Appeal No. 1

Round 7 - Table 2 - Open Room.
USA1 v Israel

Appeals Committee: John Wignall (Chairman), Stefan Back, Matthew McManus, Brian Senior. Also present, Joan Gerard (Tournament Appeals Chairman) without voting rights as USA involved in appeal.

Board 15. Dealer South. N/S Vul.
	♠ 10 5 3 ♥ 8 6 5 4 3 ♦ 9 4 ♣ 9 8 5
♠ K Q J 8 4 2 ♥ K Q 9 ♦ K Q 5 ♣ Q		♠ A 7 ♥ 10 7 ♦ 10 7 3 2 ♣ J 10 7 6 4
	♠ 9 6 ♥ A J 2 ♦ A J 8 6 ♣ A K 3 2

West	North	East	South
Reshef	Grue	Ginossar	Kranyak
			1♣(i)
Pass	1♦(ii)	Pass	1NT
Dble(iii)	2♥	Pass	2♠
Pass	Pass	Dble	All Pass

(i) Precision, 16+
(ii) 0-7 (iii) Explained differently on two sides of the screen

Table Result: N/S 1100
Result in other room: E/W 100; 4♠ doubled -1
Appealing Side: East/West

TD's Statement of Facts:
West's double of 1NT was described as 'no agreement' by West to South, but described as 'penalties' by East to North. Over a penalty double, N/S bid naturally, however, over all other types of intervention (including other types of doubles) they play transfers. Consequently, given the different explanations, North bid 2♥ naturally, whereas to South it was a transfer. Given identical explanations, N/S will not play in 2♠. E/W will probably compete rather than defend 2♥.

Law References: 21B3, 40C

TD's Ruling: Score adjusted to E/W +140
TD: Laurie Kelso

The Hearing:
West's explanation of his double was actually expanded at the table to include the fact that, against a strong no trump, E/W play DONT (where double would show a single-suited hand). South took quite a long time before converting 2♥ to 2♠ but eventually seems to have decided that the double probably was artificial, hence 2♥ was a transfer (system on). N/S were both clear that their methods did differaccording to the meaning of the double. Their convention card did not cover this matter but they had their system file available online. The committee later saw the relevant page and it confirmed that two different methods wereindeed in use, as N/S had stated.

Appeals Committee Decision:
The TD's decision was upheld. East and West had given two different explanations of the meaning of West's double of 1NT, therefore an infraction had occurred. The two different meanings of the double did affect the meaning of North's 2♥ bid so that in one case it would be natural and in the other a transfer. The Committee felt that South did all he could be expected to do to discover West's agreement and could not agree with the Israeli npc, who thought that he had not. The deposit was returned.