Appeals

July 2000

Appeal No 9/10.
Alert Procedure, Misinformation

Open Teams Round 6
Israel v France

Board 10.
Dealer East.
Game All.

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

West	North	East	South
Greenberg	Bompis	Zohar	de Sainte Marie
		Pass	4
Pass	4	Pass	Pass
Dble	Pass	4	All Pass

Contract: Four Spades, played by East.
Result: Nine tricks, -100 to East/West.

The Facts: East summoned the Director at the end of the hand, complaining he had not received an alert on Four Clubs. Four Clubs was Namyats. It had been correctly alerted and explained by South to West. North stated that he had alerted, but East had not seen. East/West play that a direct double over Four Clubs is take-out over Hearts, whereas the delayed Double would be for penalties. East took the Double to be take-out, which is why he bid Four Spades.

The Director: Went all the way to the vugraph theatre (this was the open Room of the Rama match) to ask if North had alerted. Some spectators could affirm that North had made a "soft" alert. He had taken the card out of the bidding box, held it in the air and replaced it.
The director also established in the same manner that East had only looked at opponent's Convention Card at the end of play.
The Director checked the Convention Card of North/South. The meaning of Four Clubs was mentioned among "General Approach and Style", but not among "Special bids that may require Defence", and not among the opening bids in the inside of the Card.
The Director judged both pairs to be at fault and applied Law 12C1 (no normal result possible) and cancelled the board.

Ruling: Board Cancelled.

Both sides appealed.

The Players: East/West explained their methods and produced a page from their system notes in the Committee. Although these notes were in Hebrew, they asked the Committee to believe that they in fact played as stated: direct Double is Take-Out, delayed Double would be penalty.
East stated he had looked at inside of the Convention Card immediately after the call of Four Clubs.
North stated that although he had not alerted in the correct fashion, he had been certain that East had noticed it.

The Committee: Decided on two separate cases:

The Appeal from North/South: North/South committed two severe infractions: their Convention Card had not been properly filled out and was seriously misleading; and the alert had not been given in the prescribed manner. The Committee reminds the players of Regulation C2:
The "alert procedure" is as follows: A player who makes a "conventional call" alerts his screen-mate by placing the alert card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the alert card to his opponent.
Given these two infractions, North/South should not benefit from anything that subsequently happens at the table.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to Four Hearts doubled, three down, -800 to North/South. The pair in question is not allowed to play in the next match, and must correct their Convention Card, and give a copy of this to all other teams. Before any match they play afterwards, they shall make certain that their opponents have the corrected version of their card.

Relevant Laws: Law 40B, Regulation C2

Deposit: Forfeited

The Appeal from East/West: In the opinion of some members, East/West did not do enough to protect their own interests. East might well have suspected that an auction of 4-Pass-4 indicated Namyats, and it was not certain that he did check the Convention Card.
However in the end, it was decided that the infractions that were committed by North/South were too severe not to give East/West the benefit of the doubt.

The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to Four Hearts doubled, three down, -800 to North/South.

Relevant Laws: Law 40B, Regulation C2

Deposit: Returned