedings to that extent, but frankly I was not
Vul: Both [ A9 after play ended. E/W’s partnership prepared for that position or the vehemence with which it was expressed. I don’t
} K82 agreement was that 2NT relayed to think we did E/W any injustice, mind you, because there was some probability that
3{; West forgot her agreement and West might not appreciate the impossibility of 3{ and in any event she couldn’t just
{ 108752 bid 2NT intending it as a natural make it clear that she was acting on the UI. Frankly, we were pretty stunned by the
Roni Gitchel Jan George invitation. The Director ruled that obvious conclusion that West didn’t properly consider 3{, so we went a little
] AKQJ ] 543 UI was present but that no damage overboard in attributing a natural meaning to it in order to get across the point that
[ 652 [ K1084 resulted therefrom. The table result you don’t get to pound out 3NT in warp time after the UI. Then I think we gave N/S
was allowed to stand (Law 16). too much. Since we viewed the infraction as the slam-bam 3NT without pause for
} 1096 } AJ3 thought, we should have come around to the view that if West had mulled it over
{ Q63 { A94 The Appeal: N/S appealed the it was likely that she would have bid 3NT. So for N/S the result stands. Again we
Flo Rotman Director’s ruling. Only N/S’s team were mesmerized by a sneak attack, this one asserting that once West acts on UI
] 1098 captain and the E/W pair attended N/S are damaged. I would normally have put this argument in its place, but too
[ QJ73 the hearing. The N/S captain said much Cajun dining had dulled the senses. Finally, I should have objected to the
that without the UI West might not makeup of the Committee. Certain people shouldn’t serve together. One non-
} Q754 have bid 3NT over 3{. West bid collegial member can be dealt with; two are a sideshow, especially when they are
{ KJ 3NT immediately, with no apparent imbued with a sense of their own infallibility. Sorry, folks, this was not our finest
thought, after 3{ came back to her. hour.”
North had about 5630 MP, South
WEST NORTH EAST
Pass 1}
SOUTH
Pass
4340, West 4580 and East 6210. =Well, Ron covered most of the possible criticisms—and then some. (No one
even noticed that down one in three of a minor was overly generous to E/W; there
1] Pass 1NT Pass The Committee Decision: The were bigger fish to fry.) Still, several panelists disagree with some of the judgments
2NT(1) Pass 3{ Pass Committee believed that West had the Committee made, and even some of Ron’s substitutes. For example…
3NT All Pass not given proper consideration to
(1) Alerted; relay to 3{ what the 3{ bid could have meant Polisner: “I disagree. The 3{ bid is clearly self-Alerting, leaving West with a
in the absence of UI. While it was choice between 3} and 3NT. East would always opt for the latter, thus all roads
possible that West would have lead to 3NT.”
concluded that there was no such
bid and therefore that 3{ was self-Alerting, West bid 3NT over 3{ with almost no =Jeff is not the only panelist wanting to allow the table result to stand.
thought at all. The Committee thought it possible that without an Alert East’s 3{
bid would show a 2-3-4-4 minimum with all minor-suit cards. Although that hand Wolff: “N/S –600, NPL; E/W +600 but a 3/4-board penalty.”
might have bid 2{ directly over 1], the Committee thought the consensus rebid
would be 1NT and that BAM scoring might lead players to try to be more accurate =That’s a whopper of a PP—three times the usual 1/4 board for an infraction. (I
in the auction than otherwise (thus the 3{ rebid). Had West considered the only hope it was issued to punish the use of UI and not Convention Disruption.)
possibility of that hand she would have realized that 3NT would be an unlikely Some other panelists find the Committee’s version of justice seductive, even
make—even if N/S could only cash four heart tricks the contract would be on no if not clearly legal.
better than a finesse (]xx [xxx }AKxx {AJ10x) and might have no play (off a
minor-suit ace as well). West might then have passed 3{ or bid 3} rather than 3NT. R Cohen: “Law 16A2 says the Director should be summoned and the UI explained
Had West even stopped to consider whether 3{ was possible in a natural context, when the dummy is faced. It seems like N/S wanted two bites at the apple. The
the Committee probably would have allowed the 3NT bid. In light of West’s tempo, Committee was correct, but there is a faint aroma about the whole case.”
the Committee thought it likely that West had been influenced by the UI and
therefore N/S had been damaged. The Committee adjusted the result to three of a Bramley: “Extreme, but acceptable. I bet we would have to search far and wide to
minor down one, +100 to N/S. find a player who would bid 3{ with the Committee’s example hand. However, 2-
2-4-5 or 2-2-5-4 shape could credibly inspire a 3{ bid.”
DIC of Event: Mike Flader
Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Ed Lazarus, Bob Schwartz, Aaron Silverstein, =And maybe even 1-3-4-5 and 1-3-5-4.
Chris Willenken
L. Cohen: “I love it. I always want to go with my gut, even if it slightly bends the
=It’s only fair to give the Committee chairman a chance to make his apologies laws. I like to have room to interpret. There should be an overriding default in the
before the criticisms begin. bridge laws: ‘If, in spite of all the laws, common sense dictates otherwise, then rule
otherwise.’ I know this opens up a can of worms, but if used wisely, as here, it is

51 52
beautiful. If West did indeed think over all the issues after East’s surprising 3{ and was excellent, but I have a bone to pick. The Committee had no need to decide that
then concluded that East must have forgotten (this being a ‘self-Alerting’ auction), West had been influenced by the UI, and their adjustment does not imply that she
then I’d allow 3NT. I think it is pretty clear to bid 3NT. But the fast 3NT indicates was. Rather, they adjusted because she failed in her obligation to be influenced by
to me that West just abused the Alert Procedure and I am prepared to see her pay the UI and to take the action opposite that suggested. (See my comments on CASE
the price. So, I would make E/W play 3{. (Incidentally, the speed of 3{ is relevant: FIFTEEN.)”
if fast, it implies the forget; if slow, it implies it was maybe the 2=3=4=4 hand with
bad hearts. I’d like to have seen that mentioned.) I would have considered a non- =I disagree with those who would have allowed West to bid 3NT had she given
reciprocal score for N/S and left them with –600.” the 3{ bid due consideration, but decided that 3{ didn’t exist in this auction. In fact
3{ did exist for this pair: their partnership agreement was that 2NT relayed to 3{.
=And if not used wisely, Larry’s default would open a Pandora’s box—not just (They would have been right if East had been the one who had forgotten and if 3{
a can of worms. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.” was thus undefined in E/W’s system. But West was the one who forgot and bid
Larry is not the only panelist to favor not reciprocating the score adjustment to 2NT intending it as natural.) So if West was willing to play in a three-level contract
N/S, leaving them with the table result. below 3NT after having bid a natural 2NT, I would force her to play in the least
favorable such contract, and I think 3} meets the requirement—especially given the
Rigal: “The Directors adopted a broad-brush approach of deciding that E/W would confused state of mind a player who has just forgotten her system might be in. (And
always have recovered from their accident. In theory I disagree with that view, contrary to Jeff Goldsmith’s view that East would not sit for 3}, with her bare 12-
particularly in the context of West’s use of UI. I would like to have seen E/W be the count I think she’d be quite willing to sit for 3} opposite a hand such as ]AQxx
appealing side. As to the Committee, I can understand why they would want to give [Qx }Qxxxx {xx.) So E/W get –200 in 3}. Should this be reciprocated to N/S?
E/W the worst of any doubt. At the hearing the hardliners were really stretching to I think so but it’s close, and I wouldn’t be displeased to see N/S keep their table
find a way to hang the offenders, and in the end I doubt if they were truly happy at result.
the way they managed to do it. I might have been inclined not to reciprocate the As for the PP, that’s a close call also. I think the score adjustment itself in this
score so as not to give N/S the benefit of such a marginal case. Perhaps a PP might case will be a major disincentive not to simply plod on in the face of UI. But a PP
have been considered even if ultimately rejected.” would make this point even more emphatically and I have no serious objection to
issuing one.
=A PP also held some attractiveness to another panelist.
Goldsmith: “Wait a second. Yes, West was influenced by UI and violated Law 73,
but that’s insufficient for a score adjustment. The non-offending side has to be
damaged by the infraction. Were they? I don’t know. What would West’s 3} or 3]
rebid have meant in E/W’s system? We can’t judge what would have happened
without knowing that. All we know is that West chose from among LAs one clearly
suggested over others by the UI. My guess is that most roads would lead to 3NT,
but we can’t tell. If E/W could not tell us their system there, I’d just award the
board to N/S, but it could easily be that after a 3} or 3] rebid, East has an obvious
3NT bid. Surely West would pass that, even without UI. Passing 3{ seems too deep
a position to take; no West would do that without being sure 3{ was intended to
play. In addition, someone with 5000 MP is supposed to know better than West did.
I’d give her a 1/4-board PP for blatant abuse of UI.”
=Jeff is right: we need to know what West’s follow-up bids would have meant
in their system after her 3{ relay. It’s been a while since the hearing, but I think I
recall hearing it said that two-level follow-ups would be invitational. So even if you
think that 3{ is self-Alerting (as Jeff Polisner does), West could still opt for 3}
over 3{ with her weak hearts and what she judged to be non-game-forcing values.
(Some Committee members did not think 3{ was sufficiently self-Alerting that
West would always bid again, hence the adjustment to three-of-a-minor rather than
3}.) And 3] was not possible for West here with only a four-card suit—even that
suit. So most roads did not lead to 3NT; they led to 3{ or 3}. On another note, it
is never acceptable to “just award the board” to one side in BAM or IMP scoring
since that invalidates even an extreme result at the other table. One should always
assign a score in these situations, even if it’s rather generous to one side.
Our final panelist reinforces Barry’s view of the table ruling; then makes a
good point about not attributing intent to a player unnecessarily.
Wildavsky: “The Director’s ruling was poor. Certainly there was damage: E/W
played 3NT instead of 3{. It seems more than likely that the damage was a
consequence of the UI, so the Director ought to have adjusted the score and forced
the offenders to appeal if they had the temerity to do so. The Committee decision

53 54
 CASE EIGHTEEN Wolff: “Perhaps the inexperience of N/S should mitigate the punishment.”
Subject (UI): The Rip Cord On The Emergency Chute Is For Use By Authorized =…and some over the assignment of 3NT as the final contract…
Persons Only
Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 23 Nov 03, First Session L. Cohen: “I agree with both the AWMW and the PP. I’m not sure about 3NT. I
would bid 3} on the third round with North’s hand (what’s the rush to 3NT with
The Facts: 2[ made two, +110 for a singleton spade?) and might reach 5{ making (East doesn’t play hearts when in
Bd: 3 ]A N/S. The opening lead was the }A. with diamonds). But I suppose I can live with ‘the most favorable result that was
Dlr: South [ AJ43 The Director was called after the likely’ and ‘the most unfavorable result that was at all probable’ stuff and accept
Vul: E/W } J1052 opening lead was faced and dummy 3NT as the final contract.”
came down. E/W told the Director
] Q10763
{ AK109
] K954
that South heard North Alert and =…or the possibility that N/S’s final contract should be a doubled one…
explain her 2{ bid as inverted
[ Q1087 [ K2 (strong), after which she passed Goldsmith: “Good job, mostly. PP appropriate. AWMW well-deserved. How could
} 874 } AK63 North’s “reverse” of 2[. The Director anyone appeal as N/S? Wasn’t this screened? N/S were lucky the Panel didn’t have
{2 { 873 ruled that South had UI from the Alert North drive to some spot doubled. In fact, that’s probably technically right; N/S
and that had South not passed 2[, should get some ludicrous minus result (at all probable) and E/W should get +100
] J82 North would have pushed on to 3NT in 3NT (likely). Minus 100 in 3NT is probably a zero anyway, so not bothering
[ 965 (Law 16A2). The contract was further was a reasonable thing for the Panel to do.”
} Q9 changed to 3NT down two, +100 for
{ QJ654 E/W (Law 12C2). =Jeff apparently thinks that screening can stop a meritless appeal from taking
place. It can’t. The Screener can only explain the situation to the appellants. By law
The Appeal: N/S appealed the the final decision of whether or not to proceed is theirs and theirs alone.
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Director’s ruling. N/S said they If N/S reach 5{, as Larry suggests, a heart switch will surely doom it (although
Pass believed that 4{ would have been a it won’t be easy for East to find). If North pulls trump after winning the (presumed)
Pass 1{(1) Pass 2{(2) more realistic final contract than 3NT. spade lead, on the second and third trumps West gives count in spades (telling East
Pass 2[ All Pass South said she misbid, realized it and another spade won’t cash), then discourages in diamonds, and on the first diamond
got out of the auction. When asked if gives suit-preference for hearts to show a card there and hopefully make the heart
(1) Announced (“May be short”) her partner’s explanation influenced switch easier. But if North doesn’t draw trumps, East will have to work out himself
(2) Alerted; explained as inverted her choice to pass 2[ she reflectively that the only way to beat 5{ is to score a heart trick along with two diamond tricks
said “Maybe, in some form, it did.” and shift from [Kx into North’s second-bid suit. Still, opting for 3NT rather than
North had about 1000 MP, South a five-level contract must be likely. As for N/S being doubled, as Jeff suggests, East
3500, East 3800 and West 1600. might well double 5{ holding two diamond tricks, the [K behind the heart bidder
and the ]K for insurance. But I don’t see that as being “likely” and maybe not even
The Panel Decision: The Panel determined that South, after hearing her partner’s “at all probable,” so 3NT does seem the most sensible assignment.
Alert and explanation of 2{, passed 2[, a forcing bid. (She even acknowledged that One other thing requires comment. As Adam pointed out in CASES FIFTEEN
she had been influenced by North’s explanation.) In determining what contract N/S and SEVENTEEN, the laws do not say that players should not allow UI to influence
might have reached, four players with between 1000-3500 MP were consulted. All their actions. If they did, players could take the suggested action and claim, “I’m
of them thought that a 3{ bid was automatic for a South who believed that she had not supposed to let the UI influence me. That’s what I would have bid without the
shown a weak raise, and they all bid 3NT over 3{ with the North hand, assuming UI, so I still had to bid it.” Law 73C says that a player who receives UI “must
2{ was inverted. It was therefore decided that 3NT was both the most favorable carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side.” He must
result that was likely and the most unfavorable result that was at all probable under therefore decide what, if anything, the UI demonstrably suggests, what, if any, LAs
Law 12C2. The contract was changed to 3NT down two, +100 for E/W. N/S were actions exist, and avoid taking any suggested action (even his “normal” one) and
also assessed a 1/4-board PP for South’s pass of 2[ (Law 90A). Experienced take a non-suggested LA instead. Thus, the law requires a player to be influenced
players should know that information from the Alert Procedure and partner’s by the UI—not avoid being influenced by it—but to be influenced to avoid taking
explanations is unauthorized to them and should not be permitted to influence their advantage.
calls (Law 73C). In addition, N/S’s appeal was found lacking in merit and N/S were The remaining panelists support the Panel’s decision as is…
each issued an AWMW.
Rigal: “Really nicely done. Giving a PP in situations like this is something we fail
DIC of Event: Harry Falk to do enough of. Letting N/S leave with so much less than they came with might
Panel: Su Doe (Reviewer), Ken Van Cleve, Matt Smith discourage somebody else in the future—we hope.”
Players consulted: Four players with 1000-3500 MP
Wildavsky: “Slam dunk, along with a foul and the extra point. A perfect Panel
=The panelists all support the Panel’s decision, in general, although some voice decision (no sarcasm intended here). The Director ought to have assessed a PP. If
mild concern over the PP… the case were then appealed should the Panel increase the PP?”
Bramley: “Marginal PP. South bailed to an obviously inferior fit. This was less Polisner: “The AWMW was not adequate for South, who blatantly took advantage
blatant than I like for a PP, but I can accept it.” of UI. The PP was appropriate.”

55 56
 CASE NINETEEN The Panel Decision: The Panel consulted two players with about 300 MP; both
passed 3] in a “clean” auction (one thought his hand was not good enough for an
Subject (UI): The Land Of “As If” Isn’t Such A Strange Place initial 2} bid). Three other pairs with 300-700 MP were asked to defend 3NT. One
Event: Stratified BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Evening (Only) Session discarded a spade from the South hand, one led the ]K and then the ]Q and the
third returned the [J when he came in with the {A. Based on this input the Panel
The Facts: 3NT made four, +630 for decided that: (a) West might have been awakened by the Alert; (b) pass was an LA
Bd: 22 ] AJ6 E/W. The opening lead was the [6. to 3NT; (c) N/S were damaged; (d) the damage was a direct result of the UI (in both
Dlr: East [ K8764 The Director was called when 2} the bidding and the play); and (e) the defense was not so egregious as to sever the
Vul: E/W } 1064 was not Alerted promptly and again connection with the infraction for this level of player. The Panel concluded that the
{ 72 at the end of play. At the first score adjustment made at the table (3] down two, +200 for N/S), while perhaps a
Director call North was allowed to bit generous to E/W, was adequate since the board had been passed out at the other
] 93 ] 8542 change his 2[ bid due to the delay in table and thus spending additional time on determining a more exact result was
[ A52 [ Q109 the Alert (both E/W CCs showed pointless. Both sides were assigned the score for 3] down two, +200 for N/S. E/W
} KJ832 } AQ 2}=majors); North chose to pass. were not given an additional PP for West’s use of UI during the play at trick one
{ QJ4 { K1085 North’s heart lead was won by the due to the failure of the table Director to remind West of this obligation and the fact
queen. West then cashed five rounds that she had only about 200 MP. However, the appeal was found to lack substantial
] KQ107 of diamonds (overtaking the }Q on merit and E/W and their team captain were each assessed an AWMW.
[ J3 the second round; pitching spades
} 975 from dummy) followed by the {Q. DIC of Event: Matt Koltnow
{ A963 South won the second club and led Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Patty Holmes, Candy Kuschner
the [J. The Director ruled that UI Players consulted: eight players with 300-700 MP
from the delayed Alert and the
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH explanation of 2} as the majors =Our first two panelists’ comments reflect my own feelings about this case.
Pass 1NT(1) could have awakened West to her
2}(2) 2[ actual agreement, in which case Bramley: “Thorough and well done on a case with many angles. I agree with all
Pass(3) 3] Pass passing 3] was an LA for her. (Also, aspects: the decision, the AWMW, and the lack of a PP.”
3NT All Pass she may have used the UI from
North’s withdrawn 2[ bid to play the L. Cohen: “If I were to pick the top ten UI cases of the decade to use for
(1) Announced; 10-12 HCP [Q at trick one.) The contract was educational purposes, this would make the list. It has almost everything. Excellent
(2) Alerted (as majors) after 2[ bid changed to 3] down two, +200 for work by the Panel: each one of their points (a, b, c, d, e) is right on target. Not only
(3) Dir. allowed change of call N/S. did they make the right decision and right comments, they properly addressed all
the key issues.”
The Appeal: E/W appealed the
Director’s ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. E/W’s team =The next panelist also makes some good points.
captain also attended. The N/S team had left the playing area and could not be
located to inform them of the appeal. West did not understand why she could not Wildavsky: “Excellent work by the Panel. I do recommend, though, that Panels and
be allowed to bid over 3]. The play had gone as indicated, with South returning the Committees ought to make their decisions without knowing the result at the other
[J after winning the second club. The E/W captain thought this was sufficiently table. The offending side’s contention that the defense was poor enough to sever the
egregious to sever the connection with the infraction. West said she remembered connection between the UI and the partner’s subsequent action was laughable. They
that 2} showed the majors as she was about to put the bid on the table, but she did ought to have been informed in screening that even if the Panel judged this to be the
not call the Director because she didn’t think she’d be allowed to change it anyhow. case the offenders’ score would still have been adjusted, per law 72B1.”
(She said she had been told to call in such situations only if she thought the change
might be allowed, with a caution against using the UI.) As it turned out, when West = The write-up doesn’t say so but the Panel may have only looked at the result
demonstrated her action with the bid card for the Reviewer it was judged likely that from the other table once they’d already decided to change the contract to 3], to
East would not have been able to see the face of the bid card and that the bid may see if worrying about how many down the contract might go was worth spending
not have been considered made under ACBL Regulations if it didn’t “touch or time on. In fact, I’ve seen cases where another Director who knew the result at the
nearly touch the table.” The Reviewer also told her that under such circumstance other table told the Panel, once they decided on the contract, not to waste time
she could call the Director and ask if she could change her bid (with possible UI worrying about the exact number of tricks because it made no difference to the
implications) rather than just go ahead and make the bid and bear the full brunt of BAM score.
Law 25B (Delayed or Purposeful Correction). It was also explained to West that she For those curious about the appropriate result in 3]…
was required to continue after the Alert just as she would have had East explained
2} as showing diamonds and as though East had long spades in a hand that was Gerard: “The defense really had nothing to do with it. There was no way to restore
wrong for an opening spade preempt (e.g., that had four hearts, weak spades, or too down three (the appropriate result in 3] for purposes of an egregiousness analysis),
much outside strength to preempt). Given this, pass seemed an LA. The Panel also so South gets to return that silly [J without cost.”
learned that the table Director had not warned West against using the UI from
North’s withdrawn 2[ bid during the play of the hand. West had about 200 MP, =Down three really isn’t all that difficult. North wins the heart lead, switches to
East 850, North 450 and South 700. a club, and later obtains a club ruff. N/S then take four spades, one heart, one club
and a club ruff in the North hand.

