Board 10 Vul: Both Dealer: East	North (Cohen)   9 2   K   7 6 3 2   Q 8 7 6 5 3
West (Granovetter)   A 5   A Q 6 5 2   Q J 10 9 5   J		East (Bates) Q J 10 6 4 3 10 8   K 8 4   K 2
	South (Pollack)   K 8 7   J 9 7 4 3   A   A 10 9 4

Bidding

N        E         S       W      
          2       P       2N¹

P       3²      P       3³

P       4      all pass       

¹ Ogust
² Good hand, bad suit

³ Agreed hesitation

Table Result: Making 4, + 620 for E/W

Director's Ruling:

There was agreement at the table that the 3 bid was slow. Therefore East was not allowed to choose from logical alternatives one that was suggested by his partner’s hesitation.

The directors polled 13 expert players.

3 of those polled bid 3NT

7 of those polled bid 4

4 of those polled passed

The directors considered that 4 out of 14 was a sufficiently large number that Pass was a logical alternative.

The directors further determined that the slow 3S bid suggested bidding on.

The result was changed to 3S making 4, +170 for EW

Appeals Committee Ruling

The committee unanimously upheld the director’s ruling. All three members of the committee strongly agreed that pass was a logical alternative and the directors had all of the correct facts. While 4S might have been defeated, the defense was reasonable. Under the circumstances, the committee determined that this appeal was frivolous and should not have been filed, assessing an appeal without merit.

Appeals Committee

Stan Subeck, Chairman
Ralph Katz, Member
Eric Rodwell, Member