Board 24 Love All Dealer West	NORTH   Q 8   6 5 2   A 7 6 5 2   A 8 4
WEST   9 6   A 10 9 4 3   10 9 8   J 9 2		EAST   K J 7 4   Q 8 7   K 9 3   7 6 5
	SOUTH   A 10 5 3 2   K J   Q J   K Q 10 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Pass	Pass	Pass	1NT(1)
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	3NT	All Pass

(1) Could have a 5 card major. Result at table: 3NT plus one, N/S +430. Facts: 2 was alerted on the N/E side of the screen only. In answer to a question, South described the sequence as "normally showing four hearts", although it is not clear whether West understood that the word "normally" had been used. It is clear from the convention cards that 2 does not show a major. TD's Decision: Table result stands. Laws 75C and General Conditions #5. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North and South did not attend the hearing. West spoke very little English. East and one of the Committee members interpreted for him most of the time. According to the Appeals Form, South agreed he did not alert 2 and West said he would have checked the convention card had he been alerted. Then he would have led a heart. The reason for not alerting was because 2 does show interest in a major, though it might only be 3 cards looking for five cards in the opening hand. East said 2 was initially Stayman for four card suits. West believed that North had shown four hearts. The Committee: The Committee believed that West would have been significantly more likely to have led a heart if the explanation of 2 had indicated that North could have held as few as three hearts on this sequence. Dissenting opinion (Bobby Wolff): Even with the misinformation the heart lead looks best, so while it is suitable that N/S should lose 50, E/W should only get part of the benefit of this adjustment. The Chairman had to leave before the final decision was promulgated, so the Acting Chairman issued it. The Committee ruled: Score adjusted to 3NT minus one, N/S 50, for both sides, per Laws 12C2 and 40C. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 29 Reported by David Stevenson (England, GB) Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Sabine Auken (Germany), Claire Tornay (France), Mazhar Jafri (Pakistan), David Stevenson (England, GB). Rosenblum Teams Round 12 France v Denmark North/South: Rombaut/Bessis East/West: Raulund/Pedersen

Board 22 E/W Game Dealer East	NORTH   10 9 8 6 3   J 5 2   K J 10   A 9
WEST   K Q J 4   Q 6   9 8 7 5 4 3   J		EAST   7 2   A 10 8 3   A Q 6   K 10 3 2
	SOUTH   A 5   K 9 7 4   2   Q 8 7 6 5 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	1NT(1)	Pass
3(2)	Pass	Pass	Dbl
Pass	3	Pass	Pass
Dbl	Pass	4	Pass
Pass	Dbl	All Pass

(1) 12-14 (2) To play, 6+ cards Result at table: 4 doubled plus one, N/S -910. Facts: Director called just after end of hand. The double of 3 was described as penalties on the S/W side of the screen, but as takeout (and alerted) on the N/E side. After a spade lead, North ducked when West led the J, so West played the king from dummy for an overtrick. It takes an opening heart lead to beat 4. TD's Decision: 4 not doubled, with a heart lead, N/S +100. Law 75C. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North believed that the spade values would not be in the West hand, so he doubled because his partner would be sitting over dummy's spades, and led a spade for the same reason. He felt that the Q would be more likely to be West, with the description he had been told. East/West played that any double would be for takeout if the opponents had a fit. They accepted that the actual sequence did not show a fit, and were confused as to whether this double should be takeout. The Committee: The game is too random if players do not have complete understandings of their doubles, and East/West should make sure that they clarify them for the future. However, on this occasion, the main reason for North/South scoring 910 is their own actions, so no adjustment is suitable. The Committee ruled: Table score re-instated (4 doubled plus one, N/S 910). Deposit returned. 0.5 VP Procedural Penalty to East-West for not having satisfactory agreements about doubles.