57 58
 The next panelist disagrees with Ron and finds South’s defense egregious. CASE TWENTY
Polisner: “How can this defense not be sufficient to sever the connection, even for Subject (MI): Foreign Correspondence
a player with only 700 MP?” Event: Life Master Pairs, 21 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session
= West surely couldn’t hold the [K and have played the [Q at trick one, but she The Facts: 3NT made five, +660
could hold the [A. Could she have no heart honor and have guessed North to have Bd: 10 Edward Molloy for E/W. The Director was called
underled the [AK? That’s seriously anti-percentage when she could simply play Dlr: East ] Q654 after the round finished, but before
North for the [J and insert one of dummy’s heart intermediates. So Jeff is right that Vul: Both [ AQ1076 the players had moved. The opening
South’s heart play at trick nine looks very poor (although one of the three consulted } K7 lead was the ]J, won by the king,
pairs made this same play) but if West had the ]A and no heart honor and guessed and at trick two the {J was led and
right at trick one, South’s heart return was a winner. { 106 passed successfully when South
But Ron is right that none of that is really relevant since even if South wins the Peter Fredin Peter Bertheau failed to cover. South insisted that
{A and returns a spade his side still cannot be compensated for the 300 (or even the ]2 ] K987 his play was correct because East
200) that was coming to them defending 3]. [ 943 [ KJ could not hold two clubs and be
A couple of panelists question the nature of East’s 3] bid, and more. } Q653 } AJ1042 unbalanced. Thus, given the
explanation he received he had no
Goldsmith: “Isn’t a 3] bid by a passed hand there supposed to show a big diamond { AK943 { J5 chance to get the defense right (he
fit? Whatever it means, E/W isn’t going to avoid a minus, so that’s good enough. Jim Backstrom did not think 5-4-2-2 distribution
West probably should get a PP for use of UI in the bidding, but again, players with ] AJ103 was unbalanced). The Director
200 MP don’t get PPs for abuse of UI. I think it’s pretty marginal to give them an [ 852 ruled that West’s explanation that
AWMW given their inexperience, but this appeal was pretty ludicrous. Someone 1} was not a balanced hand was
must have told them it wasn’t going to work. ‘I don’t understand why’ is not an } 98 accurate since 5-4-2-2 distribution
acceptable reason for an appeal.” { Q872 can be classified as either balanced
or unbalanced (technically, it is
=Maybe some experts would treat 3] as fit showing, but not all would agree WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH “semi-balanced”). The table result
with that interpretation. As the Panel pointed out, some might think 3] shows a 1}(1) Pass was allowed to stand.
hand with good spades but too much side defense to preempt initially, or a hand
with a second suit, or a hand with too weak a spade suit to preempt on. And even 3](2) Pass 3NT All Pass The Appeal: N/S appealed the
if the fit-showing interpretation were normal, we should be careful about attributing (1) Not a balanced hand Director’s ruling and were the only
expert agreements or inferences to players with 200 and 850 MP. (2) Splinter pair to attend the hearing. South
said that had he known East could
Rigal: “This is a truly messy case. Everyone made a sensible pass at deciding who have a doubleton club he would
could do what. But nobody really addressed that 3] might have been forcing if have covered the {J at trick two. After the ]J opening lead he said a top seed
West’s 2} bid was natural. And if it was would she not bid 3NT now? As to the UI would never try an illegitimate line by trying to float the singleton {J, so there was
from the 2[ bid, does it really point to guessing the hearts right? I’m not convinced. no reason to cover the presumed singleton. If East held a doubleton he expected him
I do think the case has merit; it is by far the most complex one we’ve encountered to return to hand to play a second club to the nine, lose to the ten, and go down one.
in this casebook thus far.” South was convinced that East’s singleton had to be in clubs as West was known
to have some length in clubs but not in hearts. 3NT made five rather than three after
=With East being a passed hand it is difficult to imagine 3] as forcing, the non-cover when South led the ]A out of turn later in the play. E/W were expert
especially if it was acceptable in this partnership for West to bid 2} with that hand. international players from Sweden who played only occasionally in North America.
I agree, though, that North could just as easily hold five hearts to the jack as to the East had about 710 ACBL MP, West 700, North 1700 and South 6380.
king; the heart lead itself marked North with long hearts irrespective of the 2[ bid.
So as it turned out West’s choice of plays at trick one should have been The Committee Decision: The Committee reviewed the ACBL’s definition of a
unrestricted. balanced hand and determined that a 5-4-2-2 pattern could be defined as either
As for the merit, I still fail to see any. Okay? balanced or unbalanced. E/W were a Swedish pair and N/S could have asked more
questions as to what West meant by “Not a balanced hand.” The Committee was
Wolff: “Okay.” somewhat constrained by E/W’s absence (their right as non-appellants) and so
could not determine the details of their system, including the range for the 1}
opening. But since East’s hand could legitimately be considered “not balanced” the
Committee decided that there had been no MI (making the issue of the competence
of South’s subsequent defense moot). Finally, the Committee determined that the
appeal had merit because of the somewhat ambiguous definition of “balanced.”
DIC of Event: Chris Patrias
Committee: Richard Popper (chair), Larry Cohen, Gail Greenberg, Paul Munafo,
Howard Weinstein

59 60
 CASE TWENTY-ONE
=Let’s begin with some afterthoughts from one of the Committee members.
Subject (MI): Oops, Never Mind
L. Cohen: “In retrospect, I wish we could have been harsher towards N/S. Had we Event: Early Open Pairs, 21 Nov 03, Second Session
gotten to the reasons for South’s non-cover, I think we would have had a hard time
buying it. But once we determined that the ‘unbalanced’ explanation was okay The Facts: 1NT made one, +90 for
(although I do wish E/W would have shown up so we could have asked questions Bd: 18 ] J102 E/W. The opening lead was the ]J.
about their system), there was no need to go further. Also, since the definition of Dlr: East [ Q854 E/W called the Director at the end of
balanced was confusing I suppose there was merit. It’s ironic, though. Had we Vul: N/S } Q104 play saying that at trick one declarer
agreed with N/S that the explanation was wrong (i.e., that there was MI), I think it asked South about her side’s carding
would have been worse for N/S. We’d then have gotten into the merits of the { QJ8 agreements and was told “Standard”;
defensive logic (the non-cover) and might have found no merit.” ] 95 ] AK64 no mention was made of the fact that
[ K76 [ AJ2 N/S played Lavinthal discards. N/S’s
=Most of the other panelists also have thoughts about the merit here. } K987 } J3 CC, marked Lavinthal discards, was
{ A642 { 10975 on the floor when the question was
Bramley: “No merit. The ambiguity about ‘unbalanced’ was marginal at best, and asked. Dummy saw that it was so
South’s failure to cover the {J was hopeless. N/S had no chance to win this case ] Q873 marked but did not mention the
and they should have known it.” [ 1093 omission in the explanation since he
} A652 knew he was not allowed to speak
Rigal: “I really do not see any semblance of merit here; what South thinks is { K3 until the end of the hand. The play
supremely irrelevant. Anyone who thinks the East hand is balanced should take up proceeded: ]J to dummy’s ace (South
some other sport and if South wanted to know he should have asked. Trying to win following with the eight); {10, K, A,
in Committee what you can’t win at the table deserves an AWMW.” WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 8. North won the {J next and cashed
1{ Pass the {Q, South discarding the ]3. The
Goldsmith: “Good job. N/S, when about to be on defense to 3NT, really ought to 1} Pass 1] Pass ]10 went to dummy’s king and the
have questioned E/W about the possible shapes East could have. 7-2-2-2 seems 1NT All Pass }J was passed to North’s queen, after
possible and can therefore include a doubleton club. The failure to award an which West never scored the }K. At
AWMW was mildly generous.” the end of the hand, in the presence of
the Director, E/W claimed that they had been damaged by South’s failure to
Gerard: “I couldn’t find it, but I’m surprised at the conclusion. South needed to mention Lavinthal discards and that West would have taken eight tricks if he’d
protect himself early on (after the {J was led would have been a little late) just as known the significance of South’s play of the ]3. When asked what he would have
a matter of good technique, so no sympathy.” done differently if he’d been fully informed West could not state how he was
damaged. Dummy suggested he might have led a diamond to the king. The Director
Polisner: “No MI, no case!” ruled that declarer was misinformed (Laws 75A and 20F2) but the MI did not cause
damage (Laws 47E2b and 40C). South might have signaled the same way holding
Martel: “Good job by the Committee (as on the previous deals). In particular, it is the }Q10 instead of the }A and declarer’s inability to state what he would have
unreasonable to expect a better description than “unbalanced” for 5-4-2-2 or a hand done differently made it unlikely that the MI was the cause of his taking only seven
with a stiff. In particular, here it’s doubtful that South really reasoned as indicated. tricks. The table result was allowed to stand.
He had to guess (and fairly quickly) whether to cover or not if declarer had J10(x).”
=Chip makes an excellent point (echoed indirectly by Ron): how could South The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. West did not attend the hearing
initially but was later summoned by the Reviewer (see below). N/S confirmed that
have reasoned as he said he did when the {J was led? There simply wasn’t enough their answer to the question about their carding did not include Lavinthal discards.
time. And if South did think even momentarily when the {J was led, perhaps that South said that since the question was asked as she was playing to trick one she
resulted in a hitch which East noticed and he floated the {J based on his “table thought it only related to following suit and didn’t think to mention her discarding
feel.” And why would a top seed never try floating a singleton {J? Suppose East methods. The Reviewer informed her that she should have mentioned all of her
held ]Kxxx [Qxx }AKxxx {J. With only eight top tricks and no real hope for a carding agreements in response to the question. N/S did not have a good memory
ninth in either major, what other legitimate chance would declarer have other than of the sequence of plays. East said that after North won the }Q she played a spade
to play for the clubs to be distributed like they were or a misdefense? to South’s queen and South then cashed the }A and exited with the [10. Declarer
So I agree with the above panelists who find little merit in this appeal, but the won dummy’s jack, crossed to hand with the [K and cashed the }K, pitching his
two remaining panelists express other perspectives. (good) spade. When the Reviewer pointed out that this seemed to lead to eight
tricks (two spades, three hearts, one diamond and two clubs), East said that was
Wildavsky: “Fine. It seems a dull decision, but these cases are important. In order what must have happened but his being upset at the possible damage from MI must
to retain confidence in the system the appellants must be able to see that their have caused him to miscount his actual tricks. The scoring ticket was inspected; it
concerns have been thoroughly investigated.” showed 1NT made one, +90 for E/W, but E/W had not initialed it. East said that he
hadn’t initialed it since the ruling had taken some time and the Director asked them
Wolff: “E/W got too much because of their definition of unbalanced, but N/S to move quickly to the next table after he finished gathering the facts. The Reviewer
should at least be –600.” asked East whether he told the Director that the }K had not scored a trick; he said
he did not. When the Director was called in and asked about it he said he thought

61 62
East had told him that West never scored the }K as the appeal form was being issue was not moot.”
filled out. He also said that while he was at the table he was only told of the play
up to the point where North won the }Q. The Reviewer then requested West’s =I suggest that a player who pitched a good trick (dummy’s thirteenth spade) on
presence and he arrived after being called by East. He told the Panel he did not his own winner when he played the hand shouldn’t be allowed to take an extra trick
remember the hand very well but after looking at the hand record he doubted that in the replay—especially when his arguments for being awarded another trick are
he would have led the }J had he known the opponents’ discarding methods. He frivolous and incompetent to begin with. And the Panel did not believe that West
thought he might have avoided playing diamonds until later in the hand if he’d been took eight tricks without a diamond trick; they believed he took eight tricks with it.
aware of their methods. As play was further reviewed in West’s presence the The write-up clearly states: “the Reviewer pointed out that this seemed to lead to
players gradually reached an agreement that the play had proceeded along the lines eight tricks (two spades, three hearts, one diamond and two clubs).” I suggest that
East described, to the point where South cashed the }A. Neither of the N/S players a panelist who can’t read the write-up…oh, never mind.
could remember if North scored the [Q, the }10, or which six tricks they might
have taken. West had about 670 MP, East 8440, North 515 and South 320. Rigal: “Hard to comment on a decision if one was not made. I did not realize,
though, that the score correction could be made in this way. One lives and learns.”
The Panel Decision: The Panel first considered whether West had actually taken
eight tricks instead of seven. Law 79 and the regulations pursuant to it would allow =Maybe there wasn’t a decision, but there was a resolution nonetheless. As for
the Panel to change the score on that basis if it was determined that eight tricks had the score correction, Law 79A says: “The number of tricks won shall be agreed
actually been taken. Based on the statements of all the players, the Panel decided upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.” It says nothing about
it was overwhelmingly likely that declarer had actually taken eight tricks. Since that what to do if no agreement—or disagreement—is reached. It should also be noted
rendered the issue of damage from the MI moot, it was not considered further. The that this differs from an error that was made in computing the agreed-upon score
contract was changed to 1NT made two, +120 for E/W. (i.e., the number of tricks won), which Law 79C says may be corrected until the
expiration of the correction period: 30 minutes after the posting of the scores. To
DIC of Event: Jay Albright complicate things further, in this case a Director who was actually present at the
Panel: Matt Smith (Reviewer), Candy Kuschner, Charlie MacCracken table when the scoring was being done apparently asked E/W to move quickly to
Players consulted: none the next table and did not check that the score ticket was filled out correctly or was
properly initialized. Perhaps this should all be treated as Director error?
=Once again my own thoughts are echoed by…
Wildavsky: “Excellent work by the Panel.”
Bramley: “This appeal was meritless despite the score change in the appellants’
favor. The change stemmed not from any arguments advanced by the appellants but Wolff: “Okay.”
from the fortuitous side effect of the Directors discovering, with extreme difficulty,
the actual number of tricks taken. The trick determination also showed that the
appellants had not been deprived of any tricks by the incomplete explanation.
Reconstructing the order of play should have been an obvious prerequisite for the
table Director in determining whether declarer had been damaged.”
=Bart and I are not the only ones devoid of sympathy for E/W.
L. Cohen: “I wouldn’t give E/W the time of day and certainly not an eighth trick.
The MI argument is ultra-absurd to the nth degree. As to how many tricks were
taken, I don’t think that should be an appeal matter.”
=No, it shouldn’t. But fact finding is a valid concern for Appeals Committees
and the Panel was obligated to investigate the matter and determine whatever facts
were deemed relevant to adjudicating the case. That this should more properly have
been seen to at the table is beside the point. And we shouldn’t allow our opinion of
the players to affect the conduct of our duty—though we can use it to mock them.
Goldsmith: “‘We were damaged! We should have taken eight tricks.’ ‘How did
you avoid taking eight tricks anyway?’ ‘I don’t remember.’ ‘Let’s go over the
play…you did take eight tricks.’ ‘Oh. Never mind.’”
=The next panelist presents us with a paradox.
Polisner: “I suggest that a player who can’t count the number of tricks he took is
unlikely to go right if he understood the significance of Lavinthal. However, I think
the decision is incorrect as West may have taken nine tricks had he put up the }K
(three spades, three hearts, one diamond and two clubs). Therefore, if the Panel
believed that declarer had actually taken eight tricks without a diamond trick, the

63 64
 CASE TWENTY-TWO adjust the score. They assigned N/S the result for 3NT down two. As for E/W, was
their defense so egregious as to constitute a failure to play bridge? The Committee
Subject (MI): The Smith Family Sports A Rogue Gene decided it was not. Most pairs, told that declarer had a singleton club, would likely
Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 23 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session defend the same way E/W had no matter what their defensive methods. Therefore,
the contract was changed for both sides to 3NT down two, +100 for E/W. The
The Facts: 3NT made three, +400 Committee next decided the appeal had merit. While N/S’s statements were not
Bd: 3 Gene Saxe for N/S. The opening lead was the sufficient for a decision in their favor, they were entitled to make their case. The
Dlr: South ]A {8. North won the first trick with laws do not require written evidence in order to receive a favorable decision and the
Vul: E/W [ AJ43 the {K and play proceeded (E/W judgment of the sufficiency of the evidence could have been a close one. Finally,
} J1052 playing upside-down signals): }2, North asked if he was supposed to volunteer information about the intended
}6, }Q, }4; }9, }8, }5, }K; meaning of his 2NT bid once his side became the declarers. He was told that,
{ AK109 {7…. N/S, an established according to law, a member of the declaring side must correct his partner’s
Linda Smith Ron Smith partnership, said that South’s mistaken explanation at the end of the auction (a defender must wait until the hand
] Q10763 ] K954 explanation of the 2NT bid was is over) but need not disclose his own misbid. As a matter of self-interest, though,
[ Q1087 [ K2 correct but they could not produce a player should strongly consider explaining the intended meaning of his bid since
any documentation. The Director by not doing so he risks an adverse score adjustment if he can’t convince a Director
} 874 } AK63 ruled that there had been MI (Law or Committee that his partner’s explanation was correct and if the opponents are
{2 { 873 75, Example 2: “the Director is to damaged in the auction or the subsequent play. But by explaining his understanding
Tom Smith presume mistaken explanation of his partnership agreement at the end of the auction, he will be able to keep his
] J82 rather than mistaken bid in the table result, good or bad, as long as the opponents’ bidding was not affected and his
[ 965 absence of evidence to the volunteered explanation prevents further damage during the play. As a player, then,
contrary”) and changed the contract one must judge whether or not one will be able to convince a Director or Committee
} Q9 to 3NT down two, +100 for E/W that it was your bid that was mistaken and not your partner’s explanation. Since this
{ QJ654 (Law 40C and 12C2). is a tough case to make without written evidence (such as a notation on the CC or
system notes) a player will often be better off explaining his own understanding of
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Appeal: N/S appealed the a disputed call, regardless of which partner was mistaken.
Pass Director’s ruling. N/S explained
that the basis for their confusion DIC of Event: Steve Bates
Pass 2}(1) Pass 2[(2) was that if responder bid 2] in Committee: Adam Wildavsky (non-voting chair), Darwin Afdahl, Lowell
Pass 2NT(3) Pass 3NT response to a 2} opening, opener Andrews, David Berkowitz
needed 3[ as a natural bid. So they
All Pass
(1) Alerted; weak two-bid in a M or a agreed that opener would rebid =Most panelists not only support the Committee’s decision but applaud the
2NT in that auction with any strong write-up—especially the advice on disclosure at the end.
good 4-4-4-1 three-suiter. But when the response
(2) Alerted; Pass-or-Correct was 2[, as here, all bids above 2] Wildavsky: “I was happy not to have to vote here, but I agree with the Committee’s
(3) Alerted; good 3-suiter (17+ HCP), were available and opener showed decision.”
short { his shortness immediately. E/W
said they played a form of Smith =That’s okay. Thanks for your excellent effort with the write-up.
Echo which might have been able Once again expressing my own sentiments about this case is…
to help them overcome the MI, but there was an ambiguity in their methods
introduced in part by the MI. They played that the “owner” of the suit led on Bramley: “Yes. The second half of the ‘Decision’ is the best argument I have seen
opening lead used reverse Smith Echo (a high-low in the first suit played by in favor of full disclosure of ambiguous agreements. Rather than tapping into
declarer to suggest a switch) while the partner of the owner of the suit led used players’ altruistic sense of decency and Active Ethics, Wildavsky suggests that
standard Smith Echo (a high-low in the first suit declarer played to suggest a good old self-interest is a more powerful reason to disclose a potential
continuation of the suit led). Who was the “owner” of the suit? The player with misunderstanding. That makes good sense. In any endeavor, adherence to a legal
presumed length, normally the player who bid the suit or, if the suit is unbid, the code is much easier when doing so provides positive feedback (‘do this and
one who led it. East thought the extenuating circumstances here, with declarer maximize your result’) instead of neutral/negative feedback (‘do this because we
known to be short in clubs, made his partner the “owner” of that suit, so he treated say so’).
her }4 as a reverse Smith Echo, encouraging a club continuation. North had about
4650 MP, South 7900, East 17,200 and West 11,400. Polisner: “Excellent write-up, which should be a model for how the declaring side
should correct the explanation—whether correct or not—if they would not be able
The Committee Decision: The Committee found that N/S’s statements, while to overcome the prescription of MI.”
logical, did not rise to a level sufficient to decide that there had been a mistaken bid
rather than a mistaken explanation. Pairs using complex methods have a special Goldsmith: “Very good job, including the advice at the end.”
obligation to know and understand those methods. Further, they have the option to
maintain system notes and make them available to a Committee should they be Rigal: “N/S never demonstrated satisfactorily that this was a mistaken bid situation.
needed, as here. Had N/S had system notes to support what they said the Committee Accordingly, since the defense was to my mind reasonable in context, this is far
might well have decided this case differently. As it was, the Committee decided to closer to an AWMW than the Committee thought. As to the obiter dicta on

