Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 12.
Unauthorised Information during Play

Open Teams Round 12
Switzerland v the Netherlands

Board 15.
Dealer South.
North/South Game.

Please note: Screen runs from top left to bottom right.
			K 8 6
			Q 10
			Q J 9 4
			A J 10 9
	10 7 4 3	N   W E   S			J 9 5 2
	A J 7 4				K 5 2
	A 8 7 6				10 2
	2				K 8 4 3
			A Q
			9 8 6 3
			K 5 3
			Q 7 6 5

West	North	East	South
Zivkovic	de Boer	Levy	Muller
			Pass
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	1NT	Pass	2
Pass	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by North.
Lead: Two of spades.

Play:

West	North	East	South
4	x	2	Q
2	9	x	Q
3	J	K	x
x	x	5	A
x	A	x	x
A	J	x	x
x	…

Result: Eight tricks, -100 to North/South.

The Facts: Two diamonds denied three cards in hearts.
North called the Director after the end of play. East had returned the spade to trick four after a considerable delay. North claimed West had known from the pause not to play spades in trick seven, but rather hearts.

The Director: Established that East had indeed taken some 20 seconds before leading to trick four, and asked about the signalling. The 2 was fourth best, and the 4 and 3 showed count.
The Director ruled that there had been Unauthorised Information, which suggested the heart return, and that the spade return was a Logical Alternative.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Three No-Trumps, making nine tricks, +600 to North/South.

East/West appealed.

The Players: West explained his play. He knew from the bidding that North had 2 hearts, and this is why he had returned the suit.
North/South, by way of their captain, told the Committee that in his opinion the hesitation made it a lot easier for West to return hearts.

The Committee: First of all confirmed that Law 16 applies to plays as well as to calls.
The Committee established that there had been Unauthorised Information, and that the hesitation was very likely to indicate that East did not have the king of spades, and thus suggest the heart return in trick seven. The Committee then made an analysis of the play so far, which showed that a spade return was still a Logical Alternative. Just exchange K and Q for J and K. The bidding and play would have been the same, but the spade return would have been right.
Since the West player was in the possession of Unauthorised Information that suggested a heart return, he should have returned a spade in stead.

The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Committee's note: The Committee wishes to remind the players that Law 16, Unauthorised Information, also applies to plays. Players should be prudent when hesitating during play.
Very frequently during the play, information is exchanged, quite unintentionally, but nevertheless unauthorised. Quite often, the same information is available from authorised sources, and the suggested action can be taken without penalty.
In this case, no such authorised information was available to West, and he must suffer the consequences.
It must be noted that West could have played the ace of hearts at trick seven, on which East could have given a positive signal, thus giving the same information in an authorised manner. In that case, a heart continuation would have been allowed.