Press Release:
European Open Bridge Championships, Tenerife, 27th June 2005
Following a lengthy hearing of the Championships' Appeals Committee, yesterday evening, the pair of M. Lanzarotti and A. Buratti, was disqualified from the teams event.
The Appeals Committee has published its reasons - see text below.
Disciplinary Hearing No. 2
Italy v Israel
Appeals Committee :
Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France)
Open Teams Swiss "A" Round
|
Board 23. Dealer South. All Vulnerable.
|
| |
♠ A 3
♥ J 10
♦ J 8 5 4 3
♣ K J 6 2 |
♠ 8 7
♥ A 7 6 5
♦ 7
♣ Q 9 7 5 4 3 |
 |
♠ Q 6 5 4 2
♥ 9 8 4 3
♦ Q 10 6
♣ 8 |
| |
♠ K J 10 9
♥ K Q 2
♦ A K 9 2
♣ A 10 |
| West |
North |
East |
South |
| Roll |
Lanzarotti |
Bareket |
Buratti |
| |
|
|
2♦ |
| Pass |
2♥ |
Pass |
2NT |
| Pass |
3♠ |
Pass |
4♦ |
| Pass |
4♠ |
Pass |
5♣ |
| Pass |
6♦ |
All Pass |
|
Contract: Six Diamonds, played by South
Lead: ♥A
Play: ♣9, taken by the King, ♦J-6-2-7, claim
Result: 12 tricks, NS +1370
The Facts: At the end of the play, East called the Director to explain what he had seen.
The Director: Told the facts to the Chief Tournament Director, who decided to call upon the Appeal Committee to hold a Disciplinary Hearing.
Present: All players, the Captain of East/West, and the Coach of North/South
The Players: The Chief Tournament Director explained to the Committee what the East player had told him. Dummy, North, had leaned across to take a look into East's cards. East had then noticed that North had held his arms crossed, and had signalled with three fingers on his arm. East had seen a signal with three fingers three times. Declarer had then played the ♦J at trick three, and had let it run, thus making his contract.
East then told the same story in his own words. He had not shown his cards, but North had taken a look into them anyway. East had seen three fingers on three occasions, and he had called the Director after Declarer had successfully finessed in diamonds.
East complained that he had been so shaken about the whole thing, that he could no longer play to his full capacity. They had lost the match 2-25.
-
West related the play to the first three tricks:
- West led the ♥A, East contributing the ♥8;
- West then asked a number of questions, particularly about the ♥K, which South confirmed having shown in the auction;
- West switched to the ♣9, taken by the King
- After some thought, South called for the ♦J, East contributing the ♦6 in tempo;
- South thought for some more time and let the ♦J run.
East once more showed what he had seen North do: the left arm lay before him on the table, the right hand lay across it, with the middle three fingers pointing downwards. East showed that he had seen the three fingers once across the wrist, once across the forearm and once free on the table in front of the arm.
South was asked to confirm the play as described above, which he did.
South was then asked to explain why he played the diamonds in the manner he did. He gave the following responses:
-The lead of the ♥A was curious because dummy had not made a cue-bid in hearts;
-After all the questions he decided to play diamonds 1-3;
-The first two boards were bad for him and he needed 20VP to qualify for the next round;
-Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament. He had also found the ♦Q on board 24 (West commented that he had made lots of bids on that board, so finding that Queen was clear-cut).
North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them. This could not be confirmed by East/West since this was the third board of the match and he had not been dummy on the first two.
North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side.
When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards.
The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he had told his team to win the match by at least 19 or 20VP. He had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team.
West finally added that South had also put his head on his arms while thinking about running the ♦J.
The Committee's Deliberation :
The Committee addressed the issue of their jurisdiction under the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Under law 91B: Right to Disqualify, The Director (and on a reference, the Committee) is specifically empowered to disqualify a contestant for cause.
-
The Committee also addressed certain technical issues raised by North/South:
- The Committee rejected the argument that "Diamonds are always badly divided in this Tournament".
- The Committee noted that bidding and making Six Diamonds by normal play was quite likely to win the board as the slam was not straightforward to bid.
- The Committee noted that tackling diamonds (trumps) by leading the Jack was singularly against the odds; except in the specific circumstances when declarer knows that East has exactly three diamonds. In this case the odds are 3-1 in favour of leading the Jack.
- The Committee noted that East's duck of the Jack of Diamonds was correct technique. South could have had five diamonds, in which case it is a normal gambit to lead the Jack to induce a cover with Q10x.
The Committee's reasons:
In the play of the hand, East/West believed that Declarer had acted upon improper information conveyed from dummy. They suggested how this information was possibly passed.
When asked to explain his reasons for playing the hand in such a fashion declarer gave a number of reasons which the Committee found unconvincing. It was adjudged that the nature of these explanations by a competent player was self-incriminating.
The Committee’s decision :
Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B.
Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West.
Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships.
|