65 66
correcting mistaken bids, I think North would have been wise to foresee the North, holding ]AK109 [AJxx }A {J10xx, passes. On a bad day 4] would go
problems that actually arose and to try to forestall them.” down, so it’s not a total disaster. However, a masochist would give North the [10.
I suppose South could rebid 3], Pass-or-Correct, instead of 3[ but that plays 3NT
=Supporting Barry’s view of the case’s merit and then some… when North has a misfitting minimum and 3] when he has a fitting non-maximum.
Third, how does 2NT showing spade shortness make any sense? What does that do
L. Cohen: “No merit. I’d have been ashamed to appeal, and I’m surprised that this for 3{, 3} and 3[? It’s dyslexic to bid the suit above the singleton, and only in one
particular N/S pair pursued it. I don’t care what the rules are, if I was playing of the four suits to boot.
complicated methods I would have to be 101 percent sure that I had misbid (and “The bottom line is that every three-suiter should identify not only that it is a
partner had explained correctly) if I were to withhold the ‘correct’ explanation. And three-suiter but where the shortness is. Because of the Multi implications, N/S have
even then I would feel compelled to just tell the opponents what I have (instead of space constraints when responder chooses to respond 2]. But those are forced on
what I am supposed to have). Sorry, Chris Compton (and any others who think this them by system and no one would willingly duplicate the problems over a 2[
is breaking the laws and unfair to the field). And even if I did keep my mouth shut response when they are so easily correctable. N/S’s methods over 2[ are what pairs
(as North did), I would find it fitting that the Director restored justice and gave me would choose to do, short of some souped-up mind-numbing construction. The
the result I deserved. And then to appeal? I’d sooner give up the game.” Committee really penalized N/S for not being able to prove it via notes, and didn’t
=The next panelist is still making up his own laws, and playing deity. think about how logical N/S’s statements were. The footnote has corrupted the
thought process to the point that everyone is now relying on it as a crutch instead
of doing the dirty work, but that may explain its attractiveness to certain members
Wolff: “N/S zero and E/W Average. Until we correct this abomination of a rule of the Committee.
regarding the difference between a mistaken bid and a mistaken explanation we will “I don’t agree with the objectivist dictum about preserving one’s self-interest.
continue to be ‘at sea.’ N/S should know and properly explain their unusual If Directors and Committees are going to blindly follow the footnote, it has some
conventions or else they will be severely penalized.” logic. But when you know what your methods are and that other ones make no
=It is clearly wrong to assign absolute scores at any form of team scoring since sense, why would you assume you have to take out insurance against a Committee
failing to think for itself? Why should you be forced to worry about convincing a
it invalidates the result at the other table. What if N/S’s teammates at the other table Director when the laws more or less take all judgment away from him? Why should
bid and made 4], +620 E/W (South led a low heart, 7, J, K, providing two pitches you be forced to guess how diligent a Committee will be in assessing the evidence
for declarer’s losing diamonds)? Why should they lose the board when even if N/S to the contrary? There’s too much uncertainty involved in the Committee’s
were forced to go down several tricks in 3NT at our table the result from their table formulation.
would be good enough for a win? Note that, at BAM especially, there’s no “field” “This is an important case. We should be discouraging ruling by formula, not
to protect, so that argument doesn’t hold up here (if it ever did). encouraging it. The standards for evaluating evidence are different for Directors and
And once again, we’re not here to punish errors in explanations, hesitations or Committees and it is disconcerting to see that Committees don’t appreciate the
the use of conventions (unless someone’s actions are judged flagrant or egregious, advantages they have in this regard. N/S would have proven it to me, and I would
which was certainly not the case here). Our job is to redress damage. And even if have titled this case ‘Rub of the Gene.’ (By the way, I didn’t know Mr. Weinstein
punishment were appropriate it should not be achieved through score adjustments was writing the Editor’s material for him now. [He wasn’t.—Ed.])”
but rather through the use of PPs, which ideally should not accrue to the opponents.
Finally, one panelist takes a very different view of this Committee’s decision, =Ron’s excellent arguments for deciding for N/S almost convince me. And he
which goes to the very essence of the way we evaluate evidence. is certainly right about the evils of blindly following the Law 75 footnote. But there
are other possibilities that he failed to mention that make sense here. For example,
Gerard: “Okay, so E/W had no shot at figuring it out. You can’t blame them for N/S said that when the response to 2} is 2] they use 2NT as any good three-suiter,
their methods, that’s what they were playing. But as an aside, you can’t stop me but the extra bid after a 2[ response makes it possible for opener to show shortness
from wondering how people get so much time on their hands and what they do directly. That’s all well and good, but is it clear that North agreed to this treatment?
when really important stuff happens. However, if there was MI they were clearly Maybe he wanted to keep the responses the same for both responses to reduce the
entitled to an adjustment. memory load and avoid precisely the sort of problem that occurred here. Maybe he
“The Committee was just wrong in ratifying the presumed misexplanation. It’s simply listened to South’s arguments without comment, never agreed to them, but
one thing for a Director to be instructed as in the [Law 75] footnote, he lacks the South assumed (from his silence) that he agreed. Remember, we’ve seen other pairs
mechanics to assess the evidence. For example, it’s not clear but it seems unlikely where one player said they had a certain agreement and his partner denied it. Maybe
that N/S’s explanation of the reason for their methods was presented to the Director, had I been there I would have been convinced like Ron is. But I have sympathy for
at least not with the detail that it was to the Committee. But a Committee in the the Committee who decided they were not convinced the pair really had the alleged
ACBL is supposed to do more than just accept the default ruling; it’s supposed to agreement without documentation. This was not “ruling by formula,” it was just a
assess the merits of the explanation, consider external evidence and exercise its judgment call. After all, times change and N/S are not Murray and Kehela.
bridge judgment. By this Committee’s own reasoning, written evidence is not As for Ron’s disagreement with the Committee’s advice on disclosure, no one
necessary to receive a favorable ruling. Not all pairs have system notes. Can you suggests that you should always assume you have to “take out insurance against a
imagine in Murray and Kehela’s heyday asking them to prove one of their Committee failing to think for itself.” The advice is to judge for yourself whether
explanations by reference to system notes? That this N/S didn’t have or couldn’t you think you can convince the authorities that it was you who misbid and not your
present notes shouldn’t have prejudiced their explanation if it made sense. partner who misexplained. Making notations on your CC and keeping good system
“I don’t think the Committee thought clearly about this. First, I would bet on notes (even if you are Eric or Sammy) are both good practices. Deciding whether
South having a firmer grip on the partnership methods, especially in the afternoon you can make a convincing enough argument to the “gendarmes” is something you
session. Second, how does 2NT showing some shortness make any sense? Suppose need to consider before deciding whether nor not to tell the opponents what you
South has ]QJxxx [9xx }J8x {Q9. Over 2NT he bids 3} or 3[, let’s say 3[. think your call means. Insurance is part of modern life, and there are no guarantees.

67 68
 CASE TWENTY-THREE Goldsmith: “Did anyone check if systemically 2[ did, in fact, promise first-round
control? That’s a pretty unusual agreement. If it didn’t, there might have been MI,
Subject (MI): Diamonds Aren’t Always A Girl’s Best Friend though not what E/W thought.”
Event: Stratified Senior Swiss Teams, 23 Nov 03, First Session
= I agree that playing 2[ (opener’s first side-suit rebid after an inverted raise) as
The Facts: 6{ made six, +1370 for showing first-round control is pretty unusual and can lead to some awkward rebid
Bd: 12 ] J843 N/S. The opening lead was a small problems. For example, what does North rebid holding ]xxx [KQxx }xxx {AQJ?
Dlr: West [ AJ109 diamond. The Director was called at 2NT and 3{ are both misdescriptive, even if one of North’s diamonds is exchanged
Vul: N/S }K the end of play. 2[ was Alerted as for a fourth club. And if N/S really had the agreement they claimed, why did it
{ KQxx showing first-round control. There was apply only to opener’s first side-suit rebid and not to any of his others?
a dispute as to whether any subsequent On the other hand, suppose only 2[ was Alerted and explained as first-round
] AKxx ] 10xx bids were Alerted. The Director ruled control. What would you lead against 6{ as East? I, for one, think a diamond lead
[ xx [ Qxxx there was no MI (Law 21): The Alert a stand out. North made a third-round 3] bid on the way to slam. Surely you’d
} 10xxxx } Q9x and explanation of 2[ as showing expect something other than jack-fourth for such a bid, which makes leading from
{ xx { 9xx first-round control applied only to the ]10xx fairly unattractive. The diamond lead, on the other hand, is through
2[ bid; E/W seemed to have thought it dummy’s strength and has the potential of setting up a defensive trick before
] Qx applied to the subsequent bids as well. partner’s side ace is knocked out. Contrary to what Larry says, I wouldn’t be
[ Kxx The table result was allowed to stand. inclined to adjust E/W’s score even if their claims about the Alerts were right. In
} AJxx fact, the following panelist’s view of E/W’s position is closer to my own.
{ AJ10x The Appeal: E/W appealed the
Director’s ruling. E/W said North’s Wolff: “Good ruling plus sour grapes by the poor losers.”
bids from 2[ on were Alerted by
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH South and at the end of the auction =The remaining panelists all express solidarity with the Director’s ruling and the
Pass 1{ Pass 2{(1) described as showing first-round Panel’s decision, including the AWMW.
Pass 2[(2) Pass 3} controls. North did not correct this
Pass 3] Pass 4[ prior to East’s lead. Also, South’s 6{ Rigal: “We seem to be encountering a distressing number of cases where we come
bid “validated” the control-showing to Committee with one person’s word against another and a sensible Director ruling
Pass 5{ Pass 6{ sequence. Based on the expectation of based on first-hand knowledge of the facts. The appellants should realize that the
All Pass finding first-round controls in both chance that another version of the facts will prevail is slim in the extreme, and the
(1) Alerted; inverted majors with North, East led a diamond. penalty for failure to convince the Panel or Committee is an AWMW.”
(2) Alerted; first-round control She said that if she had known these
bids simply showed controls she might Wildavsky: “No argument here.”
have led a spade instead. East had
about 920 MP, West 970, North 760 and South 2280. Polisner: “No harm, no foul.”
The Panel Decision: The exact wording used to describe N/S’s agreements about =I’m with them.
showing controls or stoppers was not agreed. The Panel did not find any MI and And finally, just for fun…
therefore no infraction of the laws. The table result was allowed to stand. E/W’s
appeal was found lacking in merit and they were each assessed an AWMW. Bramley: “Waste of time. Good AWMW. By the way, the DIC has the same name
as the hero of Airplane (spelled Striker) and the hero of the movie that Airplane
DIC of Event: Ted Stryker parodies, Zero Hour (spelled Stryker).”
Panel: Su Doe (Reviewer), Ken Van Cleve, Patty Holmes
Players consulted: none reported =Yes, and he also has the same name as Fran Striker (the man who wrote and co-
created, with George W. Trendle, the Lone Ranger, the Green Hornet and Sergeant
=The Director and Panel both believed that North’s bids subsequent to 2[ were Preston of the Yukon) and as Sergeant John M. Stryker, John Wayne’s character in
not Alerted as showing first-round controls and that E/W wrongly inferred that the The Sands of Iwo Jima.
Alert of 2[ applied to them as well. Our first panelist questions this conclusion.
L. Cohen: “Another ‘he said-she said’ case. Always disturbing. If South indeed
Alerted all of North’s bids as showing first-round controls, I’d have found MI and
determined that East might have led a spade and allowed her to do so. But it doesn’t
seem clear that there was MI. I wonder how N/S made it (I see how it could be
made), not that it matters.”
= Yes, it’s clear that making 6{ requires ruffing out the }Q and finessing the [Q
through East on the first round of the suit (drawing at least two trumps along the
way so that hearts can be cleared).
Our second panelist wants to know more about that 2[ bid.

69 70
 CASE TWENTY-FOUR Bramley: “The Director was painted into a corner by the combination of North’s
explanation, South’s hand, and West’s unlucky line of play, all precipitated by
Subject (MI): Another Trick Question? East’s superfluous question. If the Director had somehow seen deeply enough into
Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Second Final Session the deal to let the result stand, an appeal by E/W would have been meritless. East
upholds the family tradition by appearing in way too many appeals himself. As for
The Facts: 4] went down one, ducking the first trick, it would blow a trick not only in the layouts cited by the
Bd: 11 Paul Hackett +50 for N/S. The opening lead was Committee but also when North holds the {A and declarer misguesses the ending
Dlr: South ] Q105 the }K. The Director was called (either by assuming that the defenders have missed their ruff and playing South for
Vul: None [ J102 after the round ended. North’s the {A or by misguessing the distribution for the strip-squeeze on North).
} K2 reply to East’s inquiry about the 3} Declarer’s line of winning the first trick and cashing top spades and hearts will
bid was that it “was stronger than always make the maximum when the lead was a singleton, and no guesses are
{ AQ972 2}” (a 2} opening would have needed. East’s question about the 3} bid is the kind of thing that causes appeals.
Joe Grue Mike Moss been a weak two-bid). South told What possible difference could it have made to him? Yes, West might have asked
] AJ732 ] K9864 E/W after the hand (and the a question himself as declarer, but maybe it wouldn’t have occurred to him. Some
[ K4 [ AQ87 Director later) that 3} showed players just can’t take their lumps.”
more distribution and playing
} J86 } A9 strength than 2}, but not =To be fair, if you’re a player who likes to ask the opponents about their bidding
{ K54 { 86 necessarily more HCP. West said tendencies in competitive auctions you should always ask—not just when you need
John Armstrong the explanation of 3} deflected to know. Is East such a player? The jury is still out, but in my experience he asks
] --- him from ducking the opening lead quite a bit, even if not always. But is this an auction that you would ever really need
[ 9653 (and ultimately endplaying North in to ask about? The jury may still be out on that one, too.
trumps) for fear that a club to the
} Q107543 ace at trick two would result in Gerard: “How about when North holds ]Qx [J10x }K {AJ109xxx? Abuse of
{ J103 only ten tricks. The Director ruled process by E/W, if we’re going to have censorship that’s what should be censored.”
that there had been MI and adjusted
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH the result to 4] made four, +420 Rigal: “No consideration of an AWMW? It seems to me to be perilously close. If
3} for E/W (Laws 40C and 12C2). you were told South had extra shape, how could you not take the }K? This whole
argument seems flimsy in the extreme, and we have seen way too much of one of
Pass Pass Dbl(1) Pass The Appeal: N/S appealed the the appellants in appeal rooms recently.”
4] All Pass Director’s ruling. N/S said South’s
(1) After asking about the 3} bid 3} bid was unusually weak for =Sorry, Barry, but when a pair actually wins their appeal we seldom consider an
their methods (North did not expect AWMW.
that hand) and that a more accurate Some panelists disagree about the appropriateness of the table ruling.
explanation would have been that it showed a more distributional hand than a 2}
opening. N/S believed that West would still have won the }A at trick one had he Wolff: “The Committee got it right. Incorrect ruling by the Directors who should
received more accurate information. E/W said that West could have make 4] by have know that distribution was what this was about, not high cards. E/W should
ducking the }K at trick one and would have done so with the correct explanation. be censored for calling the Director.”
The Committee noted that N/S’s CCs had the box labeled “light” checked under
Opening Preempts. N/S were expert international players from England who play Wildavsky: “The Committee did a fine job here. I do not object to the Director’s
only occasionally in North America. North had about 400 ACBL MP, South none, ruling; North’s explanation, while perhaps accurate, could have been phrased in a
East 13,300 and West 4100. manner that would have been more useful to his opponents.”
The Committee Decision: It was not clear to the Committee that North’s L. Cohen: “I’m not sure how I would have decided on the MI issue but I am spared
explanation of the difference between his partnership’s 2} and 3} openings was from doing so. I agree with the Committee that no matter what West was told, it
inaccurate, and therefore it was not clear that there was MI. If there was no MI then was most unlikely he would ever duck trick one at this form of scoring. I’ll bet if
there was no infraction and the table result must stand. However, the Committee you followed the board around the room at tables where the auction and opening
also decided that even if there was MI it did not cause West to go down in 4]. lead were the same that nobody ducked trick one. I think it was okay that the
Ducking the opening lead is a bad play at BAM, risking being held to ten tricks if Director ruled against the ‘offending’ side and that then the bridge experts figured
the }K is singleton, the {A is with South and trumps are two-one. It also gives up out a ‘high-level bridge reason’ to overturn the ruling.”
on making twelve tricks when trumps are two-one, the {A is with South and the
[J109 fall third. For these reasons the Committee restored the table result of 4] =Yes, Directors are not supposed to play the role of bridge experts and with any
down one, +50 for N/S. doubt (as there was here) are well advised to rule for the non-offenders.
The next panelist reinforces Bart’s view of East’s question being akin to the
DIC of Event: Steve Bates Trick Question.
Committee: Richard Popper (chair), Mike Passell, Tom Peters, Bob Schwartz,
Barnet Shenkin Goldsmith: “I agree. ‘Stronger than 2}’ obviously was meant as ‘more of the
same’ and should have been interpreted as such. If West felt the need to rely on that
=Not surprisingly, most panelists have little sympathy for E/W here. statement’s meaning ‘more high card points,’ he ought to have asked a clearer

71 72
question. If a player asks a fuzzy question, gets a fuzzy answer, and then assumes CASE TWENTY-FIVE
specific details from that answer he is doing so at his own risk. If he needs to know
something specific, he must ask a specific question. This does not mean that the Subject (MI): If It’s Almost Thanksgiving, They Must be Turkey-ish
answering side doesn’t have to try to be helpful, but they aren’t expected to read Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Second Final Session
minds, either. For example, if someone blurts ‘Carding?’ (which, by the way, is also
rude and ought not be tolerated) and hears ‘Upside down,’ thusly not finding out The Facts: 4] made six, +680 for
about Lavinthal Discards, it’s his own fault. If he asks, ‘What are your leads, Bd: 3 Sam Lev E/W. The opening lead was the
signals, and discards, please’ and then doesn’t get told about Lavinthal Discards, Dlr: South ] 942 ]2. The Director was called after
then he has been misinformed.” Vul: E/W [ K53 the play. North said he would have
led a low heart if he had known
=Our penultimate panelist thinks the evidence sufficient to adjust N/S’s score, } KJ
{ K7642
E/W’s agreement. The Director
though not E/W’s… ruled that there was MI that had
Irfan Dogan Enver Koksoy damaged N/S. The score was
Martel: “The Committee was probably overly generous to N/S. There are two ] AKQ107 ] J8 adjusted to 4] made five, +650
pieces of evidence to suggest that the explanation was bad: the actual hand and the [ A6 [ 107 for E/W.
checking of ‘light’ on N/S’s CC. Thus, there likely was MI. As to the adjustment,
while the Committee’s reasoning is okay for E/W (dealing with the most favorable } A82 } Q107654 The Appeal: E/W appealed the
likely result), for N/S it is certainly possible that West would guess to duck at trick { QJ9 { A108 Director’s ruling. E/W were from
one, and more likely with the right information. Thus, N/S should be –420.” Brian Glubok Turkey and were attending their
first NABC. East spoke very
=…while our final panelist is alone in his total opposition to the Committee’s ] 653
[ QJ9842 limited English and West none at
decision. all. East explained that in Turkey
} 93 players are instructed to just play
Polisner: “I disagree. There was MI and it may have been the cause of declarer { 53 on when there has been MI. North
going down. However, I agree that he would have likely gone down with the correct had about 5200 MP, South 7850
information. The chances of the [J109 being tripleton are so remote that ducking WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH and E/W had no ACBL MP.
the first trick is a reasonable play. I would have gone along with the Director’s
ruling.” Pass The Committee Decision: Law
2}(1) Pass 3{(2) Pass 75D2, which requires players to
=I find myself somewhere between the majority, who back the Panel’s decision, 4] All Pass correct MI at their first legal
and Chip, who would have given N/S the worst of it and left E/W with their table (1) 20+ HCP, artificial opportunity, is present in both the
result. While I have no sympathy for E/W (especially given the questionable nature (2) Showed }; misexplained as 4-3 Ms ACBL and International editions
of East’s question; and had I been given such an odd answer I would have inquired: of the laws. The Committee
“You mean South will have more side high cards for his 3} opening than he would decided that E/W had misinformed
for a 2} opening?”), I do agree that N/S were just a bit negligent in describing their N/S as to their agreement about
three-bids as “stronger” than their two-bids. But even if N/S’s answer was a bit off, the 3{ bid, they failed to correct the MI as the law requires, and the MI had
I do not think it affected the way the hand would have been played. After all, this damaged N/S. The Committee therefore assigned an adjusted score as specified by
was BAM and the Committee’s, Bart’s and Ron’s analyses are all right on target Law 12C2. They decided that a low heart lead by North was both “the most
about the drawbacks of ducking the }K at trick one. All things considered, I am unfavorable result that was at all probable” for the offenders (E/W) and “the most
much closer to the majority than to Chip on the issue of N/S’s score. I would restore favorable result that was likely” for the non-offenders (N/S). The score was
the table result to both sides and warn N/S that answers as imprecise as theirs here changed for both sides to 4] made five, +650 for E/W. Regarding the merit of the
will not be treated nearly as generously in the future. appeal, while the Committee members believed that this appeal had no merit, they
noted both the language problem that existed for E/W and the fact that East may not
have known that his partner’s explanation was in error. They therefore decided not
to assess an AWMW against them this time and instead to educate E/W about their
responsibilities regarding the laws and MI. The Committee noted that not speaking
English is not an excuse for not knowing the laws; English is the accepted language
in both ACBL and WBF events. However, since E/W were both playing in their
first NABC the Committee opted for education (and good will) rather than
punishment.
DIC of Event: Steve Bates
Committee: Richard Popper (chair), Mike Passell, Tom Peters, Bob Schwartz,
Barnet Shenkin
=Most of the panelists support the Committee’s decision, though several would
have issued the AWMW.

