Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 17.
Misinformation, Self-Protection, Procedural Penalty

Open Teams Round 18
Monaco v Lebanon

Board 4.
Dealer West.
Game All.

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

West	North	East	South
Baroudy	Guglielmi	Hamdan	Gavino
1	Pass	1NT	2
Pass	5	All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs, played by North

Result: Eight tricks, -300 to North/South

The Facts: Two Hearts was explained by South to West as "any two-suiter".
North explained it as "Ghestem, clubs and spades" and bid accordingly. East called the director, claiming he would have doubled with the correct information. While the Director was at the table, North told South under the screen, in French, to state to the Tournament Director that South had made a wrong call. Both opponents and the director heard and understood this remark.

The Director: Ruled that South had given a wrong explanation of his own bid and considered that West could have doubled with a correct explanation.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Clubs, doubled, three down, -800 to North/South.

North/South appealed.

The Players: North/South showed their convention card to prove that they did play Ghestem. They stated that they also played this after 1-Pass-1NT.
West stated that South had waited a long time before making his final pass. He had even gone into the bidding box and had touched the Six Clubs card. All this influenced him in not doubling.
South agreed that he had thought, and even touched his bidding cards, but that it was Five Diamonds he was thinking off. He did not see very clearly, so he may have touched the 6-card.
West also explained his pass by pointing to his club holding. If the Clubs are mainly to his left, he is far less certain of making two tricks in the suit than if they are more evenly distributed.
As regards the remarks made in French when the Director was at the table, North claimed he had said "comme d'habitude tu as oublié le système" (as usual you have forgotten the system). East stated it had been "surtout dis à l'arbitre que tu as oublié le système" (certainly tell the director that you have forgotten the system). The Director confirmed that the second version was what she had heard too.

The Committee: Found that North/South, by their misbid / misexplanation, had caused damage to East/West. They should receive, in accordance with Law 12C2, the most unfavourable result that is at all probable, which according to the Committee should be -800.
The Committee then turned their attention to West. Several reasons were listed to explain why he had passed. If South's hesitation had played any part, this was of no consequence, since the Committee did not feel that South had done this deliberately and that any conclusions West drew from this were at his own risk. Finally the Committee gave the most weight to the consideration that West should realise that 5 was a very strange bid (North had not bid 2 or 4 in the first round - 3 would have shown a two-suiter). West could have asked South for a more complete explanation, especially since he was last in hand and any questions he would ask would be of dummy, not of declarer. That might have cleared the situation more for him.
Finally the Committee turned its attention to North's remark to his partner at the table, trying to influence his partner's explanation to the Tournament Director. This was deemed a serious attempt to influence the fact-finding mission of the Director, which the Committee found completely unacceptable. The Committee decided to give North/South a penalty of 2VP for this action.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to:
For North/South: -800
For East/West: +300
2VP penalty to North/South

Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2, Law 90A, Law 90B8

Deposit: Returned