Search MSO Worldwide

Appeal No 6

Tempo

Event: Life Master Pairs, 12 August, second final session

Board 1
Dealer: North
Vulnerability: None

			9 8
			J 5 2
			J 10 6
			A J 10 7 5
	K 7	N W E S			A 10 5 3 2
	10 4				K Q 7 3
	A Q 9 8 2				5 3
	Q 6 4 2				8 3
			Q J 6 4
			A 9 8 6
			K 7 4
			K 9

West		North	East	South
Malasky		Macgregor	Wegman	O'Neil
		Pass	Pass	1
Pass		1NT	Pass (1)	Pass
Dbl		Pass	2	Dbl
All Pass
(1)	Break in tempo

The Facts: 2 doubled made two, plus 470 for E/W. The opening lead was a small diamond. The Director was called after the 2 bid and before South doubled. N/S alleged there had been a break in tempo by East over 1NT; E/W did not notice one. The Director ruled that passing 1NT was a logical alternative for West. Balancing was made more attractive by the break in tempo. The contract was changed to 1NT down one, plus 50 for E/W.

The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. East said that he paused for perhaps 10 seconds to consider his action over 1NT. West said that he did not notice any break in tempo and that he thought his action was justified, both vulnerable at matchpoints. North and South both stated that they noticed an unmistakable break in tempo.

The Committee's decision: The Committee judged that a hesitation had likely occurred, based on the statements of three of the four players. The Committee believed that pass was a logical alternative to double since in theory East could have held a 4-4-2-3 five count and the break in tempo demonstrably suggested action on West's part. Whether the break in tempo was based on extra high cards or extra distribution, West's double was more attractive with that knowledge.

The Committee therefore canceled West's double and reverted the contract to 1NT. In 1NT with the likely spade lead, the play was projected as follows: spade ducked to West's king, low diamond to North's 10, 9 ducked all around, club to the king, Q to the ace, spade cashed, club finesse, A. Different variations were possible but seven tricks seemed both probable and likely.

The Committee considered whether N/S's defense to 2 doubled had been egregious, in which case N/S would have failed to take advantage of the opportunity for a better score than was available in 1NT. This was not judged to be the case since the K shift at trick three, although a favorite to succeed, was not clear. The contract was changed to 1NT made one, plus 90 for N/S.