73 74
Bramley: “Give the AWMW. If you want to be nice, skip the PP that East deserved CASE TWENTY-SIX
for not correcting the misexplanation. North has clearly mastered the ‘would have’
game. His assertion that with the right information he would have (1) not led a Subject (MI): Logic Can Only Go So Far
trump, and (2) guessed the right king to lead away from, is a classic of the type. Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Second Final Session
Still, he might have, so we have to give it to him.”
The Facts: 3] made three, +140
L. Cohen: “Straightforward on the MI issue, leaving only the AWMW. Why no Bd: 26 Brad Moss for E/W. The opening lead was the
mention of screening? Normally the Screener would tell E/W that there was no Dlr: East ]A [K. North called the Director when
merit; then, if they persisted, language or not, I would have issued the AWMW.” Vul: Both [ 97642 the dummy came down saying that
} Q754 3] had not been Alerted and he
Wildavsky: “I am surprised that players in Turkey are instructed by their Directors would have doubled it had he
to break the laws. Perhaps E/W were only confused, as are many Americans, about { AK7 known it was preemptive. The
the differing obligations imposed on the declaring and defending sides. Once the Massimo Lanzarotti Andrea Buratti Director ruled that N/S were
laws were explained to them, though, there was no excuse for further confusion, ] 109432 ] QJ875 damaged by MI and projected an
and an AWMW was called for. I see no goodwill engendered by the failure to apply [ J53 [A auction in which, after North
the rules evenly to all players.” doubled 3], East passed, South bid
} K103 } AJ 4[, East backed in with 4] after
Goldsmith: “I’ll pick one minor nit: An AWMW is not punishment. It is a warning. { J10 { Q8654 two passes and South doubled.
Collect a few of them and you go to a hearing, at which punishment may be Fred Gitelman Thus, the contract was changed to
administered. A player honestly trying to use the appeals system as it is intended ] K6 4] doubled down one, +200 for
who happens to pick up a few AWMWs for whatever reason (perhaps he is [ KQ108 N/S.
unwilling to disallow his partner or teammate from pursuing a meritless appeal, for
example) will not receive punishment as a result. Again, by the way, did anyone } 9862 The Appeal: E/W appealed the
really determine what 3{ meant?” { 932 Director’s ruling. E/W said that the
preemptive 3] bid in their system
= The annotation in the bidding diagram is clear: it showed diamonds but was WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH showed 3-7 HCP, typically no
misexplained as four-three in the majors. singleton and four or five trumps (5-
And now, an unpaid political announcement. 1] Pass 4-2-2 and 5-3-3-2 patterns were
3](1) All Pass most likely). They said that with
Wolff: “Okay, but again let’s change the rule about mistaken explanation versus (1) Not Alerted; preemptive five trumps and 7-9 HCP they bid
mistaken bid.” 4] rather than 3]. In their system a
=Keep on truckin’. 1] opening would either have 15+
HCP or be unbalanced (they opened 1NT with all balanced 12-14 HCP hands,
Our final two panelists see no reason to given N/S “the whole enchilada” when including those containing a five-card major). Accordingly, East would know that
North had a wide choice of leads—even with the correct information. his hand would not make game opposite a typical 3] bid and the question would
become how likely 4[ was to make. Since East’s values were in his short suits, he
Polisner: “Here is a case where North might have led a heart, a club, or a trump believed defending was indicated. North said that if he had been told 3] was
given the correct information. I think giving N/S the absolute best of it is too much. preemptive he would have made an aggressive double since the likelihood that the
I would like to give E/W +650 and N/S something less if it was not BAM scoring.” hand was N/S’s would have been greater and he had the short spades. E/W each had
=You can assign non-reciprocal scores at BAM just as you can at matchpoints. about 10,200 MP, North 5775 and South 6700.
The Committee Decision: The Committee agreed that the failure to Alert 3]
Rigal: “I am far from convinced of the merits of a low heart lead as opposed to a constituted MI which damaged N/S: Without the Alert the best result N/S could
club, which seems to me to be arguing from knowledge of all fifty-two cards. But achieve was –140 while with the Alert North might have doubled and N/S would
then I never held myself out to be much good on opening lead. I can live with the then at worst have been –100 in 4[ and might have done even better if E/W chose
score for the offenders, but the non-offenders might well have been left with the to bid on to 4]. The likelihood that East might have saved over 4[ was judged to
table result.” be sufficiently high (“at all probable”) that for the offenders (E/W) the contract was
=I mostly agree with those who favor the AWMW. The last two panelists appear changed to 4] doubled down one, –200 for E/W. This result was also judged to be
“the most favorable result that was likely” for the non-offenders (N/S) who ware
to have overlooked the fact that the misexplanation placed East with more major- assigned the reciprocal score. Regarding the merit of the appeal, the Committee
suit cards (and perhaps high cards) than he had, which clearly argued against a heart noted that E/W’s system was sufficiently unusual and precise that East had a lot of
lead. In addition, the MI placed East with at least three trumps so North opted for information that other pairs would not have had to decide whether or not to bid 4]
a trump lead rather than guess between the minors. Also, the MI suggested dummy over 4[. While E/W’s arguments were well conceived and logical, the decision
was less likely to have a long minor (if it had at least seven major-suit cards) to ultimately rested on whether or not to afford East the benefit of the doubt that he
discard declarer’s losers. So even though the MI does not make a heart lead a clear would not have bid 4] over 4[. Had West’s minors been switched to }xx(x)
favorite over a club, it does make a non-trump lead less imperative and justifies {KJ(x) and similar compensating adjustments been made to N/S’s hands, 4[ might
adjusting the score for both sides to reciprocal 650s. Finally, I agree with Bart that have made and 4] been a good save. Resolving these issues required considerable
a PP was appropriate for East’s failure to correct the MI before the opening lead. discussion and gave the appeal substantial merit.

75 76
DIC of Event: Steve Bates CASE TWENTY-SEVEN
Committee: Barry Rigal (non-voting chair), Ed Lazarus, Chris Moll, Adam
Wildavsky Subject (MI): Swinging The Odds
Event: Stratified Swiss Teams, 24 Nov 03, Evening (Only) Session
=The panelists all agree (as I do) with this decision, though some do so only
grudgingly… The Facts: 3] made three, +140
Bd: 9 ] Q92 for N/S. The opening lead was
Gerard: “Initially I thought this was too favorable to N/S while clear for E/W. On Dlr: North [ Q1096 the }2. The Director was called
reflection, I grudgingly agree to reciprocal 200s. There are some hands where 4] Vul: E/W } A104 after play ended. North said that
makes (West has the }Q and {Kx), but East had discounted those when he passed { KQ2 had he known 2} was a transfer
3] and the system inferences were persuasive, so the only relevant analysis is the value of his heart holding
whether 4[ would make. There’s no way to know and no way to know what East ] 43 ] AJ8 would have greatly improved for
would think, but my gut tells me that top players sacrifice less than the masses in [ J7542 [ A3 defense, increasing the likelihood
these situations. Partly that’s because they’re mature enough to know that just } Q92 } K7653 that a double of 3} would be
because the opponents bid game in a jammed auction doesn’t mean they can make { 974 { A65 more successful than bidding 3].
it. Therefore, if I had to bet, I would bet on East’s selling out. But I would also bet The Director found that West’s
that he might save one time out of three (them’s my rules and I’m sticking by them), ] K10765 CC was marked “system on”
making it 12C2 likely. I don’t have to love it, but every now and then N/S are [ K8 while East’s CC was not. He
entitled to an adjustment.” } J8 ruled that N/S had been given MI
and changed the contract to 3}
=As the previous comment suggests, N/S’s reputation precedes them… { J1083
doubled down two, +500 for N/S.
Bramley: “N/S had a case, but North did take an extreme position and then needed WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH The Appeal: E/W appealed the
a do-over. However, E/W’s inadequate disclosure was too much for their side to 1{ 1NT Dbl Director’s ruling. E/W were the
overcome. I agree with the decision and the finding of merit.” 2}(1) Pass Pass 2] only players to attend the hearing
Pass Pass 3} Pass (E/W’s team captain and the N/S
L. Cohen: “First of all, I’ll eat my hat if E/W have 10,200 ACBL MP (Italian, or team had all left the playing area
maybe even some Spanish, I’d believe). [ACBL records indicate they have the MP Pass 3] All Pass by the time the appeal was filed
totals reported. I too was surprised when I saw it.—Ed.] As to the decision, it’s very (1) Not Announced; intended as transfer and could not be located to be
close. Good arguments by E/W, but the doubt has to go to the non-offenders. I informed of the hearing). East
suppose that without any Alert North shouldn’t have to ask what 3] is (asking does told the Panel that in the 20 years
give away information), but had he done so we could have avoided this mess.” E/W had played together they had never played “system on” in this auction, so the
2} bid should have been treated as a psych. E/W did not think they had done
Rigal: “The Committee and Director addressed all the relevant issues and made a anything wrong and believed the table ruling was very unjust. East had about 950
sensible decision. The unfamiliarity of the E/W methods was responsible for the MP, West 790, North 3700 and South 2100.
Committee discussing the inferences, negative and positive, for some while. That
made the decision not to award an AWMW the right one, I believe.” The Panel Decision: The Panel consulted three expert players to determine whether
the MI might have affected North’s choice of action over 3}. Two experts said that
=Not everyone agrees with the decision about the AWMW. double was “automatic” with the correct information; the third expert passed 3}
saying he did not want to blow the match if 3} happened to make. As for E/W’s
Polisner: “Good work by both the Director and Committee, except that an AWMW contention that 2} should be treated as a psych, the Panel determined that this was
should have been given.” not possible since the bid had so obviously been intended as a transfer and given
= Jeff’s position seems unduly harsh. As both Ron and Larry note, E/W had some
that E/W’s CCs were filled out differently. The Panel decided that Law 21B3 (MI)
had been violated and adjusted the score under Law 12C2. Since two of the three
unique and persuasive arguments based on inferences available to them from their experts thought that 3} doubled was likely, the contract was changed for both sides
system that were probably not available to the Director, and they certainly should to 3} doubled down two, +500 for N/S. In addition, since E/W could present no
be given the opportunity to make their case to a Committee of bridge players. legitimate reason for changing the table ruling, they were each assessed an
AWMW.
Goldsmith: “Very well done by the Committee and Director.”
DIC of Event: Bob Wallace
Wildavsky: “I haven’t changed my mind.” Panel: Charlie MacCracken (Reviewer), Patty Holmes, Candy Kuschner
Players consulted: Keith Garber, Jim Linhart, Ed Schulte
Wolff: “Okay.”
=One panelist appropriately notes that the “system on” box on the CC does not
apply to auctions where the 1NT overcall has been doubled (or, indeed, where third
hand has done anything other than pass).
Gerard: “‘System on’ doesn’t encompass a double, so we don’t know how the

77 78
Panel arrived at its decision. East in effect said they didn’t play system on when North’s contention that he would have doubled 3}. Of the three experts consulted,
1NT was doubled (‘in this auction’), so the CC discrepancy was irrelevant because two of them said a double was “automatic” with the “correct information” (meaning
even West’s card didn’t deal with the main issue. The psych stuff was just a red that 2} was a transfer, assuming MI). That means that a double is more than just
herring, since it would have been sufficient for East to say that West was confused likely, it’s a majority action. But that goes against what Chip, Barry and Wolffie
if the agreement did not include transfers. I don’t imagine anyone could have asked suggest—that doubling 3} is a very questionable action with the North hand if 2}
about over a double, that would have been too simple. Maybe we’re saddled with showed hearts and East bid 3} knowing that. Thus, the expert input obtained by the
that pernicious footnote again, or with the presumption that the bidder knows more Panel makes North’s contention that he would have doubled plausible, while if we
than the explainer, but I would have appreciated some real work here by the Panel include the opinions of our own experts we come away with a very different view
rather than just a rote decision. However, the AWMW was as heavy-handed as Irish of North’s double (four-to-two against). So we could certainly use more input.
confetti. E/W committed the sin of being inarticulate, and I can’t help feel that they As for Jeff’s concern about the treatment of the E/W pair.
were punished for creating the ‘psych’ scenario when their argument had a good
deal of merit.” Wildavsky: “‘E/W did not think they had done anything wrong and believed the
table ruling was very unjust.’ They were mistaken on both counts, and this was no
=The next panelist proposes a different explanation for the CC discrepancy. doubt explained to them in screening. Good work by the Director and the Panel.”
Martel: “Personally, I suspect that E/W had no agreement that 2} showed hearts Polisner: “Well done.”
(there’s a fair chance it was never discussed over a notrump overcall). Presumably
the ‘system on’ marked on one CC was intended over a notrump opening. Still, it’s Bramley: “Good.”
reasonable to conclude misexplanation as the default. Given this ambiguity of
E/W’s agreements, the final adjustment is a bit harsh to E/W. If North knew that 2} =As for my own view of this case, I do not believe E/W had any agreement
showed hearts, but East bid 3} expecting hearts, it would be quite dangerous to about West’s 2} bid (which is supported by the different markings on the two E/W
double 3} since East likely had six diamonds and two hearts. It is only attractive CCs), which makes East’s assumption about 2} (natural) probably the right one and
to double if 3} is bid with E/W having a mixup.” means North was probably not misinformed. However, even assuming “system on”
applied in this situation, there’s considerable room for doubt about the prudence (or,
=I don’t think I buy Chip’s idea that the CC marked “system on” was intended indeed, the likelihood) of North’s doubling 3}. Thus, I would not adjust the score
to apply to a notrump opening. The section on notrump openings is on the front of for either side. In addition, E/W were negligent in not forming an agreement about
the CC and has a blank space to specify over what type of interference “system on” what their bids meant after interference over their notrump overcalls and in not
applies. The check box for notrump overcalls is on the back of the CC and has no having two identically filled-out CCs, which might at least have given the Director
space to suggest that interference auctions are encompassed (see Ron’s comment (or the Committee) a better chance to resolve the matter. When a pair’s failure to
above). However, I do agree that it’s unlikely that E/W had agreed that 2} was a comply with simple requirements causes major problems, a PP is possible (but
transfer in this auction or, indeed, had discussed what they did after interference optional). Since I want to make sure that E/W don’t profit from the problems they
over their notrump overcalls. So it’s likely there was MI since E/W’s agreement created, and since in my mind it is just possible that North might have
dealing with interference applied only over opening notrumps while their agreement doubled—rightly or wrongly, based on his heart holding—had he been told that 2}
after notrump overcalls did not encompass interference. (And the two clearly showed (or might show) hearts, I would assess a 3-imp PP on E/W (not to accrue
conflict when applied to “notrump overcall with third-hand interference” auctions.) to N/S) for the combination of their not having a clear agreement in a situation
Given all of the above, Chip makes a good point about the unattractiveness of where they should have (especially given that they had been playing together for
a double with the North hand if East bid 3} expecting hearts. The next group of 20 years—even I wouldn’t take that long to discuss this auction) and not having
panelists suggest that more expert input was needed. I agree. matching CCs.
Rigal: “A rather harsh Director ruling, but definitely the one I would like to see for
the offenders. The way the CC was completed makes this MI and not a misbid.
Now the only issue is what to do with the North hand. I’d have liked to see rather
more than three experts consulted, but I guess we should live with their decision?”
Wolff: “Okay. CD was justly penalized but I don’t subscribe to North’s argument
about his would-be double. I commend the Panel for penalizing CD and also North
for selling the bridge to them.”
Goldsmith: “The Panel’s experiment needed a control. They needed to ask if
players would have doubled 3} given the information North had at the table. If
roughly the same response was given, then North’s contention would not have been
supported. On another note, I hope E/W were treated gently and told how they
weren’t being punished, but that the rules for situations like this are explicit and
intended to achieve fairness. In any such dispute, someone is going to feel robbed;
there’s nothing which can be done about it. Regardless, to appeal requires a good
reason, not just the feeling that one was treated unfairly.”
=Jeff is right that a “control” was needed, but not about what’s needed to reject
79 80
 CASE TWENTY-EIGHT DIC of Event: Sol Weinstein
Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Ralph Cohen, Gail Greenberg, Danny Sprung, Jon
Subject (MI): Infractors Lose All Ties Wittes
Event: Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs, 25 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session
=Mr. chairman.
The Facts: 4[ made five, +650 for
Bd: 23 Garey Hayden N/S. The opening lead was the {K. Gerard: “Cute title, but I prefer ‘You Snooze, You Lose.’ As opposed to CASE
Dlr: South ] AKJ The Director was called at the end of TWENTY-TWO, here it makes sense either to play Puppet or not to play Puppet.
Vul: Both [ AK98 play. After the bidding, South It might have helped N/S’s case for South to be in attendance, but that probably
} J972 informed E/W that there had been a wouldn’t have been in her partner’s long-term interest. Note that although we
failure to Alert her 3{ bid as Puppet reached the same decision as if we had presumed MI (the dreaded footnote again),
{ A5 Stayman and that North’s 3[ bid we didn’t presume anything and tried to deal with concrete evidence. When we got
Douglas Ross Daniel Boye showed five hearts. (South’s CC had to the point where we could have said ‘Okay, we believe North, a cow flew by,’ we
] 9642 ] 10853 Puppet Stayman marked on it but backed off and said ‘Nope, that’s not our job.’ On our scales of justice, N/S didn’t
[ 10653 [4 North’s did not.) East assumed North prove their case.”
had five hearts for his 3[ response,
} 54 } A1083 which influenced his defense. Had he =Most of the other panelists agree with the Committee’s decision.
{ 1098 { KQJ6 known that 3{ was not Puppet
Tina McKee Stayman and that North had not L. Cohen: “Close on all the issues, but I like the fact that ultimately the decision
] Q7 shown five hearts he would have went against the pair that caused the screw-up. To have N/S come out clean they
[ QJ72 defended to give West a diamond have to ‘win’ convincingly on all counts, and I don’t think they did.”
ruff. The Director ruled that there
} KQ6 was MI and adjusted the score to 4[ Wildavsky: “Good decisions, but I’d have found no merit in this one. Explaining
{ 7432 made four, +620 for N/S (Law 40C Law 72B1 to N/S in screening might have prevented this appeal. Their score would
and the footnote to Law 75). be adjusted regardless of whether or not their opponents’ defense was judged to
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH have been egregiously poor.”
The Appeal: N/S appealed the
Pass Director’s ruling. South did not Bramley: “Yes. If North had followed Wildavsky’s recommendation from CASE
Pass 2NT Pass 3{(1) attend the hearing. North said he TWENTY-TWO he could have tested East’s defense legitimately rather than trying
Pass 3[(2) Pass 4[ forgot he was playing Puppet to undermine it in Committee.”
All Pass
(1) Not Alerted; Puppet Stayman
Stayman because he was upset about
the previous board, on which he had =Right. North obviously thought 3{ was regular Stayman when he responded
played a slam hand in a partscore. He 3[ on a four-card suit, so he hadn’t just forgotten to check Puppet on his hurriedly
(2) Showed five hearts said that N/S always played Puppet filled-out CC, he must have really forgotten he was playing Puppet. Now maybe
Stayman (they used 3{ over 1NT, South’s disclosure convinced him that he had forgotten, but not disclosing his error
which was marked on both CCs) but when he knew Puppet was not marked on his CC was failing to take out precisely
he had filled out his CC close to game time and neglected to mark Puppet over the kind of insurance Adam wrote about in CASE TWENTY-TWO.
2NT. He said that even if his side wasn’t entitled to the extra trick, East’s defense And now for another unpaid political announcement.
had been egregious and earned E/W their –650. East said he had good reason for
defending as he did. The play had gone: {K to the ace; heart to the queen; heart to Wolff: “Okay result, but look at the road they took. If CD were outlawed then we
the ace; low diamond, East winning the ace. East said that if North held five hearts, could be straightforward in righting the wrong and forcing players to learn their
the only time his play could matter was if North held ]AKJx [AK98x [Jx {Ax. systems. What about the next Committee?”
Then ducking the }A would let North pitch his diamond losers on spades and make
six. North had about 25,800 MP, South 4960, West 3000 and East 7660. =Yes, and all those players who simply forget an occasional agreement (even a
natural one) would be consistently punished for misbidding: they get a bad result
The Committee Decision: The Committee observed that it was N/S’s responsibility when their forget leads to a disaster (as it does most of the time) and get punished
to demonstrate that their agreement was that Puppet Stayman applied over 2NT. by the laws when by dumb luck they happen to land on their feet. This may work
Although the staff said that the controlling factor (and the primary reason for its in top-flight competition (and maybe this event was exactly that), but it’s not the
ruling in this case) is generally the CC, the Committee decided to also look at other sort of law that will entice the masses to play our friendly little game.
evidence. Points in N/S’s favor were South’s CC, the fact that both of N/S’s CCs The next panelist should consult his doctor about the possibility of Attention
had 3{ marked as Puppet Stayman over 1NT, and North’s statement that his Deficit Disorder.
partnership had played Puppet regularly for years. Points not in their favor were
North’s unmarked CC, North’s failure to Alert 3{ and his 3[ response with only Polisner: “I would want to know how the play went in order to determine whether
four hearts. The Committee found that N/S had not proven their contention by a to adjust the score (assuming the {K lead) and to determine whether or not East’s
preponderance of the evidence and thus that there had been MI rather than a misbid. defense was egregious.”
They also judged that East’s defense was thoughtful rather than egregious. The
score was adjusted for both sides to 4[ made four, +620 for N/S. =I sometimes think Jeff just reads the first sentence of each paragraph. Check out
the sentence near the end of the Appeal section beginning: “The play had gone…”

