Board 11 Vul: None Dealer: S West (Connie Goldberg)	North (Tobi Sokolow) K AK5 AK9432  654	East (JoAnn Sprung)
AQJT9   T82   J   AT92		75432   Q764   8   J83
	South (Janice Seamon-Molson)   86   J92   QT765   KQ7

Bidding

N        E         S       W      
                      P       1
2    3*   4    4
5    P        5    DBL
All pass
* Explained by E to N as Preemptive; explained by W to S as mixed.

Table Result: -2

Director's Statement:

EW could not find this in their system notes, but West had the box checked for weak
under Major suit openings after an overcall.

South stated that had she been told it was preemptive, she would have bid .  North
stated that had she been told mixed, she would have doubled 4.  The result was
down 2.

I found that there was misinformation by West and that South might have bid 4.  However,
I felt that North would have still bid 5 at equal vulnerability.  NS claim that North had a clear
double.  I felt that with a diamond raise the defensive values decreased markedly and that
the sacrifice was clear.

There was only one uninterested party roaming around (Juanita Chambers).  I gave her the North
hand and she bid 5 whether South bid 4 or 4, stating that if the diamonds were 2-0 we
wouldn't have heard from them.

Director's Ruling

Result stands.

Appeals Committee Ruling

The comittee determined that:

1) South's decision over 3 was not especially different whether 3 was preemptive or mixed.

2) North bidding 5 after a 4 bid by South would be normal, because either or both contracts might be making.

3) The actual 4 call improved prospects both offensively and defensively. If it had been understood as intended (lead-directing with diamond support), it would have suggested defending more strongly than the 4 bid posited by the appellants.

Therefore, the committee decided to let the result stand for both sides.

The appeal had merit. 

Appeals Committee

Bart Bramley, Chairman
Peggy Kaplan, Member
Chip Martel, Member

Director in Charge Bernie Gorkin