Appeal No. 30 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Tommy Sandsmark (Norway), Herman De Wael (Belgium). McConnell Teams (Round of 32) Segment 2 N/S: Wexler/Gwozdzinsky (USA) E/W: Renoux/Certain-Michalet (France)

Board 3 E/W Game Dealer South	NORTH   A Q J 9   Q 10   Q 6 3   10 9 7 3
WEST   8 4 3   K J 4 3   J 9 5   8 5 4		EAST   10 5   9 7 2   A 8 7 2   K J 6 2
	SOUTH   K 7 6 2   A 8 6 5   K 10 4   A Q

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1NT
Pass	Pass/2

Result at table: 4 plus one, N/S +450. Facts: The director was called with the tray on the North/East side of the screen. North had not noticed that South had opened the bidding and had taken a Pass out of the bidding box. She had almost put it on the tray, and it may even have touched it, but she had not let go of it. When she did notice her partner's opening, she wanted to change the card, and bid 2. TD's Decision: The director determined that the bidding card had not left the hand, so that the call could be changed according to Regulation 15/1 of the General Conditions of Contest. "If screens are in use, the bidding cards are removed from the box and placed in the tray, Any call selected and taken from the bidding box may be changed provided it has not been placed and released from the hand (but Law 73F2 may apply)." (Law 73F2 deals with illegal deception ed.) The Director ruled that North be allowed to choose her final call in this round. The bidding proceeded to 4 and this contract was made with an overtrick. East challenged this decision and appealed. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North repeated the statement that she gave to the director. East said the tray was passed with two green cards. South stated she noticed the tray being passed, and drawn back, but that there had been no green card at her right. North was very upset at the way East had treated her. The Committee: Although this seems like a purely technical problem, the Committee acknowledged that the Director had ruled under Law 85, Rulings on Disputed Facts, which includes a right to appeal. However, the story presented by the Appealing side to the Committee seemed unconvincing. The Committee ruled: The facts, as determined by the director, are found to be correct. His ruling is upheld and the result unchanged. The appealing side should not have challenged a technical ruling, and should certainly not have protested so aggressively at the table. East/West were given a severe warning as to their conduct at the table. The deposit was forfeited.

Appeal No. 31 Reported by David Stevenson (England, GB) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Grattan Endicott (England, GB), Ernesto D'Orsi (Brazil). McConnell Teams Round 12 Sweden v France North/South: Gothe/Goldberg East/West: Prevotean/le Corre

Board 15 N/S Game Dealer South	NORTH   K 9 2   A 5   A 3   K J 9 7 4 3
WEST   J 5 4   9 8 6 2   J 9 7 6 4   Q		EAST   A 7 3   Q J 10 7   Q 8 5 2   10 8
	SOUTH   Q 10 8 6   K 4 3   K 10   A 6 5 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	1
Pass	2	Pass	3(1)
Pass	4	Pass	4
Pass	4NT	Pass	5
Pass	6	All Pass

(1) 5 + 4 + not minimum Result at table: 6 making, N/S +1370. Facts: The explanation of 2, following 1, was incomplete since it could also be a minimum hand with a balanced distribution. The lead of the A, found at the table, gives declarer 12 tricks; on a non-spade lead, declarer has to find the J to make the contract. TD's Decision: 6 minus one, N/S -100. Law 12C2. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North agreed her explanation was incomplete. West said she led the A because she was worried about diamond length, but would have led the Q if she had known that dummy could be balanced. The Committee: The Convention card was properly marked and available on both sides of table. The East player led A at her own risk. The Committee ruled: Table score re-instated (6 making, N/S +1370). Law 75C. 3 imp Procedural Penalty to North/South for Improper guidance on one side of table. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 32 Reported by David Stevenson (England, GB) Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Rich Colker (USA), Dan Morse (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), David Stevenson (England, GB). Rosenblum Teams K-O Round 1 France v Croatia North/South: Delmouly/Renouard East/West: Miladin/Diklic

Board 11 Love All Dealer North	NORTH   Q   K 9 6 5 4   Q 5 2   K J 9 2
WEST   A K J 10 9 7 5   A   10 4 3   6 3		EAST   8 2   10 8 7   A 9 6   10 8 7 5 4
	SOUTH   6 4 3   Q J 3 2   K J 8 7   A Q

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1(1)
Pass	2(1)	Pass	2(1)
3	All Pass