81 82
 Our next panelist questions East’s defense, though he ultimately supports the CASE TWENTY-NINE
Committee’s decision.
Subject (MI): What I Know My Partner Knows
Rigal: “Right Director ruling in the context of the ambiguity. East might have asked Event: Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs, 25 Nov 03, Second Qualifying Session
himself why declarer had not drawn the last trump, but maybe North’s approach
would have been risk-free in context. I’m not convinced of the merits of the defense The Facts: 3[ went down two,
(the hand we are playing North for does not look like a 2NT opener to anyone, does Bd: 30 Tadashi Teramoto +100 for N/S. The opening lead
it?) but the Committee was closer to the evidence than I, and came up with a Dlr: East ] Q10 was the }K. The Director was
reasonable and thoughtful justification for their action, so I’ll go along with it.” Vul: None [ AK3 called at the end of the hand and
told that when East asked about
=It’s true that the hand East cited is not a typical 2NT opener, but who knows } QJ10532
{ 42
the 2] bid he was told “Pass-or-
what evil…especially at matchpoints. Correct.” The Director ruled that
Our final panelist believes East knew fully well that North had only four hearts. Lengy Assaf Bareket Ilan there had been no MI and allowed
He casts his lone vote to allow the table result to stand. ] A7 ] K86 the table result to stand.
[ 642 [ Q1098
Goldsmith: “Wait a second. East knew North hadn’t promised five hearts from the The Appeal: E/W appealed the
failure to Alert 3{. Declarer’s drawing only two rounds of trumps makes it even } 9876 } A4 Director’s ruling. E/W were the
more obvious. Another oddness: In a national event, a pair that has been playing { QJ87 { AK96 only players to attend the hearing.
together for years ought not need to scribble a new CC just before the session. I’d Kazuo Furuta West said that at the time the 2]
let the result stand. I don’t think there was MI; I think East had to be pretty ] J95432 bid was Alerted he knew it was
ingenuous to believe that North had promised five hearts. Since the MI was known [ J75 Pass-or-Correct. However, he said
to be false, there was no MI, so the result stands.” that from his own hand he knew
}K South intended the bid as natural.
=First a technical point. Even if we believe East was aware that North had only { 1053 Because of this he did not request
four hearts, there was still MI (if N/S truly did not play Puppet Stayman)—it just an explanation of the Alert. When
wasn’t the cause of E/W’s poor result. Second, North’s non-Alert of 3{ was not WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH the 3} bid came back to him he
unambiguous evidence that he forgot it was Puppet Stayman and thus had only four doubled, and East (at his turn)
hearts. Players often forget to Alert Alertable bids even when they know fully well 1NT Pass asked the meaning of 2] and was
the bid’s meaning. So the non-Alert of 3{ may have simply meant that North forgot Pass Dbl(1) Pass 2](2) told Pass-or-Correct. East then bid
to say Alert. And finally, the Committee’s weighing of the evidence for MI against Pass 3} Pass Pass 3[. East and West each had 0
that for a misbid is consistent with much of what Jeff says. (The one thing they Dbl Pass 3[ All Pass MP, North about 1300 and South
forgot to mention was that North unaccountably drew only two rounds of trumps (1) Alerted; one minor or both majors 660.
when he likely would have drawn three if he really had five hearts.) But if we buy
Jeff’s arguments and decide that East should have known that North likely had only (2) Alerted The Committee Decision: The
four hearts, then it seems right to adjust the score for N/S (since North’s failure to Committee determined that there
Alert surely made the misdefense more likely) and allow the table result to stand for had been MI based on the fact that
E/W—not let the table result stand for both sides. South admitted at the table that he intended 2] as natural. However, the Committee
As for me, I agree with the majority who think there was MI which contributed also decided that West’s decision not to ask for an explanation of the 2] bid and
to East’s misdefense. I agree with Jeff Goldsmith that East should have suspected to continue in the auction with the information he deduced from his own hand was
North did not have five hearts, and I agree with Barry that the hand East proposed the major cause of the damage to his side. (The Committee determined that E/W’s
where ducking the }A would cost doesn’t look at all like a 2NT opener, but there’s agreement was that West’s double of 3} would have been for takeout had 2] been
enough room for doubt that I agree with the Committee’s decision to protect him. known to be Pass-or-Correct.) Thus, E/W were assigned the table result of 3[ down
two, –100 for E/W. The Committee also decided that N/S should not be permitted
to keep the table result which was made possible by the MI they gave E/W. Thus,
for N/S the contract was changed to 3} down two, –100 for N/S.
DIC of Event: Sol Weinstein
Committee: Robb Gordon (chair), Chris Moll, Paul Munafo, Bill Passell, Riggs
Thayer (scribe)
=Most panelists are unhappy with some aspect of the Committee’s performance
here, though their objections vary. Our first panelist argues that 2] was clearly a
misbid and not MI, so the table result should stand.
Gerard: “Sheesh. Can’t one of these Committees/Panels/Directors decide that there
is/is not MI based on the offenders’ agreement? What if South had said, ‘I intended
2] as natural but I realized as soon as I bid it that it was Pass-or-Correct’? Maybe
the Committee performed the necessary interrogation, but it sure looks like they

83 84
took a short cut. Isn’t it common to play P/C methods in response to two-way bids? meaning of the disputed call.”
Even some one-way bids have that attached to them (e.g., Hamilton 2{ overcall).
If 2{ or 2} by South would have been P/C, why is two of a major any different? = The next panelist agrees with Bart and Chip that N/S probably had no
I don’t find MI to be credible. This was a clear misbid on South’s part, but you can agreement about 2], but then reaches an odd decision.
only reach the right conclusion if you actually think about the auction and stop
applying the Enfamil (that’s baby formula). Too bad, result stands. If I agreed with Polisner: “Of course the logic is that 2{ is Pass-or-Correct, not 2]; however, some
the Committee that North committed MI, I would agree with the E/W –100. West players may not understand that concept. I doubt that N/S really had an agreement
needed to ask, refrain from making his takeout double intended for penalties and that 2] is Pass-or-Correct. I also believe that East’s bidding over West’s penalty
then ask for an adjustment based on the fact that but for the MI he would have been double of 3} is egregious enough to break the connection and would have allowed
able to make a penalty double. That case he would have won. For that reason, the the table result to stand.”
Committee blundered when assigning N/S’s score; on its own terms, that should
have been –300.” =Hmm. Jeff’s A.D.D. (see the previous case) might be tinged with a touch of
dyslexia. What was South to do with a hand that contains a long major that was too
=Ron makes several excellent points, including how West could have avoided weak to act directly over 1NT? (His actual hand may not quite fit that bill, but make
the problem and preserved his right to protection (if there actually was MI). The South’s suit a seven- or an eight-bagger and it’s close.) Why can’t South’s two of
next panelist agrees with Ron’s prescription. a major show such a hand rather than one prepared for responder to “correct” to his
minor? Of course it’s also reasonable to play 2] as P/C. If South had ]Jxxx [Q10x
Rigal: “The Director missed most of the point of the deal, which the Committee }KJxx {QJ, for example, he’d be willing to play 2] if North has the majors and
found out; this was not an easy case on which to determine who knew what. The isn’t good enough to bid again but would be interested in 3NT if North has a
ruling for the offenders is understandable; I think it was harsh on the non-offenders, reasonable hand with six clubs, perhaps ]xx [xxx }Ax {AKxxxx. So there’s
though. I suppose what West had to do was to pass 3} and subsequently try to nothing illogical about having either agreement about two-of-a-major here; all that
persuade the Committee that there was some way he would have been able to really matters is to have some agreement.
double 3} for penalties. Would he have been successful?” I agree with Bart, Chip and Jeff Polisner that N/S probably had no agreement
about 2] (which would not be unusual for a pair of their experience) and that the
=The next two panelists agree with the Committee’s decision that there was MI P/C explanation was MI. (Note: Ron’s conclusion that 2] was a misbid is certainly
but that West forfeited his right to protection when he failed to ask about the 2] bid reasonable, but concluding that N/S had no agreement is at least as reasonable and
and doubled based solely on the inference he drew from his own hand. we’re required to assume the latter if there’s any substantial doubt about it.)
As for Jeff’s Polisner’s conclusion about East’s pulling West’s double to 3[,
Wildavsky: “A good Committee decision. The write-up ought to note that it was I disagree completely. First, the double was not penalty according to E/W’s
arrived at via the application of Law 72B1.” agreement (a double was takeout over a P/C 2]; penalty over a natural 2]) and
East asked about the 2] bid before he bid 3[ and was told P/C. So how could
Wolff: “Wonderful decision that covers CD.” East’s pull to 3[ be egregious if, as the write-up clearly indicates, East did
precisely what his partner asked him to do: take the double out? On the other hand,
Bramley: “Excellent split decision, well reasoned for both sides. North’s as the Committee and several panelists already explained, West’s double was ill-
explanation of 2] is logical, but South’s action indicated that they probably had no conceived since it was intended as penalty when he “knew” 2] was P/C and that
explicit agreement. Therefore, North gave MI, which warranted an adjustment for East would therefore interpret it as takeout. So E/W did commit an egregious act
N/S. West lost his side’s equity by not continuing to play normally; as usual, his that forfeited their right to redress, but it was West (for his double) and not East (for
assumption of ‘infraction entitlement’ was unjustified.” his pull to 3[) who was at fault. Further, even though E/W ultimately caused their
own poor result, it was the MI from North that made it all possible. If North had
= Agreeing with Bart that N/S probably had no agreement about 2] and that E/W simply said “We haven’t discussed the 2] bid” or “We have no agreement,” E/W
deserved protection… would have been on their own and the table result would stand for everyone. N/S
created a problem that E/W failed to cope with adequately, so N/S are still
Martel: “If N/S’s agreement was that 2] was natural (or more likely if they had no responsible for any damage the MI caused and their score should be adjusted even
agreement), then E/W were clearly damaged. Over a natural 2] West could penalty if E/W’s is not.
double 3} and collect 300. Without this he had no way to recover his 110 available I would assume MI and change N/S’s result to 3} doubled down two, –300 for
in clubs. Since no compelling evidence was given to show that the agreement was N/S, while leaving E/W with the table result.
in fact Pass-or-Correct, both sides should get the result for 3} doubled.”
=Also ready to protect E/W…
Goldsmith: “What did 2] actually mean systemically? Seems as if it should be
natural; 2{ is Pass-or-Correct. But we don’t know that, and the Committee didn’t
mention anywhere that they had ascertained the answer. If, in fact, it was P/C, then
there was no MI, therefore no adjustment. That South intended it as natural is
irrelevant. If, systemically, 2] was natural, then East was misinformed. He would
have then passed 3} doubled. It doesn’t matter why West doubled. Result: 3}
doubled down two, reciprocal 300s. Suggestion to scribes: When you write up a MI
case, the first paragraph should be how the Committee determined the actual

85 86
 CASE THIRTY have made a complete explanation. The Committee did not believe it would be
practical for East to Announce “13-16” and then to add an Alert in order to separate
Subject (MI): He Wouldn’t Take “Yes” For An Answer the range from the treatment. Ultimately, the Committee concluded that an Alert
Event: Edgar Kaplan Blue Ribbon Pairs, 25 Nov 03, Second Qualifying Session was correct, or at least not incorrect, and that, as with all Alerts, the opponents have
the right to refuse the information. The Committee also noted that without North’s
The Facts: 1NT made two, +120 for }10 switch, best defense holds declarer to seven tricks. Fortunately, it did not need
Bd: 7 Drew Casen E/W. The opening lead was the ]5. to consider the egregiousness of this play. The Committee restored the table result
Dlr: South ] J975 The Director was called after the of 1NT made two, +120 for E/W. The Committee was bothered by North’s behavior
Vul: Both [ 1087 round ended. East Alerted West’s 1NT but decided against recommending a conduct hearing because of the uncertainty
} 1052 bid and when asked started to explain about whether an Announcement or an Alert was the correct procedure in this type
“13 to 16…” North interrupted him of situation.
{ AK10 saying that no Alert was required, only
Colin Harrington John Moser an Announcement of the range. East DIC of Event: Sol Weinstein
] A106 ] K832 asked if North wanted to hear why he Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Ralph Cohen, Gail Greenberg, Danny Sprung, Jon
[ KQ4 [ A62 had Alerted, but North insisted that an Wittes
Alert was not proper. This exchange
} AJ84 } 963 continued until East finally withdrew =It’s getting to be a bit of a habit, but once again Bart echos my own sentiments.
{ J53 { 982 his attempted explanation. The ]5
Larry Cohen went to the queen and ace. West next Bramley: “Alerting the special agreement looks clear-cut to me. I don’t understand
] Q4 played the ]10, covered, and then why everyone had such a hard time deciding so. The Director suggests negligence
[ J953 returned to the [K to lead a third on East’s part when exactly the opposite was true. North brought this on himself
spade. North won his ]9 as South and his side should have had the onus of appealing. (But of course, such an appeal
} KQ7 pitched a club. North switched to the would have been meritless.) Even calling the Director was quite outrageous after
{ Q764 }10 and declarer emerged with eight North had browbeaten East into submission.”
tricks. At the end of the play, North
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH asked his partner why he threw a club Wildavsky: “There is no doubt in my mind that an Alert is proper for this
instead of a heart. South said he agreement. North was 100 percent out of line in telling his opponents that an Alert
Pass couldn’t pitch a heart in case West had was not required. Players have no business attempting to educate their opponents
1NT(1) All Pass four of them. At this point East said about the laws or regulations; that is the Director’s job. And what did the Director
(1) Alerted; allegedly incomplete that if he’d been allowed to complete expect East to do, hold his opponent down while he explained something the man
explanation (see the Facts) his explanation of the 1NT bid he clearly had no interest in hearing? Had the Director ruled the other way an appeal
would have said “13-16, with no four- would have been without merit.”
card major.” The Director ruled that
the information about four-card majors should have been included in the =I agree with Bart and Adam that an Alert is the proper way to handle the 1NT
explanation and changed the result to 1NT made one, +90 for E/W. bid here. Announcements are reserved for disclosing a small handful of familiar
agreements (opening notrump ranges; transfers to a major after partner’s natural
The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director’s ruling. West did not attend the hearing. notrump opening or overcall; forcing/semi-forcing notrump responses to major-suit
East told the Committee that he attempted to follow proper procedure but had been openings; non-artificial one-of-a-minor openings that “could be short”) when no
prevented from doing so by the opponents. He said that in the past he had been told other complications are present. But bids that appear familiar but which have been
that his partnership’s understanding about four-card majors was not part of the extended to include (or exclude) certain unusual (or usual) hand types require an
required Announcement and should be included in an Alert instead. He maintained Alert rather than an Announcement if the exceptions occur fairly frequently.
that North had cut off his attempted explanation and lectured him about A good example of this principle is a convention some call “Cancel,” wherein
Announcing the range rather than Alerting. When he tried again to explain his a 2} response to a 1NT opening is usually a transfer to hearts but may also be bid
understanding, North became more insistent that only an Announcement was with certain hand types that do not include hearts (the non-heart hand types are
required. East said that after trying three times to complete his explanation and typically balanced with no four-card major but with slam interest). If the transferrer
being rejected each time, he gave up and didn’t say anything more. N/S maintained usually holds hearts (as in Cancel) then the 2} bid is Announced normally (to avoid
that it was E/W’s obligation to communicate their understanding about no four-card planting the idea in the opponents’ minds that the transferrer will not have hearts
majors as part of the required Announcement. South said he never heard East ask when he almost always will) and the later bid that cancels the transfer (e.g., 2] over
“Would you like to know why I Alerted?” as he claimed. East had about 2400 MP, the expected 2[ transfer acceptance) is Alerted when it occurs. But if enough non-
West 3900, North 11,200 and South 12,400. heart hand types are included in the 2} bid to make it relatively common for the
transferrer to not hold hearts, then the 2} bid should be Alerted. (The issue of how
The Committee Decision: The Committee consulted the staff, who determined that often a non-heart hand type must occur for an Alert to be considered appropriate
there was no clear guidance on whether this particular understanding about 1NT has not been addressed to date.)
required an Alert or should be disclosed via the Announcement procedure. The A couple of additional points well worth making come from another L.C.
Committee believed that East could have announced “13-16 with no four-card
major,” but the Announcement is intended for range only and the four-card major L. Cohen: “North must have been having a bad day. I object more to him asking
part is an unusual treatment which would normally require an Alert. It was therefore his partner ‘Why did you throw a club’ than his abruptness with the opponents.
not wrong for East to Alert and had North been less confrontational East would David Berkowitz knows at the table not to ask this Larry Cohen about his defense.

87 88
In either case, the right decision was made (but the talk about a ‘conduct hearing’ CASE THIRTY-ONE
was getting a bit carried away).”
Subject (MI): Is Support More Than Just Tolerance?
=Indeed. As the next panelist points out, these sorts of things are why we have Event: Stratified Open Pairs, 25 Nov 03, Second Session
a Zero Tolerance policy and why ZT penalties exist.
The Facts: 4] doubled went down
Goldsmith: “A ZT penalty for North is so obvious as to defy words. Where was it? Bd: 34 ] A987432 one, +200 for E/W. The opening
That N/S would have the gall to call the Director after the events that transpired Dlr: East [ --- lead was the }A. The Director was
astonishes me. Ruling against E/W at the table was surely incorrect: East did Vul: N/S } 10854 called after 3[ was passed out but
nothing wrong. North deserves the worst of it. It is totally irrelevant whether or not { 54 before the opening lead. North
he was right—which, by the way, he wasn’t.” asked about East’s double of 1]
] 105 ]Q prior to passing 3[; West said it
=Whoa, let’s not get too carried away. I’m not convinced East wasn’t partially [ A106532 [ K94 showed values and heart tolerance.
responsible for what happened here. For one thing, if East managed to ask North }2 } AK963 East then informed N/S that this
if he wanted to hear why he Alerted, then he probably could have said something { KQJ8 { 9632 explanation was erroneous: the
like “Yes, I know the range is Announcable, but there’s more to our agreement that double was a Support Double. The
you need to know.” For another thing, East started his explanation several times ] KJ6 Director determined that E/W
before giving up. Why, in several attempts, was he unable to get across that there [ QJ87 played Support Doubles in this
was more to his Alert than just the notrump range? One reason might be that he } QJ7 situation and spoke to each of the
began by re-stating the notrump range each time he restarted his explanation, giving { A107 N/S players away from the table.
North the impetus to re-voice his objection. He would have been better advised to North said he would have bid 3]
initially phrase his explanation something like “1NT denies a four-card major and over 3[ had he been given a correct
shows 13-16,” not giving North time to interrupt before the critical information got WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH explanation. South said he would
out. North was clearly primarily at fault here, but East—perhaps out of frustration 1} Dbl not have acted over the double but
with North’s interruptions—may have contributed to the problem by coming across 1[ 1] Dbl(1) Pass when given the option of changing
as hostile (passive aggressive). 3[ Pass Pass Pass his final pass (Law 21B1) he bid
The next panelist has a more tolerant opinion of the table ruling. 3NT (the auction continued as
3NT(2) shown). After the hand the Director
Rigal: “The Director made a reasonable if slightly harsh ruling against the 4[ 4] Pass Pass ruled that N/S had been damaged by
offenders. Thereafter, the Committee worked out very logically that North dug his Dbl All Pass the failure to correctly explain the
own grave by interrupting East. Knowing the players as we do, could one really (1) Not Alerted; showed three hearts double (Laws 21B3, 40C and 12C2)
imagine North trying to make a psychological play to score a point and get (2) Director reopened auction and changed the contract to 3] by
ownership of the table? I guess we’ll never know.” North made three, +140 for N/S.
Polisner: “Well done by the Committee. Why North would not want as much The Appeal: E/W appealed the
information as possible is not easily understood. Also, South could have asked what Director’s ruling. E/W did not think that the difference between the explanation of
it was that East wanted to share before his critical discard.” the double given to N/S at the table and the actual E/W agreement was significant
=Yes, South was not a completely innocent bystander either. enough to affect North’s choice of action over 3[, and in any case West would not
have passed out a 3] bid by North (West told the Reviewer he thought 3[ was
And now, the man who chaired this hearing. forcing and demanded a cue-bid from his partner). North was asked what he
thought “tolerance” implied; he said it usually showed a doubleton heart but
Gerard: “Delicious irony. I hope the write-up conveys what we really thought possibly three. North said he knew the double was not intended as penalty with
about the principle and the principals. When we asked how the defense went after spades but he feared bidding more because West said it showed “values.” When
the ]9, North mumbled ‘ten of diamonds’ in a nearly incoherent manner. I found asked about their bidding agreements N/S said they were a new partnership and had
out the next day from East that the result of this appeal determined which pair not specifically discussed takeout doubles. South added that he would only tend to
qualified for the semi-finals. There has to be a lesson in here somewhere.” be lighter for his double if he had better distribution. North said he expected South
=Indeed it does…and there is. to have three or four spades and that they themselves had just recently adopted
Support Doubles. South said he strongly suspected that East’s double showed
Right Wolffie? “support” and told the table Director that when asked. He didn’t say anything
during the auction because he didn’t think he was permitted to do so. He said that
Wolff: “Well done.” when he found out for sure that the double did not show extra values he was unsure
whose hand it was so he decided to bid 3NT. North said that if he had bid 3] over
3[ and if that had been passed around to a 4[ bid by West, he would have passed
since he would then have shown his hand. He would also have passed if his partner
then doubled 4[. E/W had agreed that Support Doubles applied when a raise to two
of responder’s suit was available and West agreed that his partner’s interpretation
of the bid was correct. East had about 3800 MP, West 6000, North 1080 and South
1140.

