Case 1
- Subject Of Appeal: Illegal Deception Case: 2401
- Event: Platinum Pairs 2nd Final
- Event DIC: Mike Roberts Date: March 24, 2019
- Board: 12
The Auction
| WEst | North | East | South |
| 2NT | Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
The Result
3NT by West, making three, EW +400. The opening lead was the ♠3.
The Facts
The director was called at the end of the hand. West indicated that he believed South unintentionally deceived East with his tempo and mannerisms to his play at trick 1, causing West to err in the play of the hand. The play of the hand:
♠3 — ♠6 — ♠2 — ♠8
♠Q — ♠K — ♠A — ♠5
Another spade was played which caused EW to lose three spades and a diamond.
The Ruling
The table director polled three players asking them what it would mean if RHO takes approximately one minute before playing to trick one. He inquired if that is indicative that RHO has a problem with the play to trick one or a problem with the hand. Two of the three players felt that RHO could be thinking about any number of things and does not indicate that they have a problem with trick one. The result was unchanged based on the fact that a player is entitled to think, specifically at trick one, for as long as he needs without it indicating that there is a problem with this trick.
The Review
E-W requested a review of the ruling. There was video of the hand in question. The video showed that after the opening lead and dummy was tabled, West inquired about opening leads and, after receiving the information, called small from dummy after about 3-5 seconds. South studied the dummy and, after about 10 seconds, detached the two of spades and moved it towards the end of his hand, folded up his hand and continued thinking for another 40 seconds. At this point, South detached the same card and held it in front of him for another 2-3 seconds before playing it. West felt that the detaching of the card, coupled with taking 56 seconds prior to playing a card, indicated that South was not only thinking about the hand but also had a significant problem with his play to trick one. He felt that the most likely holding for West was Jxx or 9xx. He knew he was taking a chance if West held 9xx but the suit would be blocked, so he still had ways to take 10 tricks.
The reviewer polled four experts asking what they think is going on in South’s mind after a 56 second break in tempo before playing to trick one. The reviewer included the facts that a card was detached and moved towards the end of the hand and that the card selected was held in front of the player for 2-3 seconds prior to playing it. Three experts felt strongly that South had a problem that related specifically to trick one, the other said South could be thinking about the whole hand, however the movement of the cards makes it less clear. The reviewer also asked about the play that declarer took, given the play to trick one. While West’s specific line was not replicated, the pollees felt that it was a reasonable line to take given the pause and actions by South.
The Decision
Law 73E addresses Deception:
If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a question, remark, manner, tempo or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have been aware, at the time of the action, that it could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score.
Based on the data, the panel overturned the director’s ruling. The table result was adjusted to 3NT+1 (430) for E-W.
Reviewer: Jenni Carmichael
Panel: Jenni Carmichael, David Metcalf, Kevin Perkins
Experts Consulted: Brian Platnick, Ish Delmonte, Boye Brogeland, Joel Wooldridge, Nick Demirev, Migry Zur Campanile, Mike Cappelletti
Case 2
- Subject Of Appeal: Unauthorized Information Case: 3101
- Event: Jacoby Open Swiss 1st Final
- Event DIC: Ken Van Cleve Date: March 31, 2019
- Board: 13
The Auction
| West | North | East | South |
| 1NT | 2♦(1) | 3♣(2) | |
| Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
1 One Major, heard as both majors by North
2 Meant as a transfer to diamonds by agreement, not alerted. North thought it was natural and forcing, as they would play it over both majors.
The Result
3NT by North, making three, N-S +400. The opening lead was the ♠4.
The Facts
North/South have the agreement that 3♣ shows a forcing club hand over 2♦ showing both majors and it shows diamonds over 2♦ showing one major.
The Ruling
The table director polled five players with the West hand, all players doubled the 3C bid when it showed diamonds. Additionally, the table director polled five different players with the North hand and all players bid 3NT in the auction:
1NT — 2♦ — 3♣ — X
West was entitled to the correct explanation of the 3♣ bid. If West had the correct information, based on the poll results, North would be expected to still bid 3NT. After the defense takes five club tricks and their two side tricks, N/S would take the remainder of the tricks. The result was adjusted to 3NT -3 for +300 E/W.
The Review
N/S requested a review of the ruling. North felt that he did everything that was required of him, because he misheard the explanation of 2♦. He felt that West should have called the director when dummy came down to tell the directors he would have doubled 3♣, not after the hand. Additionally, he felt that had he known 3♣ showed diamonds, he wouldn’t have bid 3NT with only Jx of clubs.
