Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 4.
Hesitation

Open Teams Round 4
Finland v Israel

Board 15.
Dealer South.
North/South Game.

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

West	North	East	South
Yadlin	Kaistinen	Yadlin	Kiema
			1
2	3	5	Dble
Pass	5	Pass	6
All Pass

Contract: Six Diamonds doubled, played by North.
Result: Thirteen tricks, +1390 to North/South

The Facts: This hand also featured in Appeal no 6, and in several other calls for the Director.
One Club was Precision, Two spades was weak and Three Diamonds was positive, eight points or more. Five Clubs was explained by East to North as possibly fit-showing, and lead directing. It was not alerted by West to South, but the problem was not there.
The Director was called by West after the bid of Six Diamonds. West said there had been a pause of 2 to 3 minutes before the tray had come back with Five Diamonds. All four players agreed upon this pause.

The Director: Asked South why he had bid Six Diamonds, he said that North would normally pass the Double of Five Clubs, therefore Five Diamonds was a strong bid and as he had good working points he found it obvious to bid the slam. Uncertain about the case, the Director decided to rule against the possible offenders.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Diamonds, making 13 tricks,+640 to North/South.

North/South appealed.

The Players: South stated he had never promised any diamonds, but he had two honours in the suit. He had doubled, wanting to defend, but when partner pressed on, it had to be slam going under all circumstances.
He stated it might even have been a grand slam, but that this would have been impossible to find out.
West pointed out the obvious reason not to allow the bid of Six Diamonds.
He also stated that he had not bid Six Spades, a good sacrifice, as he was afraid of being accused of taking a double shot.

The Committee: First dealt with West's argument about the sacrifice. When at the table, one should always assume that the opponents really have a hand that is worth their bid opposite the hesitation. West could never have been accused of trying to take a double shot in this situation.
Next the Committee tackled the real issue . The Committee read Law 16:
'After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information...., the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.'
When deciding about cases of this nature, three questions have to be answered:

There was no problem about deciding that there had in fact been unauthorised information. It is clear that is was North who had been thinking.
The Committee took some more time in deciding if the hesitation did in fact suggest bidding the slam.

Upon reflection, most members of the Committee concluded that the hesitation had shown a strong hand. North may well have been considering going to slam himself.
One member was not certain that this was 'demonstrably' the case. North may have been considering the auction whatever hand he actually had.

All members agreed that South's hand was strong enough to accept the invitation on any strong hand.

Some members of the Committee were of the opinion that North could not hold a weak hand, since North would then simply choose to accepts partner's invitation to defend. Not all members shared that opinion.

The Chairman expressed the view that when confronted with unauthorised information, a player should really lean back and not to use the information. All members of the Committee fully agreed with that view, but some expressed the opinion that in every situation, there has be a line drawn somewhere, over which a player's action is clear enough to allow him to take the suggested action even after unauthorised information. It would not be correct to place that line too far, since that would effectively punish thinking.

Since the Committee could not reach a unanimous decision, the case was decided on a vote. The result of the vote was 3-2 in favour of allowing the bid of Six Diamonds.
The Chairman, who was in the minority, had announced before the vote that he would not exercise any authority he might have of overruling a majority.

The Committee's decision: Directors decision overturned, original table result restored. +1390 to North/South.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A

Deposit: Returned

Committees Note: The Committee wishes to stress that this is a borderline case. A player should really make certain that in cases of unauthorised information, he does not select a suggested action unless he is certain there are no logical alternatives to it.
It is far better to blame partner for transmitting the information in the first place, than to take your chances with Director and Committee.
The Committee also states that they agree with the Director's decision to rule in favour of the non-offending side.