(1) Alerted. Result at table: 3 minus one, N/S +50. Facts: 1 was described, by South to West, as either 5+ cards in spades with a normal opening bid, or a weak no-trump. 2 was a transfer. 2 promised at least two hearts. North/South's system was special with some Brown sticker conventions. In fact, 1 showed either 5+ cards in spades with a normal opening bid, or a weak no-trump with two or three (never four) spades. There were convention cards available with this description, clear and in full. When playing 3, the defence cashed two clubs and switched to a heart. West took this, went to dummy with the A and ran the 8. TD's Decision: Table result stands. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East did not attend the hearing. The problems of having insufficient time to check the Brown sticker conventions, owing to late arrivals, were described at length. It was suggested that when the draw was published, a Brown sticker should be attached to any team playing Brown sticker conventions, so that their opponents should have as much notice as possible. South said that he had explained his 1 opening carefully, in advance of the start of the match, and on other occasions, but agreed that this time he forgot to mention that there could not have been precisely four spades. West said that if he knew South could not have precisely four spades, then he would have cashed the A before going to dummy to finesse. The Committee: The Committee agreed that the suggestion of the draw showing Brown stickers was useful and asked the Chief TD to consider this. The Committee said it was especially important, when playing such complex methods, that the meaning of conventions are explained carefully and completely on every occasion. It was suggested that players using such methods should not wait for a question before writing a description of such a convention. The Committee ruled: Score adjusted for both sides to 3 making, E/W +140. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 33 Reported by David Stevenson (England, GB) Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Rich Colker (USA), Dan Morse (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), David Stevenson (England, GB). Rosenblum Teams K-O Round 1 Croatia v France North/South: Spiljak/Vukelic East/West: Renouard/Farahad

Board 11 Love All Dealer South	NORTH   J   J 10 4   K Q 10 8 7   10 9 7 3
WEST   A Q 8 7 4   6 5   6 4 3   K Q J		EAST   K 9 6   K 8 3   9 2   A 8 6 4 2
	SOUTH   10 5 3 2   A Q 9 7 2   A J 5   5

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	1
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	Pass	Dbl	All Pass

Result at table: 2 doubled plus two, N/S +380. Facts: 2 was alerted on the N/E side of the screen, and described as a transfer, which is clearly correct per the N/S convention cards. South turned the alert card over and back again, but did not receive an acknowledgement from West. TD's Decision: N/S +130. Conditions of Contest 16.2. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: West did not attend the hearing. According to the Appeals Form, West said he was in thought and did not see South's "flip" of the alert card. He said that he did not find the pass of 2 strange because some pairs play non-forcing 2/1. The Committee: 16.2 of the Conditions of Contest includes the following: "the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent." It is clear, that an alert has only been made correctly when the opponent acknowledges it. So in this case, South did not alert West correctly. Dissenting opinion (Rich Colker, David Stevenson): It seems even more likely that West will pass if he knows the diamonds are on his left than on his right; it is difficult to see how the misinformation affected his pass. At least for East/West, it would seem right to leave them with their 380. This would certainly be proper in a matchpoint or VP-scored event. The Committee ruled: N/S +130. Conditions of Contest 16.2. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 34 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Jean-Paul Meyer (France, Chairman), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Zonal Teams round 9 USA v Netherlands North/South: Stansby/Martel East/West: Oltmans/Oltmans

Board 12 N/S Game Dealer West	NORTH   A Q J 10 8 4   5 3   9   A 10 9 5
WEST   K 5 3   Q J 10 9 7 6   7 2   7 2		EAST   7 6 2   A K 4 2   K 10 8 5   8 3
	SOUTH   9   8   A Q J 6 4 3   K Q J 6 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
3	3	4	Dbl
4	Pass	Pass	4NT
All Pass

Result at table: 4NT-3, N/S -300. Facts: 4 was not alerted by East to North. When the tray came back with 4, North pointed to the 4 bid on the tray and only received a shrug in reply. It seemed absolutely natural to East that his 4 bid showed Heart support, but North claimed he did not find this natural, so he did not interpret his partner's 4NT bid in the way it was intended. TD's Decision: Score stands. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: West stated that he expected that the 4 bid showed at least Kx of Hearts. The problem only centered on the interpretation of this call in different zones. The Committee: The Committee felt that North did not protect his own rights in a sufficient manner. The 4 call should also have alerted him to the fact that some sort of Heart holding might have been shown. The Committee ruled: Decision upheld, deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 35 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, Chairman), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Chris Compton (USA), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Round 2 Netherlands v France North/South: Donkersloot/Van der Wild East/West: Pacault/Szwarc

Board 3 E/W Game Dealer South	NORTH   K 5   A Q J 7 2   6   K J 10 8 5
WEST   A 9 8 4 3 2   K 9   Q 7 5 4   7		EAST   10 7 6   6   A K 10 9 8   Q 4 3 2
	SOUTH   Q J   10 8 5 4 3   J 3 2   A 9 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	Pass
2	3	4	Pass(1)
Pass	5	Pass	5
All Pass