89 90
The Panel Decision: The Panel found that N/S had been misinformed about the But “J” is for Just a minute. West bid only 3[ when he thought East’s double
meaning of the double (Law 75). To determine whether they were damaged as a showed extra values with heart “tolerance” (usually two-card support, but we’ve all
result of that MI (Law 40C), the Panel consulted two experts and three players with seen players show tolerance with a singleton top honor) and heard his partner pass.
about the same experience as N/S. Neither expert would have bid only 1] over 1[ He then (illegally) learned from East that the double was Support, after which the
with the North hand (both would have bid 4]) but when they were told the player Director reopened the auction and South bid 3NT. Did anyone inform West that he
had bid 1] and their next call was over 3[ (with the Support Double explanation) could not take any subsequent action that was suggested by the information that
neither said they considered pass a possibility. When asked if an explanation of the was disclosed after 3[ was passed out (Law 16C2)? Surely a player who bid only
double as “values with heart tolerance” would affect how they saw the problem 3[ initially (forget all that self-serving stuff from West that he thought 3[ was
both said no. Three players with 550, 850 and 900 MP were given North’s hand and forcing and demanded a cue-bid) might pass 3NT if he continued to bid as if East
asked what they would bid over 1[. They bid 2], 1] and 4], respectively. When had at most two hearts. And if North bid 3] over 3[ and that was passed back to
they were told that the player actually bid 1] and were then asked whether the West, why would West not then pass that too? Sorry, but I question the premise that
different explanations of the double would affect their choice of call, all said they West was (legally) entitled to bid 4[ under any circumstances.
saw no reason for the different explanations to affect their action over 3[. From this The next two panelists question the Panel’s polling method and reach opposite
input the Panel decided that any damage to N/S had not been the result of the MI. conclusions.
Consideration was then given to South’s change of his pass to 3NT after getting the
correct information. Law 21B1 says that a player may change a call where Wildavsky: “I do not like the Panel’s polling methodology here. They ought to ask
permitted by law “when it is probable that he made the call as a result of MI.” (The themselves whether knowing that the double was a Support Double would have
Director should allow the change and examine it in the context of this Law after the made 3] more attractive; surely it would. They also could have sought out players
hand.) Since E/W were ultimately not disadvantaged by what may have been a who would pass over 3[ given the incorrect information; these are North’s peers.
change of call by a player who knew or should have found out what the double Then they could have asked those players whether knowing that the double showed
meant (their +200 was better than they could have achieved in 3[), this aspect was support would have caused them to reassess their position. In any case, I think the
not judged relevant. The Panel restored the table result: 4] doubled down one, Panel ought to have applied Law 72B1 (that’s three in a row) and adjusted the score
+200 for E/W. for the offenders. All told, I prefer the Director’s ruling to the Panel’s.”
DIC of Event: Stan Tench =Finding players who would bid 1] with the North hand and then pass 3[ could
Panel: Matt Smith (Reviewer), Ken Van Cleve, John Ashton be a daunting task. Anyhow, reciprocal 140s for 3] made three looks right to me.
Players consulted: Ken Gee, Ron Smith, three players with 550-900 MP
Goldsmith: “It’s sometimes very difficult to judge what effect MI might have had
=Our first panelist finds this a hairy case. on an auction no one would repeat. I suspect a bias in the polls because few Norths
would even consider bidding only 1]. Despite that, N/S seem to have had plenty
Bramley: “This sure feels wrong, but I’m having a hard time pinpointing the flaws of chances to act once they were given the proper information, so the result stands.”
in the Panel’s logic. Well, how about: (1) The consultant survey is suspect because
all but one of them bid more than 1] at their first turn. Probing the mentality of a =Uh, what “plenty of chances to act”? When N/S were finally informed that the
player who bids 1] is extremely difficult. (2) A 1] bidder might well be inhibited double was Support, South bid 3NT (which was a pretty brave action with that flat
from bidding again with ‘only’ 4 HCP after his LHO shows values. (3) South’s 14-count) and North then bid 4] at his next opportunity (and said he would have
change to 3NT could have been inspired, in part, by the knowledge that North had bid 3] over 3[ had he been given a correct explanation of the double).
not had correct information when he passed 3[. In effect, South had to guess for
both himself and his partner. (4) Note that South was ‘right’ to bid over 3[, which Polisner: “I agree with the Panel that the MI was not the cause of the damage and
is cold. 3NT down one (undoubled) is better than –140. Punishing South for a thus the table result should stand. If South had passed 3[ (as is clear-cut) and the
winning action seems perverse. Against all of the above I must weigh the standard result was –140, I would have considered adjusting the score to +140 for N/S.”
‘do-over’ mentality by both North and South. When given the chance, players of
any level select an alternative action almost without exception, as if they thought =Good grief! South guessed right to bid 3NT (which, as Bart mentions, is a good
they were going to get to play ‘better ball.’ I resolve the conflict in favor of N/S. “save” against 3[ making; how was South to know that North had seven spades?)
They were misinformed, and their arguments are just credible enough for me to give after his partner was duped out of bidding 3]. So what if we would have bid 4]
them the benefit of the doubt. I would grant North his 3] bid, but certainly this over 1[ with the North cards? North had only about 1080 MP and was a bit
West, who bid 4[ over 3NT after his partner passed 3[, would have competed to conservative, which was not a crime the last I looked. Besides, while we “experts”
4[ again. But now North could pass in comfort, as he indicated, and South would would have gone minus in 4], North would have bid 1], then 3] and gone +140.
also pass. The most likely result is down one after tapping the dummy, which is the
result I’d assign to both sides. Although I disagree with the Panel’s conclusions, Rigal: “The Panel followed a sensible procedure to establish (in what was a truly
their procedures and logic were satisfactory until their penultimate sentence. Why messy case, made more difficult by the numerous errors of judgment by both North
is there any discussion of E/W being disadvantaged by South’s change of call when and West) that there was no damage to N/S. The right decision, I think, and
it was E/W’s misexplanation that precipitated the whole mess? Good grief.” certainly so based on the expert input.”
=Regarding Bart’s last point, I think the Panel was concerned that if South knew =Why is a player with about 1000 MP being held to expert standards?
the real meaning of the double (or should have found out, though I’m not sure how
since West had forgotten and would have explained it as “values and tolerance”) Wolff: “Dealing with ‘lesser players,’ perhaps we should just teach them ethics.”
he was not entitled to change his call, and the Director’s allowing him to do so may
have damaged E/W. But in that case shouldn’t this be treated as a Director’s error? =Forgive me but is there an ethical issue here? I only see some flawed bridge.
91 92
 CASE THIRTY-TWO Alertable) coupled with the problems caused by the poorly written description of
1] were responsible for the problem. (E/W had a Pre-Alert card filled out but it had
Subject (MI): But You Get An “F” In Penmanship not been made available to the opponents.) The Committee ultimately agreed that
Event: Reisinger BAM Teams, 29 Nov 03, First Semifinal Session it was incumbent upon East to provide a legible written explanation of his side’s
bids and that his failure to do so warranted a score adjustment for his side. This case
The Facts: 4[ made five, was heard very late at night (it was about 2 am when the Committee neared its final
Bd: 32 Tarek Sadek +650 for E/W. The opening decision) and, given the late hour, when the Committee was told that their decision
Dlr: West ] K632 lead was a low diamond. would not affect N/S’s qualification or carryover (the N/S team did not qualify and
Vul: E/W [ J7 North called the Director at no score adjustment could change that) they decided not spend additional time
} 10654 the end of play complaining discussing whether the E/W score adjustment should be reciprocated to N/S. Thus,
that the second digit in the Committee changed the contract for both sides to 4[ down one, +100 for N/S.
{ A107 East’s written explanation
Giorgio Duboin Norberto Bocchi of his 1] bid (the ? in “0-? DIC of Event: Steve Bates
] 874 ] J9 sp. F.1”) looked very much Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Mark Feldman, Ed Lazarus, Becky Rogers, Danny
[ AKQ1054 [ 983 like a poorly written “9” Sprung
(left open at the top). North
} A9 } KQJ72 read this as “0-9, spades, =Most of the panelists agree with the Committee’s decision. Our first panelist
{ 32 { Q86 one round force.” But the also has a gripe about the MP reported for the players here.
Ahmed Hussein digit was intended as a “4”
] AQ105 and should have been read Bramley: “Where do these MP numbers come from? If North has 10,100(?) MP
[ 62 as “0-4 spades, forcing one then E/W must have 80,000. Also, South may not have recent experience in North
round.” West’s explanation America, but he does have plenty of experience here. I agree with the decision. East
} 83 of the 1] bid was written was responsible for making sure his explanation was understandable. E/W, with
{ KJ954 more clearly; it read: “0-4 S, their track record of similar problems, deserve little sympathy. I disagree with the
4-11 HCP.” The Director suggestion that 3] is Alertable. With slam out of the question 3] must aim at the
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH ruled that North had been choice between the only two games in the running, 3NT and 4[. The bid has
given MI (Law 40C) and logical meaning, not conventional meaning. Yes, if you didn’t know that 1] was
1[ Pass 1](1) Pass changed the contract to 4[ artificial then you might not understand 3] correctly, but it’s quite a stretch to
2[ Pass 3[ Pass down one, +100 for N/S. claim that 3] is therefore Alertable. Note that West did not want to bid 3NT to
3](2) Pass 4[ All Pass offer the choice because that would have been anti-positional. The Committee
(1) E/W’s agreement: 0-4 spades, 4-11 HCP The Appeal: E/W appealed should not have been trying to impute additional crimes to E/W; they do quite well
(2) Alerted only on N-E side of screen; asked the Director’s ruling. E/W by themselves.”
believed that interpreting
for ] stopper or choice between 3NT and 4[ East’s note as “0-9 spades” = I agree that the MP numbers reported sometimes make no sense—especially
(but see Gerard’s comment and the Editor’s (referring to the number of when foreign players are involved. But what is one to do? A top player and many-
reply below) spades the 1] bid promised) time World Champion who plays in North America only infrequently may have
made no sense. Given that relatively few ACBL MP, which means only that MP are more an indicator of how
1] showed 0-4 spades and long and how often he’s played in ACBL competition than of his playing ability,
that hearts had been rebid and raised, they thought it made no logical sense for 3] a fact I’m sure no one will be shocked to learn. I routinely report each player’s
to be taken as an attempt to play in spades; East considered the 3] bid self- ACBL MP in the write-up because our panelists have requested it, but in
Alerting. E/W added that they played natural methods, in spite of their 1] response recognizing the occasional inadequacy of these numbers (they come from the
to 1[ showing fewer than five spades (much like those standard players who switch ACBL’s database, so go argue with Memphis) I usually add my own assessment of
the meanings of their 1] and 1NT responses to 1[). The 1] response showed any player I think is misrepresented by them, as I did when I described both pairs
normal responding values; if it was made with less than 4 HCP they would consider here as top world/ international players and indicated how frequently they play in
it a psych. North said that East Alerted the 1] bid and when he saw what was North America (and thus have the chance to win ACBL MP). No one is obligated
written he interpreted it as “0-9 HCP with spades” rather than “0-4 spades.” North to take a player’s MP holding at face value or to accept it as an accurate indicator
admitted that such an agreement seemed illogical to him at the time and maybe he of ability.
should have pursued it further, but he didn’t. E/W were top world experts from Italy I agree completely with Bart’s other points: East is responsible for making sure
whose play in North America is almost exclusively in NABCs. N/S were top his (written) explanation is understandable—especially in light of similar problems
international players from Egypt and while North had played extensively in North he’s had in this area in the past—and the meaning of 3] derives from logic and
America South had not. East had about 2110 ACBL MP, West 1670, North 10,100 isn’t Alertable. More along the same lines.
and South 1240.
L. Cohen: “I have personal bias here. I find it hard enough to play against these
The Committee Decision: In screening it was determined that E/W’s 1] response methods even when getting perfect explanations. When the writing is sloppy (or
(which showed 0-4 spades) required a Pre-Alert but because South was late getting incomplete) it is even harder. While I personally have nothing against this E/W
to the table no Pre-Alert was given. Some Committee members believed that East’s pair, this kind of thing happens way too often and has to stop. Deciding this way is
penmanship was not so bad as to create damage; others thought the failure to Alert a step in the right direction.”
3] (the Committee believed that the 3] bid—effectively a choice of games—was

93 94
Polisner: “I agree. When pairs use unusual methods, they have a heavy burden to CASE THIRTY-THREE
make sure that the opponents are fully informed about them. E/W failed in their
responsibility and thus must accept the adjusted score.” Subject (MI): Will The Real “Standard” Please Stand Up?
Event: North American Swiss Teams, 29 Nov 03, Second Semifinal Session
Wolff: “I agree.”
The Facts: 3NT made three, +600
=Two panelists disagree with Bart and me and think that 3] should have been Bd: 19 Dick Bruno for E/W. The opening lead was the
Alerted. Dlr: South ] A953 [2. N/S called the Director when
Vul: E/W [ K1032 the play ended after they
Rigal: “Having seen the piece of paper in question I think the combination of the }K discovered that West had a
(completely accidental) ambiguity of the note and the failure to Alert 3] meant that doubleton for his 2[ response to
North was given a far more difficult task than he should have been on opening lead. { K972 2}. South had asked about the 2}
Yes, he is a good player and might have been expected to smell a rat, but my own John Zilic Ari Greenberg bid during the auction and was
personal experience of playing against complex methods is that using 1] over 1[ ] J7 ] Q10862 simply told “New Minor Forcing.”
as limited by failure to use a game-invitational relay is not that odd. The onus is on [ AJ [ 64 E/W had not discussed the follow-
E/W to explain and not on N/S to ask for more information in positions like this ups to NMF and West thought his
when the auction makes apparent sense.” } 9643 } AQJ102 2[ rebid in this situation was a
{ AQ864 {5 standard treatment of NMF. N/S
Wildavsky: “Fair enough, but the Committee might have noted that North’s Peggy Kaplan played upside down count and
misapprehension required that he assume East had omitted a comma. He saw ‘0-9 ] K4 attitude signals and South’s [9 at
sp, F.1.’ and interpreted it as if it were ‘0-9, sp, F.1.’ I find the adjusted score for [ Q9875 trick five carried suit-preference
poor penmanship harsh, but plausible in conjunction with the failure to Alert 3].” implications. The Director ruled
} 875 that N/S had been given MI (Law
= Suppose the auction (with only one side bidding) goes: 1[-2[; 3{-3}; 3[-3]. { J103 75) since, even if the 2[ bid was
Opener’s 3{ is ostensibly a game/slam try and 3} is presumably a counter-try. 3[ not Alertable (being undiscussed)
is a signoff that confirms 3{ as just a game try and 3] is…what? Logically it WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH West should have volunteered more
accepts the game try and denies a spade stopper (or at least a full stopper) and asks Pass information about it at the end of
opener’s opinion on the right game: 3NT or 4[. So is 3] Alertable? I think not and the auction since, while he thought
by analogy neither should the 3] bid in the actual auction here be. 1{ Pass 1] Pass it was a normal treatment, it did not
Our last two panelists think that North’s failure to pursue the obvious 1NT Pass 2}(1) Pass show either heart length or strength
ambiguity and apparent illogic in what he thought East wrote was negligent enough 2[ Pass 3} Pass and thus required an Alert (Law
to forfeit his right to redress. 3NT All Pass 75D2). Since damage resulted from
this MI (Law 40C), the contract
Goldsmith: “I’m sure language issues mattered here, too. I have less sympathy for (1) Alerted; explained as NMF was changed to 3NT down one,
N/S than the Committee. When someone writes something ambiguous that appears The Play (North on lead): +100 for N/S (Law 12C2).
to make no sense, to assume its perfect accuracy will not get you protection later.” Trick 1 [2, [4, [Q, [A
2 }9, }K, }A, }5 The Appeal: E/W appealed the
Gerard: “The bidding diagram says 3] was Alerted to North. The explanation of Director’s ruling. East did not
that Alert would have made it clear that North’s ‘0-9, spades’ assumption was 3 }Q, }7, }3, ]3 attend the hearing. E/W were a
incorrect, so North was contributorily negligent (also in not asking about 1]) if that 4 }J, }8, }4, ]5 first-time partnership who agreed to
were so. But it seems much more likely that 3] was Alerted only on the S/W side 5 }10, [9, }6, {2 play NMF (for one round) but did
of the screen: West bid it and is much more proficient in English/savvy in 6 }2, {J, {4, [3 not discuss any of the follow-up
procedure than East is. Then North was still negligent enough to deny his side 7 ]2, ]K, ]7, ]9 bids. West thought it was standard
relief, although not as outrageously so as if footnote (2) were correct. East’s that when the new minor was
penmanship was irrelevant: either he Alerted 3] or he didn’t. If he did, score stands 8 {10, {Q, {K, {5 diamonds after a 1] response a 2[
for both sides. If he didn’t, –100 for E/W, score stands for N/S.” 9 {… rebid showed a minimum without
three spades and said nothing about
=While the Appeal Form clearly says that the 3] bid was Alerted on the N-E hearts, enabling the partnership to
side of the screen, Ron’s suggestion that it was really Alerted on the S-W side of the stop in 2] when responder had a minimum with five spades. West interpreted
screen prompted me to obtain the actual notes written by the E/W players (luckily East’s 3} rebid as forcing, though East apparently thought it was invitational. In
I kept them) and investigate this issue further. Indeed, it was West—not East—who response to a question asked during the play West said that holding four diamonds
wrote: “ask Q stop or choice between 3NT and 4H” (by which West meant that 3] and three clubs the opening bid would be 1}. West believed he had accurately
asked [a question: Q] whether East had a spade stopper and so to choose between explained his agreements and that the defenders had more than adequate
3NT and 4[). So Ron’s suspicions were right and his decision is to assign E/W information to set the contract. He believed that 3NT made because of poor defense
–100 in 4[ down one and to allow the table result to stand for N/S. I agree. and the table result should stand. N/S said they expected West to have four hearts
Great catch, Ron! (But I must admit I would have made the same decision even for his 2[ bid. They were unfamiliar with the use of 2[ as an artificial bid and
if East Alerted the 3] bid.) thought they should have been Alerted if E/W were bidding 2[ artificially. After
the lead of the [2, when West showed up with four diamonds, South had trouble

95 96
picturing opener’s hand. She asked North to leave the table so she could ask E/W weird (un-Alerted) 2[ bid, so I agree with everything except the PP. West’s ideas
questions without conveying UI. West then revealed that with four diamonds and (especially for someone with 17,700) about the meaning of 2[ are bizarre, but I
three clubs the opening bid would be 1}, but he did not explain that 2[ said don’t think he intentionally or flagrantly did anything to warrant a PP.”
nothing about hearts. South ultimately decided that declarer had bid 2[ with the
[AKJ and that when she obtained the lead in spades she needed to play clubs to =Anyone care to guess what the Wizard of White Plains, our very own Sultan
keep North from getting endplayed with his spade winner. N/S said that with a of Sarcasm, thinks of South’s defense and the Committee’s assessment of it?
proper explanation of the 2[ bid they would surely have set the contract. East had
about 1900 MP, West 17,700, North 8600 and South 7900. Gerard: “South placed North with a ridiculous lead, created the endplay and asked
an irrelevant question about West’s distribution (2-4-4-3 shape was impossible). No
The Committee Decision: The Committee noted that even if West believed that his matter, you could order the pork chops rare and it wouldn’t be considered
side’s treatment of 2[ was standard, it was an artificial bid which required an Alert. egregious. The ]K by a player who had no idea what declarer’s hand was was the
When his partner failed to Alert 2[, it was his responsibility to tell the opponents last clear error, but the {J by a player with the long suit to cash (admittedly it might
at the end of the auction and before the opening lead that there had been a failure take a while) was in there pitching. If South had discarded a low club and held the
to Alert and to explain the meaning of the 2[ bid. Thus, E/W were guilty of MI jack (‘keep winners, throw losers’) or ducked the first spade and won the second
which clearly contributed to their good result and warranted an adjusted score. (after which it would be clear for this South to return a heart), 3NT would have
Although it was possible for South to discard two clubs on the diamonds, win the been down two and down one, respectively. What really happened is that South
first spade and play a club to the queen and king, after which N/S could take the rest tried to visualize West’s hand and then gave up, making random plays and discards
of the tricks (for down three), the Committee believed that defense fell a bit short that eventually cost the contract. No matter, you can suspend the Constitution and
of being “at all probable.” E/W were therefore assigned the result for 3NT down it isn’t considered egregious.”
two, –200 for E/W. N/S had misdefended, but they made a serious effort to build
up a picture of declarer’s hand even though they were unable to correctly resolve =The remaining panelists share my opinion: West had his own idiosyncratic idea
the discrepancy between the bidding and the play. Although they probably should about the 2[ bid in this sequence and he made the bid purely on his own initiative.
have come up with the correct answer, their defense did not constitute a failure to Since this first-time partnership had not discussed the follow-ups to NMF, there was
play bridge. Thus, they were assigned the reciprocal score of +200 for 3NT down no actual agreement about the 2[ bid and, appropriately, no representation about
two. Additionally, West fell far short of living up to his responsibility to explain the it was made to the opponents. In addition, a player who makes a unilateral bid in
meaning of the 2[ bid, both at the end of the auction and upon further questioning an undiscussed auction is not obligated to disclose its intended meaning unless there
by South. E/W were therefore assigned a 3-imp PP (later changed to 1 VP at the is something in the partnership agreements or experience that suggests his partner
request of the Director). Further, given that E/W were clearly responsible for MI will have a better chance to interpret the bid correctly than the opponents (all four
that contributed to their good result, they should have recognized that there was no players must have equal access to any agreed or implied meanings of the bids).
chance that their score would be improved through the appeal process. Thus, E/W Thus, West should not be required to disclose the intended meaning of his 2[ bid.
were each assessed an AWMW. To better appreciate why, consider a player who, like our actual West, has not
discussed the follow-ups to NMF and runs into this same situation. He reasons (not
DIC of Event: Gary Zeiger entirely unlike our West): “Partner may have an invitational hand that may or may
Committee: Doug Doub (chair), Lowell Andrews, Ed Lazarus, Becky Rogers, not include spades, so I’d like to stay as low as possible. My normal rebid is 3{,
Danny Sprung though 2], 2NT and 3} are also possible (all of which may get us too high
opposite an invitational hand), but in situations like this experts advise making the
=A majority of the panelists agree with the Committee’s decision, though some cheapest bid to allow partner to describe his hand and at least get us to the right
consider it a bit on the harsh side. strain—if not the right level. I know a 2[ bid may work out poorly, particularly if
partner turns up with hearts and bids 4[ (I’ll have to convert to 4] then and pray).
Bramley: “Thorough and correct, including the PP, the AWMW, and reducing the But if he has an invitational hand and bids 2], 2NT or even 3{, I can pass and
appellant’s score even further. ‘Home brew standard’ doesn’t quite meet the we’ll be in the right contract.” So a player who makes a bid entirely on his own
definition of ‘standard.’” (like the 2[ bid here), whether tactically or as part of some philosophy that dictates
the bid (as long as he has not discussed it with his partner), is not required to tell the
Wildavsky: “Another case where mentioning Law 72B1 in screening might have opponents what he intended his bid to mean—at least not the first time it comes up
prevented a time-wasting appeal. Good jobs by the Director and the Committee.” with this partner.
However, none of the above should be taken to mean that I think West fulfilled
Rigal: “South went the extra mile to find out what was going on and West was his obligations in this case. Consider the following.
somewhere between naive and obstructive for not helping her out. Yes, her defense
was perhaps inferior but we are supposed to be protecting the non-offenders in Martel: “If E/W were a first-time partnership (as indicated in the write-up), it is
situations like this, not punishing them. The combination of the downward score very likely that there was no agreement about 2[ (and East presumably took it as
adjustment plus a PP is harsh but to my mind merited, given that the offenders natural: if he had held four hearts E/W would likely have reached a silly contract).
brought the appeal.” The facts of what questions were asked by N/S and when are not clear. Probably
West should have been a bit more forthcoming (perhaps informing E/W at the end
Wolff: “A bit harsh, but some players engender that emotion.” of the auction that they were a first-time partnership and had not discussed the
responses/follow-ups to 2}). Still, the Committee’s decision seems quite harsh to
=One panelist opposes only the PP but otherwise agrees with the decision. me and it was wrong to suggest that West explain his 2[ bid. West apparently had
an agreement with himself but no one else.”
L. Cohen: “It wasn’t so easy for N/S to figure out what was going on with West’s

