From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:34:03 GMT

avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:

>Last week I had the dubious pleasure of sitting in a committee to decide
>the fate of the following two hands. I am not sure we made the right
>decisions. I'd like to get the opinion of the net.

>The bidding went:	
>E
>2C*  p 2S** 3C
>3d   p 3H   4C
>4d   p 5d   all pass

>North led the CK and EW made the obvious 12 tricks.

>2C was artificial and forcing. 2S showed 7-8 HCP. was not alerted.
>South claimed that the failure to alert distorted his bidding and prevented
>the pair from finding the good 5S sacrifice.

>How would you rule?

	Easy.  I enforce Laws 21.B.3 and 40.C.

	Law 21.B.3 deals with Calls Based on Misinformation:
	"Too Late to Change Call
	 When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an
	 adjusted score (Law 40C may apply)."

	Law 40.C is on Partnership Understandings:
	"Director's Option:
	 If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its
	 opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play,
	 he may award an adjusted score."

	In this case, N/S were definitely damaged by the failure to alert
	and explain.  However, no reasonable result can be assigned (would
	they have sacked in 5S?  Would E/W then have competed to 6D, which
	makes?).  Hence I would award an A+ to N/S and an A- to E/W and
	give a caution to E/W to ensure that they properly alert their
	systemic agreements in the future.  At MPs, A+/A- would be 60%/
	40% adn at IMPs, A+/A- would be +3/-3 IMPs respectively.

>2nd hand.

>or something like that. NS were playing 4S, and need all the tricks.
>Clubs are good. W overruffed once. Now, the lead is in dummy
>S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
>for a 2-2 break. However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
>pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
>dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
>and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
>K of spades in now single.

	Law 73.D of the Proprieties deals with this one.  Law 73 deals
	with Communication Between Parners.  73.D deals with Variations
	in Tempo.

	Part 1 (Inadvertent Variations) states:
	"...Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a
	 call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of
	 propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be
	 drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk."

	Personally, I think that the South player took the inference at his/
	her own risk.  Since (s)he had stated that (s)he would take a certain
	line, then (s)he should continue...if (s)he alters the plan based on
	the variation in tempo, then (s)he takes that at his/her own risk.
	I would not give South anything.  However, I do think that E/W should
	be given a procedural penalty of -3 IMPs for this and cautioned that
	this should not be done again.  There was no call for a long
	hesitation...perhaps a short one to decide on the J or duck, but not
	more than a second or two...the undue hesitation was questionable
	and I think a procedural penalty would be in order.

	Just my personal views on this.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center