(short description of image)APPEAL no. 36

(short description of image)
Appeals Committee
Chairman (short description of image)Steen Møller DEN
Members (short description of image)Jens Auken
(short description of image)Ernesto D'Orsi
(short description of image)David Stevenson		 DEN
BRA
GBR

Scribe (short description of image)David Stevenson GBR

(short description of image)
Event
1998 World Championships
Open Pairs Qualifying
   
(short description of image)
Countries
India v France
   
(short description of image)
Players
NS (short description of image)Poddar (short description of image)Lal
EW (short description of image)Etienne (short description of image)Michel
   
(short description of image)
Board
Board 25. Dealer North. EW Game
ª A 9 8 6 5 4 3
© 4
¨ 10 4 3
§ J 5
ª K 7 2 (short description of image) ª 10
© 1- 9 6 5 3 © A K J 8 7
¨ Q 2 ¨ J 9 8 7 6 5
§ 10 7 4 § 9
ª Q J
© Q 2
¨ A K
§ A K Q 8 6 3 2
West
North
East
South
2ª¹ Pass 2NT²
Pass 3§³ 3¨ Dble
Pass 3ª 4© 4ª
5© Pass Pass Dble
All Pass            

¹ Weak, 5+ cards
² Relay
³ 1 honour in ª + bad hand
   
(short description of image)
Result
5©*-2: +500
   
(short description of image)
Facts
The double of 3¨ was slow (agreed).
   
(short description of image)
TD's
Decision
3¨ doubled minus one, N/S +200. Law 73F1.

(short description of image)
Appellants
N/S
   
(short description of image)
Players'
Comments
North and East did not attend the hearing. South said the ruling was only requested after the board was on the table for the next hand. It seemed a very late request. He said that it was difficult for himself and his partner because he hands were computer-dealt, which is rare in his country. He considered the E/W bidding bad leading to a bad result. He suggested there was some doubt as to whether his partner was in receipt of unauthorised information. West said he knew he wanted a ruling but did not want to give unauthorised information to partner, and he did not know the best time to call the Director, so he left it until the end of the hand. He bid 5© knowing his partner was 6-5.

(short description of image)
Committee's
Comments
Pass by North was a logical alternative to 2ª. There was unauthorised information: it had been agreed at the time and North was not present to dispute it. The Committee considered whether West's actions was strange enough that any damage was subsequent not consequent. It decided that it might have been ill-advised but nothing more. They also considered the possibility of 3¨ making but it seemed unlikely and had not been mentioned by the players. It considered that computer-dealing and the time of the request for a ruling were not relevant.
   
(short description of image)
Committee's
Decision
Director's ruling upheld. N/S +200.
   
(short description of image)
Relevant
Laws
Law 73 F1
   
(short description of image)
Deposit
Returned X
Forfeited  

(short description of image) Return to Top of page To main Championship page(short description of image)