97 98
 CASE THIRTY-FOUR
=Chip makes an excellent point. West might have told N/S that his was a first-
time partnership and that they had not discussed the follow-ups to NMF. Simply Subject (Score Change): Inconsistency Equals Insufficiency
saying nothing about the bid suggests it had a natural meaning. It is not clear Event: Early Open Stratified Pairs, 21 Nov 03, First Session
exactly what questions South asked after the opening lead (when she sent her
partner away from the table). The write-up suggests that she asked only about The Facts: 1NT was scored as
E/W’s opening bid agreements with various minor-suit holdings, but she might also Bd: 4 ] Q5 making one, +90 for N/S. The
have asked about the auction in general. If she only asked about E/W’s minor-suit Dlr: West [ AK42 opening lead was the }A. After the
openings then I do not think West was culpable for not saying anything about his Vul: Both } 108654 session North approached a Director
2[ bid (though Chip is right that he might have said something). But if South asked { 52 saying that this board had been scored
for an explanation of the entire auction and West said nothing about E/W being a wrong: South had actually taken eight
first-time partnership or that the follow-ups to NMF were undiscussed, and only ] 1092 ] KJ63 tricks in 1NT. The Director found the
then did she ask about E/W’s minor-suit openings, then West’s failure to disclose [ 96 [ QJ753 E/W pair during the next session;
the undiscussed nature of his 2[ bid constituted MI. } AK32 }7 they did not agree that eight tricks
From the write-up I believe South’s questions probed only E/W’s agreements { J973 { K106 had been taken. After speaking with
about their minor-suit openings, so there was no MI. Sharing this same belief is… both pairs the Director found no legal
] A874 basis for changing the score and
Polisner: “If I understand the facts correctly, E/W had no agreement as to the [ 108 allowed the result recorded at the
meaning of 2[. As such, it was not West’s duty nor East’s responsibility to tell the } QJ9 table to stand.
opponents anything about the meaning of the bid. Where was the MI? Just because { AQ84
it was in West’s mind that the 2[ bid was standard is no different than if he had The Appeal: N/S appealed the
chosen to psych the bid. No agreement, no MI, no adjustment, and no PP.” Director’s ruling. All four players
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH agreed that the first trick had been:
=That’s right—unless South asked about the auction in general and West said Pass Pass Pass 1NT(1) }A, 4, 7, J. West switched to a club
nothing about being a first-time partnership or the undiscussed rebids after NMF. All Pass to East’s king and declarer’s ace.
(1) Announced; 12-15 HCP South then played the }Q, ducked (as
Goldsmith: “Wait a second. What was the partnership agreement? Surely it was East pitched a high heart spot), and
just ‘New Minor Forcing.’ Just because West thought that 2[ should be artificial the }9 to West’s king. The heart
doesn’t mean E/W had such an agreement. There’s no way they did; West was out return was won in dummy with the ace and dummy’s diamonds were then cashed.
there on his own. Therefore, 2[ was a mistaken bid, not a mistaken explanation. At first South said she fanned her cards at that point to show that she had eight
Still, West had to disclose the failure to Alert, and that might have clued in N/S. tricks (one spade, two hearts, three diamonds and two clubs); she later changed her
The problem is that the rules don’t work that way. Let’s say West had said, ‘I meant statement to indicate that after cashing the diamonds she played the [K, a spade to
to bid 2NT, but accidentally pulled out 2[. By the time I noticed it, I figured it was the ace, and then showed her hand. North remembered that after the diamonds were
too late.’ Or suppose he said, ‘I psyched 2[ to get a favorable lead.’ Then there’s cashed South played dummy’s [K and then led a spade to the ace. He couldn’t see
nothing we could do. The rules are generally structured (as good rules are) so that what happened next but the play ended. He did not remember seeing the {Q. E/W
it’s not to one’s disadvantage to be honest. What really happened is that West did remembered that after the diamonds were finished declarer played a spade to the
something strange on his own. Rather than making up a bid, he made up a ace (East playing the jack), then a heart to dummy’s king. Among the discards East
convention (one that’s not as insane as it seems at first glance). That’s not really all made on the diamonds were the {6 and {10. They said that declarer then led a club
that much different from a psych. I think in theory this should be ruled as mistaken from dummy and put in the eight from her hand, losing to West’s nine. West
bid, no infraction. I would hate doing that—it seems rather unfair to N/S—but I returned a major-suit card and East took the remaining tricks. East and West were
think it’s correct. Furthermore, I don’t agree at all that the defense was reasonable. emphatic that no claim ever occurred. North agreed that at the time he scored the
South pitched the {J. Then she followed with the {10. She can’t have the {8 or board he believed the result of the hand was seven tricks. South said she objected
{A. I understand how the auction could have confused N/S, but by trick nine North as the result was scored but was not heard (her voice is very soft). West said she
knew West did not have four hearts. Asking ‘Was there something special about the heard South muttering something as she left the table. North had about 5800 MP,
2[ bid?’ might have been in order. All in all, the defense was downright awful, and South 12,260, West 800 and East 2460.
I think it was bad enough that N/S should keep their –600. Despite all that, it seems
wrong to let E/W keep their +600. West did take advantage of UI by not disclosing The Panel Decision: The Panel considered the likelihood of each side’s version of
the failure to Alert, even if he could have avoided any penalty by lying. Sometimes the events. It was noted that if East had discarded two clubs—an encouraging heart
equity has to be provided. I think Edgar Kaplan would have ruled result stands and and perhaps a low spade—on the run of the diamonds she would still hold a low
then given a 13-imp PP to E/W for failing to disclose the failure to Alert. Or spade even if her other discard was a spade, thereby making it unlikely that she took
something like that.” the balance of the tricks. There were serious inconsistencies in N/S’s version of the
events. The fact that South’s memory of when a claim occurred changed during the
=Sorry, but if West “was out there on his own” and E/W had not discussed their interview, that North did not remember seeing the {Q, that North did not have a
bids after NMF (and South did not ask about the bid—even indirectly), then West clear memory of what occurred after the ]A and [K were played, and that at the
did not need to disclose a failure to Alert since 2[ was not conventional and thus time North scored the board he thought seven tricks had been taken all pointed in
was not Alertable. So West did not take advantage of UI and it is therefore not the direction that the floor Director had been correct to allow the result to stand as
wrong to allow E/W to keep their +600. As for the PP and AWMW—good grief! scored at the table. Those points, added to the disagreement over the order in which
the [K and ]A had been played and whether any claim was made at all, led the

99 100
Panel to conclude that N/S had not met the burden of demonstrating that South took CASE THIRTY-FIVE
eight tricks. The table result of 1NT made one, +90 for N/S, was allowed to stand.
The Panel decided not to issue an AWMW due to the fact that E/W’s memory of Subject (Claim): Inactive Ethics?
the events was not necessarily consistent with how only seven tricks were taken, Event: NABC Women’s BAM Teams, 23 Nov 03, First Qualifying Session
and the inconsistencies in N/S’s version of events was seen more as an indication
of South’s ill health and the length of time that elapsed between when the board was The Facts: 3] made four, +170 for
played and when the appeal was heard than an indication of any original uncertainty Bd: 10 Linda Epstein E/W. The opening lead was the {9.
about how many tricks South had taken or how she took them. Dlr: East ] 72 At trick nine, when North returned
Vul: Both [ Q94 a third diamond, declarer faced her
DIC of Event: Jay Albright } KJ1064 hand without making a statement.
Panel: Matt Smith (Reviewer), Su Doe, Candy Kuschner, Charlie MacCracken The Director ruled that the second
Players consulted: none reported { K42 condition specified by Law 70C for
Faye Marino Cynthia Colin disallowing a claim was not
= Almost everyone supports the Panel’s decision. One panelist points out how ] QJ4 ] A10965 satisfied (Law 70C says: the
East could have taken the rest of the tricks if South finessed the {8 at trick ten. [ K7 [ A8652 Director should award a trick to the
opponents if a trump remains in one
Gerard: “If East had discarded a low spade and still held a low spade, it would be } Q832 } 95 of their hands and (1) claimer made
high if South discarded two spades (we know she discarded at least one). In that { AJ86 {5 no statement about that trump, and
case, it was extremely likely that she took the balance of the tricks.” Ora Lourie (2) it is at all likely that claimer was
] K83 unaware that a trump was out at the
Bramley: “Good here. Resolving disputes between two memory-challenged parties [ J103 time of his claim, and (3) a trick
is very difficult. The Panel did well to discover as much as they did. Not changing could be lost to that trump by any
the originally agreed score was appropriate.” } A7 normal* play [*play that is careless
{ Q10973 or inferior, but not irrational, for the
Goldsmith: “Seems right. The burden of proof to change a score is more than just class of player involved]). The
a preponderance of the evidence.” WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Director cited the fact that declarer
Pass Pass had been drawing trumps when
Wildavsky: “Good work all around on a difficult case.” South won the second round, and
1} Pass 1] Pass thus she was aware that a trump was
Wolff: “Okay.” 1NT Pass 3[ Pass still out. The claim was allowed and
the result assigned for 3] made
=One panelist wishes there was a better way to get an important lesson across. 3] All Pass
The Play (South on lead): four, +170 for E/W.
Rigal: “I’d really like both sides to get the worst of this one but I can’t find any Trick 1 {9, {A, {x, {5 The Appeal: N/S appealed the
justification for that, except that maybe it would discourage further cases of players 2 [K, [4, [x, [3 Director’s ruling and were the only
who can’t remember what happened at the table trying to justify a number of tricks 3 [7, [9, [A, [10 players to attend the hearing. N/S
to which they are not entitled.” 4 [x, [J, ]4, [Q contended that East could have been
unaware of the last trump since she
=Given the faulty memories of everyone involved, it seems impossible to say 5 ]Q, ]x, ]x, ]x did not mention it. In that case, the
what actually happened with any certainty. (Though someone might have checked 6 ]J, ]x, ]x, ]K order of playing East’s winners
everyone’s private scorecard to see if any additional information was available 7 }A, }x, }x, }x would be random and it would be
there.) I find it implausible to think that declarer finessed the {8 at trick ten with 8 }7, }x, }10, }x careless but not irrational to play
both the jack and nine still out. On the other hand, even a player with a soft voice, hearts before spades, allowing
when it’s clear she is not being heard, can wave or reach out her hand to get 9 }x, claim by East South to score her last trump. North
attention and stop her partner from entering the wrong score on the score slip and had about 1940 MP, South 1780,
prevent the opponents from leaving the table. Law 79A requires the players to agree West 3300 and East 2760.
on the number of tricks taken before all four hands are returned to the board (see
my final comment on CASE TWENTY-ONE). South clearly returned her hand to The Committee Decision: The Committee agreed with both the Director’s ruling
the board, even waiting until after the session before finding a Director to voice her and his reasoning. There was no chance that East was planning to discard at trick
objection to the scoring of the board. Given all the players did wrong here and the nine, since the }K had not been played and it would have been irrational not to ruff.
memory problems everyone exhibited, I can’t see how one could legitimately Declarer had also seen the ]K ducked once and then taken on the second round of
change the score that was recorded at the table. the suit, so there was little chance that she thought all of the trumps had been
Our final two panelists both have it right. drawn. To allow this appeal would be to substitute the Committee’s judgment for
that of the Director when no additional evidence had been introduced. The result
Polisner: “Tough, but fair.” assigned at the table by the Director was allowed to stand. There was sympathy for
an AWMW, but one was not assigned because one Committee member originally
L. Cohen: “Sad.” had been inclined to allow the appeal and at least one other thought it had merit.

101 102
Dissenting Opinion (Bob Schwartz): South held off on the trump king, winning CASE THIRTY-SIX
the second round. When declarer came down to the five-card end position holding
three high trumps and two good hearts, faced her hand and claimed, N/S called the Subject (Illegal Convention): Ignorance Is No Defense
Director, insisting declarer had to play hearts first. The Director properly ruled that Event: Stratified IMP Pairs, 23 Nov 03, Evening (Only) Session
Laws 70C2 and 70C3 could not result in awarding a trump trick to the defending
side. It is bad enough to call the Director in this situation, but to then appeal that The Facts: 5] went down one, +50
ruling is the opposite of Active Ethics and a perfect example of an attempt to get Bd: 11 ] 87 for N/S. The opening lead was the
something for nothing. In my opinion no merit existed in this appeal and N/S should Dlr: South [ AJ6 {K. The Director was called after the
have received an AWMW. Vul: None } J652 2} bid and determined that this use
{ J963 of a 2} opening was not permitted on
DIC of Event: Mike Flader the GCC (in use for this event) and
Committee: Ron Gerard (chair), Ed Lazarus, Bob Schwartz, Aaron Silverstein, ] K1065 ] A9432 N/S were therefore playing an illegal
Chris Willenken [ K95 [ Q1043 convention. As per ACBL procedure
in such situations, he allowed the
=All but one panelist agree with the Committee’s decision, most of them sharing } AKQ8
{ A10
} 10973
{ --- auction and play to proceed and stood
the dissenter’s opinion about the AWMW (as do I). ready to protect E/W if damage
] QJ resulted. Ultimately he decided to
Bramley: “Clearly a correct decision, but I also agree with the dissenter about the [ 872 change the contract to 5{ doubled
AWMW and his reasons for it. Calling the Director was bad enough, but pursuing }4 down four, +800 for E/W (Law
this into Committee was beyond the pale.” { KQ87542 12C2), citing the possible auction:
3{-(Dbl)-4{-(Pass); Pass-(Dbl)-
Polisner: “I agree with the dissenter that an AWMW should have been issued.” Pass-(4]); Pass-(Pass)-5{-(Pass);
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass-(Dbl)-All Pass.
Rigal: “I think the dissenter has a valid point in the context of the original Director 2}(1)
ruling, which was to my mind the right ruling even if it might have been seen to be Pass 2](2) Dbl 3{ The Appeal: N/S appealed the
in favor of the ‘offenders.’ The ruling involved an application of the laws, but the 4{ 5{ Pass Pass Director’s ruling. N/S thought that the
Director correctly observed that the trump duck marked South (in the real world) assigned result of 5{ doubled was
with another trump.” Dbl Pass 5] All Pass harsh. They had provided a defense
(1) 18-19 HCP, balanced, or a good (orally) to their 2} opening and said
Wolff: “Okay. I heartily agree with the dissenter; N/S can call the Director but to 3-level minor-suit preempt they did not know the convention
bring an appeal and argue for another trick is a bit much.” (2) Denied four spades could not be used in this event. (They
=Would N/S have had a case if East’s trump holding had been a bit weaker? said they were allowed to play it at
their local club.) The ACBL’s
procedure for Mid-Chart conventions was explained to them and the fact that the
L. Cohen: “I’ve always thought the laws were a bit too strict against the claimer Mid-Chart is only allowed in some events. E/W, a 0-200 pair, thought they should
in these situations. Whenever a declarer has high trumps and side winners, it should not have had to digest a new system and defense. They also noted that facing this
be presumed they play the high trumps first (just as a lurker check). Even if East new method was disconcerting and left them less well equipped to deal with this
didn’t know that there was an outstanding trump (I think she did), how could it hurt hand. North had about 1780 MP, South 1920, East 180 and West 80.
for her to lay down the high spades before the heart winners? Clearly East was
ruffing the third diamond. If East had ]A92 left and South had a spade to beat the The Panel Decision: After giving three 0-200 pairs the E/W cards as a bidding
deuce, now we could talk. I’d like to decide this case had no merit just to show my problem (the auction starting with a 3{ bid by South) and discussing the bidding
disappointment that N/S not only called the Director, but then pursued it on appeal.” problem with two other 0-300 players it was discovered that the auction, and
therefore the final contract, could not be determined to either of the standards
Goldsmith: “I agree with the dissenter. There was nothing to this appeal. Declarer required by Law 12C2 (“the most favorable result that was likely” and “the most
knew her hand was good. She ought, however, to have said, ‘Ruffing high, drawing unfavorable result that was at all probable”). Given the variety of auctions proposed
trump.’ If declarer had had the ten-nine-seven of trumps left, however, and could by the 199er consultants and the fact that in the actual auction the players did not
have carelessly ruffed low and been overruffed, N/S would have got a trick due to opt to defend 5{ doubled, the Panel had no confidence that any particular result
the lack of a claim statement.” could be chosen as being likely or at all probable. Among the auctions considered
=And finally, the odd man out is… based on the consultants’ input were 3{-(Dbl)-4{-(4]) leading to either West
making a slam try or North saving in 5{ and 3{-(Dbl)-5{-(?). Having determined
that normal play was impossible (Law 12A2) the Panel decided to assign artificial
Wildavsky: “I find nothing unethical in N/S’s actions, which are totally consistent scores as follows: +3 imps for E/W; –3 imps for N/S (Law 12C1). In addition, N/S
with the fact that declarer might have lost another trick had she played the hand out. were assessed a 3-imp PP for using an illegal convention since an experienced pair
All she had to say to avoid this was ‘I’ll draw the last trump’; that she said nothing should know that only GCC conventions are permitted in Open Stratified games.
suggests she might have been unaware of it. Many players, myself included, often
claim without making a statement, but that is not in accord with the laws which DIC of Event: Michael Carroad
require that a statement be made. I hope the next revision of the laws will instruct Panel: Su Doe (Reviewer), Patty Holmes, Candy Kuschner, Matt Smith
players on how to proceed when a claim is made with no accompanying statement.” Players consulted: eight players with 0-300 MP

103 104
 Imagine if the Supreme Court or the Attorney General discharged their duties
=The panelists mostly agree that N/S cannot keep their “good” result since it was according to their personal sympathies rather than the laws what a state of affairs
(presumably) achieved through the use of an illegal convention. What they do not that would be.”
agree on is how exactly to adjudicate the situation. But first, one panelist points out
an error in the Panel’s interpretation of the Mid- and Super-Charts. =Sorry Ron, but there’s no indication on the Appeal Form or in the write-up that
West doubled 2}. (We should bear in mind that E/W each had under 200 MP.)
Martel: “Good job by the Panel. Also, for your information, 2} is not Mid-Chart As for the possible auctions, 3{-(Dbl)-4{ or 5{ both seem pretty normal ways
legal either. (In fact, it isn’t even Super-Chart legal.)” for the auction to begin. East might then make a responsive double (assuming E/W
played them and they applied at that level) or bid spades directly, after which West
=Chip is right. The Mid-Chart allows a 2} opening that shows a weak two-bid would almost certainly cue-bid and E/W would, as Ron says, reach at least 5] (but
in an unspecified major and may include additional strong (15+ HCP) meanings; more likely six). So it appears that E/W weren’t really damaged by N/S’s use of the
it also allows a 2] or 2NT opening showing an unspecified minor or both minors. illegal convention. In fact, they may well have been advantaged by being kept from
It does not allow a 2} opening to show an unspecified minor, even one with a reaching the six level (although even 6] can be made, double dummy).
strong alternative. The Super-Chart allows artificial weak bids at the two or three
level (including those with strong adjuncts) provided they posses a known suit or L. Cohen: “How could N/S think that they could use this method? Ugh! I definitely
one of no more than two possible suits not to include the suit bid. Since diamonds agree with the 3-imp PP. As to adjusting to 5{ doubled down four, that was
is one of South’s possible suits, the convention fails on that point. ridiculous by the Director. I’d think as soon as it is discovered that the convention
But what about the Panel’s inability to apply the standards set forth in Law is illegal, it should be Average-Plus/Average-Minus (3 imps in this event). Do the
12C2? Several panelists find this unacceptable. rules really permit the non-offenders a double shot (i.e., they get to play the board
and see if they can do better than the Average-Plus)? That seems weird. But if that
Wildavsky: “The Panel failed in their responsibility here. The laws do not allow is the rule, then, given that E/W got a poor result, I suppose the Panel handed out
Law 12A2 to be applied to a deal where a result has already been obtained. To the right result.”
apply Law 12C2 all the Panel needed to do was to follow this procedure: (a) Make
a list of all ‘likely’ results on the deal. If they didn’t feel up to the task they could =The ACBL has always treated the use of illegal conventions in the manner used
simply have looked at the recap sheet. (b) Assign the most favorable of these to the here. If the use of the illegal method damages the opponents, the Director stands
non-offenders. (c) Add to the list results that, while unlikely, are ‘at all probable.’ ready to assign an adjusted score. If there is no damage from the method’s use then
(d) Assign the most unfavorable of these to the offenders. The Director had no the table result is allowed to stand. In either case a PP is always an option but is left
trouble with this. He noted that this N/S pair was willing to bid to 5{ on the illegal to the Director’s discretion. And of course the offending pair is instructed to cease
auction, so they might certainly have done the same on a legal auction, and one using the offending method and to remove it from their CC (or modify it to make
likely outcome was that E/W would have doubled them. The Director did a fine job it legal). So the Panel was right to try to determine the 12C2 results for the two
here, though he might also have considered a PP for the illegal convention. It would sides. But they were wrong in allowing their sympathies (as Ron says) to interfere
have been illegal even in an NABC+ game since N/S did not give a pre-Alert, nor with carrying through with the process that Adam and our next panelist describe.
did they provide a written defense.”
Goldsmith: “The Panel misinterpreted Law 12. ‘Likely’ and ‘at all probable’ are
Bramley: “I prefer the Director’s ruling. If Law 12C2 standards are to be used in not absolute probabilities, but probabilities relative among the various possible
such cases, then the N/S adjustment to –800 is clear and only the E/W adjustment results. What they had to do (in theory) was come up with all the possible results
is in doubt. I would assign them the reciprocal score despite the Directors’ difficulty and assign a probability to each. Typically, these results will fall into three groups:
in determining a result, since reaching 5{ doubled should hardly be considered could easily happen; might happen, but not very likely; and won’t ever happen. Just
remote. I don’t like the PP. Playing a home-grown convention is not flagrant abuse because a result has a 5 percent frequency doesn’t mean it falls into the ‘won’t ever
unless the pair had previously been told of its illegality. First offense, no PP.” happen’ category. If there are 100 possible results, none more likely than 5 percent,
still some of those results have to be judged as likely in context. So if there are ten
= Adam and Bart seem to think that a final contract of 5{ doubled is not only 5 percent results, fifteen 2 percent results, and eighty-five results which are judged
possible but likely. Frankly, I don’t see how. I agree with the following panelist. to happen less than one-half of a percent of the time each, then the 5 percent results
are likely, the 5 percent and the 2 percent results are at all probable, and we ignore
Gerard: “Missing in Action. How could no particular result meet 12C2 standards? the really rare ones. Of course, most of the time there won’t be such a clear
Didn’t all the different auctions produced by the consultants end up somewhere? grouping, but in practice what will happen is that the Panel or Committee will start
Maybe they took different routes, but there had to be a consensus result and some throwing out possibilities and after a while a whole bunch in a row will be judged
lesser frequencies. What the Panel really meant was that it couldn’t contrive a as too far-fetched. Then they start grouping the possibilities they have. In practice,
favorable result for E/W because there was no way to stop in 4] or 5{ doubled. I there typically won’t be more than about ten scenarios. In a pair game, it’s pretty
don’t understand their problem. All they had to do was what the Director did: force easy to deal with; take a look at the field’s frequency chart and judge from there.
East to pass 4{ (by the way, it looks like West might have doubled 2}, otherwise Anything that happened twice is worth considering as ‘at all likely,’ though not all
East had no double of 2]), make North rebid his values with a stale hand, and make such results will end up judged as such.”
East sit for 5{ doubled (I’ll bet not one of the consultants did that). Failure of
imagination. It’s clear that the consultants wouldn’t pass 4{, wouldn’t pass 4] as Rigal: “This is one case where an assigned adjusted score and a PP do seem
West, wouldn’t sit for a double of 5{ and that E/W would have ended up in at least reasonable. Not perfect, but reasonable, in the context of the fact that E/W were so
5]. But rather than allow the result to stand, as the laws would seem to require, the relatively inexperienced.”
Panel surrendered to its sympathies. In an extreme pinch, you might sell me an
offenders’ –420. Otherwise, this was just wishful thinking on the part of the Panel. Polisner: “I agree that a probable result is difficult to determine, although –800 is

