Board Vul: Dealer West (Chris Willenken)	North (Bobby Levin)   J9   8732   10   K97652	East (Michael Rosenberg)
AKQ10   AQ96   AK64   4		8543   K5   85 AQ1083
	South (Steve Weinstein)   762   J104   QJ9732   J

Bidding

N        E         S       W      
                                1
P       1      P        4
DBL   4*    P        6
P         P        P
*Break in Tempo

Table Result: 6E making 6

Director's Ruling
4 E making 6

Appeals Committee Ruling
There was disagreement about the time the tray took to come back after
the X/4S Calls.

North South asked for a ruling.  After the director determined there
was a BIT, he conducted a poll with 4 players  polled, and only 1
moved towards slam.   The director thus rolled back the score to 4
making 6.

East West appealed.  West and South attended the appeal. The appeal
was heard by conference call.

There was some dispute about the length of time it took for the tray
to return.  At the table, East agreed there was a BIT, North South
thought it took approximately one minute.  West wasn't sure how long
it took, as he was considering his hand, and planning his auction.  He
did suggest witnesses who were watching on BBO thought the BIT was
closer to 30 seconds.

West also suggested that the return to 4 was not fast arrival, as
they play in low level auctions that a return to the trump suit, after
a cuebid is doubled is not weakest, that a pass is their weakest
action.  Their notes were silent on this or similar auctions.

East, at the table, did say he thought 4 was the weakest.

West also claimed that the double of 4 marked the king of hearts in
South's hand, making slam even better.

North South argued:
1.  The Break in tempo was 1 minute, and seemed to be agreed at the
table, that there was an unmistakable BIT.

2,  While it is playable to use slow arrival at the 2 level, 'no one'
plays it thus at the 4 level.

3.  The response of 1 at these colors (EW were favorable) could be a
'Psych' or a "joke" hand.

4. West had no 5 level safety opposite such a hand.

The committee felt:

1.  There was a an unmistakable BIT.
2.  The BIT suggested further action.
3.  Passing was a Logical Alternative.

Therefore, the committee upheld the directors ruling, +480 EW

The Committee felt the appeal had merit.

Appeals Committee

Danny Sprung, Chairman
Ronald Smith, Member
Steve Landen, Member