The Decision
E/W are entitled to an accurate description of the N/S agreements (Law 20F1). South was required to summon the director and explain there was a failure to alert (Law 20F3). With the poll deemed to have been valid, based on its results, the director ruling of 3NT -3 was upheld. (Laws 40B3, 16C1)
Reviewer: Jenni Carmichael
Panel: Jenni Carmichael, David Metcalf, Matt Koltnow
Case 3
- Subject Of Appeal: Unauthorized Information Case: 3102
- Event: Jacoby Open Swiss 1st Final
- Event DIC: Ken Van Cleve Date: March 31, 2019
- Board: 5
The Auction
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | 1♣ | Pass | |
| 2♠(1) | Pass | 3♦(2) | Pass |
| 3NT(3) | Pass | 4♣ | Pass |
| 4♦(4) | Dbl | 4♠(5) | Pass |
| 5♦(6) | Pass | 6♣ | All Pass |
1 Game forcing with 6+clubs
2 Small doubleton diamond
3 Break in Tempo
4 Diamond Control
5 RKC
6 2 KC without queen
The Result
6♣ by East making 6 +920. The opening lead was the ♦3.
The Facts
Everyone at the table agreed that the 3NT bid was out of tempo.
The Ruling
A poll was conducted to find out what the slow 3NT suggested. All players felt that it suggested bidding over 3NT would be more favorable than passing. Additionally, 4 of the 7 players polled passed 3NT, which made pass a logical alternative. The director polled the play of the hand in 3NT. He spoke with 9 players and 3 of them found the ♣Q, the other 6 played to drop the ♣Q. The director weighted the adjusted score to 25% 3NT +2 and 75% 3NT –1.
The Review
E-W requested a review of the ruling. East felt the director did not fully understand the methods that they were playing. East felt the director should include the fact that 2S showed 6+ clubs and tended to not want to play in notrump. East also felt the adjustment was incorrect and that it’s a 50/50 proposition to play for the drop or finesse.
The reviewer polled five players and described the methods as East suggested. 4/5 players passed 3NT.
The Decision
The poll conducted by the reviewer agreed with the poll conducted by the table director. Additionally, the panel did not feel that the weighted adjustment was in error given the poll the director took on how to play 3NT. The ruling was upheld.
Reviewer: Jenni Carmichael
Panel: Jenni Carmichael, David Metcalf, Matt Koltnow
Experts Consulted: Bruce Ferguson, Drew Casen, Mike Passell, Brian Glubok, Chris Compton
Case 4
- Subject Of Appeal: Tempo Case: 3103
- Event: National Fast Pairs 2nd Final
- Event DIC: Matt Koltnow Date: March 31, 2019
- Board: 3
The Auction
| West | North | East | South |
| Pass | |||
| 1♥ | 3♥ | Dbl | 3NT |
| 4♥ | Pass | Pass | Dbl! |
| Pass | 5♦ | Dbl | All Pass |
! Disputed break in tempo
The Result
5♦X by North down 2 +300 EW. The opening lead was the ♥Q.
The Facts
The director was called at the end of the auction. E-W said there was a break in tempo; N-S disagreed. E-W said, “It was slow for the fast pairs.” South shrugged. The director was not called back at the end of the hand. E-W requested a ruling at the completion of the event. The director asked West how long he felt the break in tempo was, and he said he didn’t know, but there was one. The director suggested six seconds and West agreed.
The Ruling
Five players were polled. Three bid 5♦, two passed. All players felt the break in tempo suggested bidding would lead to a more favorable result than passing. Players were also asked about the tempo of the auction and the players felt that six seconds would be a normal tempo for the auction. The result stood based on the evidence that no infraction had occurred.
The Review
E-W requested a review of the ruling. West felt that there was a significant break in tempo. The reviewer asked West to demonstrate how long he felt the break was, and his demonstration was about four seconds. West felt that perhaps he couldn’t remember properly, but that there was a break before the double.
The reviewer polled four players and asked them how long someone could take in an auction at this level before it was considered a break in tempo. The consensus was beyond 7-10 seconds would be a break, but 10 seconds or less, in this auction, would be normal tempo given the highly unusual auction.
The Decision
Both polls confirmed that, in an unusual, competitive auction, a pause of up to 10 seconds prior to making a call would be considered in tempo. Therefore, no infraction had occurred, and the table result stands.
Reviewer: Jenni Carmichael
Panel: Jenni Carmichael, Kevin Perkins, Ken Horwedel
Experts Consulted: Joel Wooldridge, Daniel Korbel, Adam Grossack, Dror Padon