105 106
certainly ‘at all probable.’ I think I would have given N/S –800 and E/W + 3 imps.” CASE THIRTY-SEVEN
=Again, it is difficult to see just how E/W can get to defend 5{ doubled (unless Subject (Exposed Card): A Practical Solution
each of them is permitted to take a double-dummy action). And assigning E/W +3 Event: NABC Open BAM Teams, 24 Nov 03, Second Final Session
imps, as both Barry and Jeff Polisner suggest, is not consistent with Laws 12A or
12C2 (as Adam and Jeff Goldsmith point out). The Facts: 4] made four, +620
Bd: 16 Yalcin Atabey for E/W. The opening lead was the
Wolff: “Good final decision. ‘Let the punishment fit the crime.’ Equity is served Dlr: West ] A6 {A. The Director was called
and the culprits taught what to expect.” Vul: E/W [ AQ10853 before the auction began; West’s
}Q became exposed while he was
=In principle yes, but in practice in this case no. Given that it’s so unlikely that } 1073
{ 107
counting his cards, which had been
E/W were actually damaged by the illegal convention (and given that the Panel had boxed in the board. East saw the
so much trouble determining its illegality under the Convention Charts) it seems Adam Zmudzinski Cezary Balicki card. The board was being started
important to drive home Wolffie’s point that N/S are “taught what to expect” for the ] K4 ] QJ10985 late and had already been played at
future. Thus, I have no problem with issuing the PP, although I probably wouldn’t [ 64 [ K97 the other table. The Director had
recommend it for this pair had there been damage and had the score been adjusted. the auction and play proceed and
} KQJ } A864 monitored the proceedings. After
{ Q98532 { --- the hand E/W said that a 2] bid by
Suleyman Kalata East over 2[ would have been
] 732 non-forcing and 3] would have
[ J2 been forcing. The Director ruled
that the auction period had not
} 952 begun when the card was exposed
{ AKJ64 (Law 17A), so Law 16B applied.
He judged that the exposed card
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH had not interfered with the normal
play of the board and allowed the
2{(1) 2[ 4] All Pass table result to stand.
(1) Alerted; Precision
The Appeal: N/S appealed the
Director’s ruling and were the only
players to attend the hearing. The two Directors who handled the ruling at the table
also attended and conveyed E/W’s position. N/S said they actually saw nothing at
the table but became aware of the problem through West’s actions. The Committee
learned from the Directors that West told them at the table that more cards than just
the }Q had been boxed and exposed, but East had only recognized the }Q (he may
have actually seen other cards). N/S were Turkish internationalists who play only
occasionally in North America; each has fewer than 20 ACBL MP. E/W were top
expert internationalists from Poland; each had over 22,700 ACBL MP.
The Committee Decision: The Committee was impressed by E/W’s obvious
display of honesty in Alerting N/S to the exposed card(s). The Directors said that
they would have had a substitute board played had they known that an honor (the
}Q) was exposed. It was the consensus of the Committee that had East seen the }Q
it would have increased the attractiveness of a 4] bid (by about 5-10 percent) over
a 2] bid. The Committee decided, after consulting with the Directors present, that
since a substitute board had not been put into play the result at this table would be
thrown out and the standard procedure used to assign an artificial result to both
teams, taking the result on the board from the other table into account.
DIC of Event: Steve Bates
Committee: Steve Weinstein (chair), Larry Cohen, Ed Lazarus, Chris Moll
(scribe), Adam Wildavsky
=First, let’s hear from two of the Committee members.
L. Cohen: “We kind of took a poll in percentage terms as to how much we thought
seeing the }Q might influence East, and 5-10 percent was the average. Had East

107 108
seen, say, the {Q, that wouldn’t have indicated bidding 4]. But the }Q had to help CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE EXPERT PANELISTS
a little. We didn’t want to force E/W to stop below 4] (not likely for this pair), so
throwing out the board seemed best.” Bramley: “Giving everyone’s MP highlights how many foreign players, with their
artificial MP totals, are at our NABCs. Unfortunately, there seem to be a
Wildavsky: “An unusual case. I still like our decision.” disproportionate number of them in appeals. As I write this, the powers that be have
decided they can no longer afford the services of Rich Colker. They made a similar
=Some panelists prefer the original table ruling, believing that East would always decision 6 or 7 years ago, but luckily his exile that time lasted for only one Appeals
reach 4] and that the }Q did not influence the result. Casebook. I hope that the same holds true again. He has done a terrific job and I
will miss working with him on these casebooks.”
Bramley: “Who said that the }Q was exposed? I prefer the original Director’s
ruling. Knowing East, I can’t believe he would ever have bid less than 4]. His suit L. Cohen: “Overall a good job on the final decisions, but the way they were arrived
is self-sufficient and his [K has increased value.” at could use some streamlining. (As my Algebra teacher stressed, you have to show
your work, not just give the final answer.) Don’t give extraneous information (such
Wolff: “All’s well that ends well, but once the Director made a ruling that ruling as why the huddler took so long to break tempo). Also, try to follow the chain of
should apply and the Committee should ratify the result.” logic (especially in tempo cases) of A, B, C. For example. CASE FIVE omits A
(was there a BIT) and B (did the UI demonstrably suggest one action over another)
=One panelist’s belief in the table ruling ended up being somewhat weakened. and starts right at C (should the action taken be allowed). I don’t know if this was
a write-up issue, or maybe the Panel simply omitted A and B.”
Rigal: “At the time I thought the }Q was not significant enough a card to influence
the decision by East. I received enough disagreement with that point of view that Martel: “Overall, a good job by the Panels and Committees (and Directors). There
I am prepared to accept that I was wrong. It is certainly a close call; I think there is were only a few cases where I really disagreed with the final decision. It was also
virtually no other card that would not be either clearly relevant or clearly irrelevant. nice to see everyone doing a good job of protecting the non-offenders.”
(Aside: if the procedure is that the artificial result at this table—60 percent for both
sides—is added to the matchpoint result from the other table, with the combined Rigal: “I’ve been critical of the Directing staff in the past for failing to give the
matchpoint scores producing a win, loss or draw, the reader might be interested to non-offenders the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to a case of bridge
know what happened at the other table. I went to check and discovered that E/W’s judgment. My view was that any time the Committee decided in favor of the non-
teammates had defended a partscore for 90 percent of the BAM matchpoints, thus offenders on appeal, the Director’s ruling should clearly have gone the other way.
getting a win on the board under those circumstances, too. If the Director had This time there are four cases where the Director’s ruling in favor of the offenders
known this he might have been able to cut short the discussion. If the appellants had required a closer look: CASES SIX, SEVEN, TWELVE and SEVENTEEN. In
known this, they would not have brought the case, would they? That would have CASE SIX the Committee agreed with the Director in what I think was the worst
been a pity, in abstract, since the discussion was stimulating.)” decision in New Orleans (I’ve made my comments in the appropriate place). CASE
SEVEN is about an interpretation of a BIT; the Directors made the right ruling if
=One panelist thinks that seeing the }Q gave East a “huge” advantage. their interpretation of the slow double was right. I happen not to agree with their
interpretation, but that is another matter. In CASE TWELVE the issue was
Polisner: “Good practical decision. The knowledge of the }Q with West is a huge determining what a slow bid demonstrably suggested. The Committee and Director
plus for East’s decision to bid 4] with his 6-7 loser hand.” did not agree, but in context the Director’s ruling was reasonable, even though I
agree with the Committee. And CASE SEVENTEEN was one where I can
=I’m with the previous group who think that knowing that West had the }Q was sympathize with the Director’s ruling though I would have wanted to penalize the
of minimal use to East, who would always have bid to 4] regardless. offenders (maybe even by a PP). Conclusion: this may sound a little too
Our final panelist also agrees with adjusting the score, but suggests a different Pollyannaish, but it seems to me that the Directors’ rulings were of the highest
approach (one that only works if the player who caused the UI can be identified). standard that I can recall, though I do not keep statistics. Well done. As to the
Panels and Committees, other than CASE SIX I find myself sympathizing with all
Goldsmith: “There is a rule for this situation. East inadvertently obtained UI, not the decisions, even if I do not precisely agree with them all. We are still not by any
dissimilarly to having overheard a discussion at another table. Law 16B covers it. means perfect on AWMW decisions, but I see that issue as far less important than
Since switching positions is ineffective, and E/W would not accept a substitute, if getting the decision right. Well done, everyone.”
the Director judges that the information interferes with the normal play of the board,
an artificial assigned score is given. Since neither side is at fault, typically Average- Wildavsky: “Due to a miscommunication, my closing comments were not included
Plus is given to each side, allowing for consideration of the result at the other table. in the Long Beach casebook. I’m including here what I still consider relevant.
But while no player at the table was at fault, I believe there is a culpable party. The “Committees heard eighteen cases in Long Beach. The Committee’s decision
player who last handled the West cards (and boxed them) should be given a PP of upheld the Director’s ruling in eight cases. In the remaining ten cases I judge that
the difference between the sum of the E/W and N/S scores and a full board. the Committee improved the Director’s ruling five times and worsened it once. I
Carelessness of this sort comes with liability. This is more relevant to cases of loud found four cases too close to call. CASE TWENTY was an egregiously poor
discussion of a board. Suppose that just as the players were taking their cards from Committee decision, and spoiled what could have been a good record. Because I
the board East overheard a player at a neighboring table saying, ‘Can you believe remembered this case and not some of the others I was under the impression that
that 4] makes with only 21 HCP?’ Then (assuming nothing special happened at the Committees did especially poorly in Long Beach. I’m glad to discover that I was
other table) each team gets Average-Plus and the loudmouth gets a .2 board PP.” mistaken. Panels heard nineteen cases and decided as the Director did in fifteen of
them. In two cases I judged that they improved the Director’s ruling, while in two
others I judged that they worsened it. My data, including my categorization of each

109 110
case, can be found at: CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE EDITOR =
http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/nabc_casebook_summaries.html.
I have restricted this analysis to cases where Committees and Panels changed the Reactions to Panelists’ Closing Remarks
original table ruling. In part this was to economize on my time and in part it was All of the panelists commended the Directors, Committees and Panels for a job well
because my main goal is to measure whether and by how much such changes serve done in New Orleans, and I concur with that appraisal. By my own estimates all
to improve bridge jurisprudence. three groups made what I consider good (or at least acceptable) decisions or rulings
“One way to make better rulings is to apply Law 72B1 when appropriate. This in at least two-thirds to three-quarters of the cases. Polite applause.
is the legal basis for the distinction between consequent and subsequent damage As our panelists and many of our readers will no doubt already be aware by the
first explained by Edgar Kaplan in the August 1973 issue of The Bridge World. The time they read this, this will be my final casebook. ACBL management has decided
discussion may have been reprinted since—perhaps the Editor can fill us in. The that they no longer wish to pay for the casebooks to be done as they have in the
principle is referred to in the ACBL’s ‘Tech Files,’ though without reference to past. From the start I considered editing these casebooks to be a great responsibility
Law 72B1, as follows: ‘A serious misplay can be cause for a player to have to but also a great pleasure. The work has at times been difficult but has always been
accept a bad score that was actually achieved even though the offender’s score quite rewarding. I appreciate the help and support everyone has given me during my
should be adjudicated.’ The Tech Files are available as part of ACBLScore, though tenure in this position, and I wish everyone all the best in the future, in whatever
for some reason they are not on the ACBL web site. As for CASE TWENTY from direction the casebooks may go.
Long Beach (a player intended 3NT as an artificial raise, then carried on to the five I do not yet know for certain what the future will hold for me employment-
level over the opponents’ save after he learned from his partner’s explanation that wise, but anyone wishing advice on laws, regulations, table rulings or appeal
they were not on the same wavelength), the decision was dreadful. In my comment matters may contact me at:
I wrote that ‘most players would double with only AI.’ I wasn’t just guessing: I rcolker@ worldnet.att.net.
took a poll of players likely to be found in the finals of an NABC+ event. I received I will try to provide feedback in a timely manner if possible.
fifty-three replies. Thirty-two players said they’d pass, ten said they’d bid 5[, and
eleven more thought the decision was close. These polls are not in themselves
dispositive, but they can be greatly beneficial. Knowing the whole hand it may be
harder to realize that the action that turns out to have been successful was not
obvious at the time it was made. Blind previews can serve a similar function, but
a poll can help the Director as well as the Committee. With or without a poll, I urge POSTSCRIPT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF APPEALS
Directors and Committees to take an expansive view of LAs, rejecting a call only
if it would be a clear error: that is, only if it would in fact be illogical. “I would like to thank Rich for agreeing to take this editor’s task on back in '95
“Now for New Orleans. Committees there heard twenty-one cases, deciding as when I asked him to accept the responsibility. Through the years, he has helped
the Director did twelve times. In the remaining eleven cases I judge the Committee Directors and Committees alike to understand many of the quirks involved in
improved the Director’s ruling five times (CASES TWELVE, SEVENTEEN, appeals decision-making. Hopefully, Rich will always be there for us.”
TWENTY-FOUR, TWENTY-NINE, and THIRTY) and worsened it once (CASE
SIX). I found three cases too close to call (CASES SEVEN, FIFTEEN, and — Joan Gerard
THIRTY-SEVEN). Panels heard sixteen cases and decided as the Director did in
eleven of them. In one case (TWENTY-ONE) I judged that they improved the
Director’s ruling, while in two others (CASES FIVE and THIRTY-SIX) I judged
that they worsened it.
“I think we’d all like to reduce the number of meritless cases brought to appeal.
One way is to make sure that in screening Law 72B1 is explained when appropriate.
Another would be to improve our Stop Card procedure by making it more objective:
the current procedure causes all kinds of trouble and is in my view much inferior
to the one we used through 1995. I’ve made a proposal to the Conventions and
Competition Committee on this matter and have alas been rebuffed. For those
wishing to take up the gauntlet, a copy of my proposal can be found at:
http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/laws/stop_card.html.
While I may criticize individual decisions here and there, I should also note that
ACBL Director rulings and Committee decisions have improved dramatically over
the past decade. These casebooks are not only evidence of this improvement, in my
view they are its major cause. Rich Colker has edited the majority of the ACBL’s
casebooks, and much of the credit for any improvement must go to him. I hear this
may be Rich’s last casebook. Rich and I have often disagreed, but I hope this has
only served to improve both our arguments. In any case, I’d like to thank him for
the professionalism he’s brought to the process.

111 112
 ADVICE FOR ADVANCING PLAYERS NABC APPEALS COMMITTEE
As this is my final casebook, I will leave the reader with some advice about what Director Chairman
I think are the most important things a player should bring to this game, to any Joan Gerard, White Plains NY Barry Rigal, New York NY
problem arising at the table, and to any appeal.
First and foremost, strive to maintain a calm and considerate manner toward
the opponents, the Director and the Committee (if it comes to that). Appeals Administrator Appeals Manager
Second, everyone has a unique perspective on what happened at the table, and Rich Colker, Wheaton MD Linda Trent, Fullerton CA
yours is not the only one that’s credible and deserves respect. As psychologists have
demonstrated, there are always at least three views of what happened (and why):
the one side’s view, the other side’s view, and the view of the disinterested BLUE TEAM WHITE TEAM
observer. That third view is the only one that consistently approaches the “truth.” Team Leaders Team Leaders
Third, and even though it may be difficult, refrain from attributing ulterior Michael Huston, Joplin MO Mark Bartusek, Santa Barbara CA
motives to the opponents’ actions, the Director or the Committee members. Again, Bart Bramley, Chicago IL Doug Doub, West Hartford CT
studies by psychologists have shown that we tend to attribute good motives to Vice Chairman Richard Popper, Wilmington DE
ourselves and to overlook our own errors as being due to circumstance beyond our Jeff Goldsmith, Pasadena CA Vice Chairman
control, while we attribute personal (and often malicious) motives to the actions of Team Members Karen Allison, Jersey City NJ
others and see their errors as being due to negligence or inclinations to commit such Ralph Cohen, Memphis TN Team Members
acts on their part. In other words, when we do something wrong it is an accident Lynn Deas, Schenectady NY Jon Brissman, San Bernardino CA
that was largely due to circumstances we could not control, while if someone else Robb Gordon, New York NY Larry Cohen, Boca Raton FL
does the same thing they did it on purpose because they’re predisposed to such Abby Heitner, Wheaton MD Mark Feldman, New York NY
actions. The truth almost always lies somewhere in between. Mike Passell. Dallas TX Jerry Gaer, Phoexix AZ
When an opponent misinforms us we think: “They did that on purpose” or Michael Rosenberg, New Rochelle NY Gail Greenberg, New York NY
“They should know their system better” or “It was their fault for not discussing that Danny Sprung, Philadelphia PA Ellen Melson, Chicago IL
sequence.” If we forget a bid’s meaning or neglect to inform the opponents of our John Solodar, New York NY Chris Moll, Metarie LA
agreement we think: “They should have known that, and besides, they should have Peggy Sutherlin, Dallas TX Tom Peters, Grapeland TX
gotten it right anyhow; it was their own incompetence that damaged them.” Riggs Thayer, San Diego CA Judy Randel, Albuquerque NM
And finally, whatever ills befall you at the table, bear in mind that the good of Howard Weinstein, Sarasota FL Robert Schwartz, San Pedro CA
the game is more important than whether you personally prevail in the situation. If Jon Wittes, Claremont CA Steve Weinstein, Glen Ridge NJ
you are negligent and damage the opponents, even if they should have recovered, Chris Willenken, New York NY
you should accept responsibility for your mistake gracefully. You are not entitled Eddie Wold, Houston TX
to a good result that was made possible by your irregularity, even if the opponents
are held subsequently negligent. Looked at another way, by accepting responsibility
for your actions and suffering the consequences, you are less likely to repeat your
mistake. In the long run, that will be best for the game of bridge, now won’t it? RED TEAM
Team Leaders
Henry Bethe, Ithaca NY
Ron Gerard, White Plains NY
Vice Chairmen
Jeff Polisner, Walnut Creek CA
Adam Wildavsky, New York NY
Team Members
Darwin Afdahl, Virginia Beach VA
Lowell Andrews, Huntington Beach CA
David Berkowitz, Old Tappan NJ
Dick Budd, Portland ME
Gary Cohler, Chicago IL
Ed Lazarus, Baltimore MD
Jeff Meckstroth, Tampa FL
Bill Passell, Coral Springs FL
Marlene Passell, Coral Springs FL
Lou Reich, Wheaton MD
Becky Rogers, Las Vegas NV
Aaron Silverstein, New York NY

113 114