Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 30.
Hesitation

Open Teams Round 29
Israel v Czech Republic

Board 5.
Dealer North.
North/South Game.

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

West	North	East	South
Svoboda	Tur	Kurka	Greenberg
	3	Pass	Pass
Dble	All Pass

Contract: Three Diamond doubled, played by North
Result: Six trick, -800 to North/South.

The Facts: This board also featured in appeal 33.
North called the Director when the dummy came down. He told the Director that East had been thinking for a long time before passing, and that this might have influenced West in doubling. Neither South, nor his Captain, who was scoring at his side, had called the Director. South had even gone to the toilet immediately after spreading his hand.

The Director: Found that since South did apparently not remark the hesitation it is not clear that there had in fact been unauthorised information for West, who was therefore free to double.
The Director also pointed out that North was dealer, and that a pause is therefore less clearly attributable to East.

Ruling: Result Stands

East/West appealed.

The Players: East admitted that he had thought for about one minute. North had been very quick in bidding Three Diamonds, and he had to work out what was best for him. First he thought of bidding 3NT, but in the end, he chose to take the certain route to +300 or +400 by passing.
North stated that he could not call the Director any earlier than he did.
South stated that he did remark the break in tempo, and even checked the board to see who was dealer.
West said he did not remark the hesitation, since it was the first round of bidding.

The Committee: Was unanimous in deciding that West should have passed if he had been in the possession of unauthorised information.
The Committee was divided in its determination of this unauthorised information.
All the members agreed that in the first round of bidding, it is unwise to stick to a strict application of the 15 second rule (note).
A majority in the Committee felt that the pause of 1 minute is for sure enough to be considered unauthorised information.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to Three Diamonds, not doubled, down three, -300 to North/South

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Minority Opinion: by Peter Lund and Herman De Wael
We are strongly of the opinion that it should be the partner at the side of the screen opposite the hesitation (in this case South), who should call in some way attention to the perceived hesitation, and thus prove that the unauthorised information reached the other side. We feel that South did exactly the opposite, by leaving the table after tabling his dummy.
In the absence of proof that West was in the possession of unauthorised information, we feel that the result should have stood.

Note: "the 15 second rule"
In the Conditions of Contest, in use in Malta, there was a regulation:
C.1.3 The International Code of Duplicate Laws is in effect except as specified below:

LAW 73D … A delay of the bidding tray on one side of the screen of up to 15 seconds (at any time during the auction and whether or not out of tempo) shall not give rise to any inference of unauthorized information. Players are advised to vary the time the tray is passed so that pauses of up to 15 seconds can be considered normal.