(1) Disputed hesitation Result at table: 5 made, NS +450 Facts: East/West called the Director after South had bid 5, claiming that there had been a hesitation over 4. The Director established that the table agreed about the hesitation. North claimed he would always have bid 5. The play had been: A, 7 to the Ace, North unblocking the King. TD's Decision: Assigned Adjusted Score : 4 by West, -620 to both sides, Law 16A2. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: South stated that the approximate timing on his side of the screen had been: 6 or 7 seconds for his pass, 4 seconds for West's pass, and another 5 seconds before he passed the tray, because he did not pay attention. The total timing at the other side was estimated at 25 seconds from the other side of the screen, and North agreed upon this. The Committee: The Committee wanted to establish who had called the Director. This turned out to have been East, originally. From the statements concerning the timing, the Committee concluded that there had been a hesitation, and that North could have known this and should have bent over backwards not to take this into consideration. The Committee had great understanding about the bid of 5, but felt that Pass was a logical alternative. The Committee had some doubts about the defence. The Committee ruled: For N/S : 4 made, -620 For E/W: -620 minus the difference in Match Points between the scores of +450 and 50. The Match Points (for E/W) for +450, -50 and 620 were 122.4, 419.5 and 523.8 respectively, so the score to E/W was 523.8 (419.5 122.4) = 226.7 Match Points (39.5%). Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 36 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Jens Auken (Denmark), Ernesto D'Orsi (Brazil), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Round 1 India v France North/South: Poddar/Lal East/West: Etienne/Michel

Board 25 E/W Game Dealer North	NORTH   A 9 8 6 5 4 3   4   10 4 3   J 5
WEST   K 7 2   10 9 6 5 3   Q 2   10 7 4		EAST   10   A K J 8 7   J 9 8 7 6 5   9
	SOUTH   Q J   Q 2   A K   A K Q 8 6 3 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	2(1)	Pass	2NT(2)
Pass	3(3)	3	Dbl
Pass	3	4	4
5	Pass	Pass	Dbl
All Pass

(1) Weak, 5+ cards (2) Relay (3) 1 honour in + bad hand Result at table: 5 doubled minus two, N/S +500. Facts: The double of 3 was slow (agreed). TD's Decision: 3 doubled minus one, N/S +200. Law 73F1. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North and East did not attend the hearing. South said the ruling was only requested after the board was on the table for the next hand. It seemed a very late request. He said that it was difficult for himself and his partner because the hands were computer-dealt, which is rare in his country. He considered the E/W bidding bad leading to a bad result. He suggested there was some doubt as to whether his partner was in receipt of unauthorised information. West said he knew he wanted a ruling but did not want to give unauthorised information to partner, and he did not know the best time to call the Director, so he left it until the end of the hand. He bid 5 knowing his partner was 6-5. The Committee: Pass by North was a logical alternative to 2. There was unauthorised information; it had been agreed to at the time and North was not present to dispute it. The Committee considered whether West's actions was strange enough that any damage was subsequent, not consequent. It was decided that it might have been ill-advised but nothing more. They also considered the possibility of 3 making, but it seemed unlikely and had not been mentioned by the players. It considered that computer-dealing, and the time of the request for a ruling, were not relevant. The Committee ruled: Director's ruling upheld. N/S +200. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 37 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Jens Auken (Denmark), Ernesto D'Orsi (Brazil), David Stevenson (Great Britain). An Appeal from the Open Pairs was to be heard at 9.45 am. The pair that did not appeal was present from 9.45 am. At 9.55 am the appealing pair had not arrived so, it was decided to dismiss the appeal and retain the deposit. The Committee wishes to draw people's attention to the work involved: The Director had to complete the necessary paperwork, find the players and tell them where and when the appeal was to be held. The convenor had to make sure there was an a Committee, which is a considerable task since there were at least eight other Committees to be arranged. The members of the Committee had to be present and sat doing nothing for some time. The other pair involved also had to attend and also sat doing nothing for a time. The time of the Committee was such that the Director and the Committee and the other pair had to attend when they might easily have been doing something else, yet there was no other suitable time. Players who wish to appeal are expected to attend at the agreed time.

Appeal No. 38 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, Chairman), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Chris Compton (USA), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Round 2 France v Georgia North/South: Voldoire/Lesguiller East/West: Kasradze/Beriashvili

Board 21 N/S Game Dealer North	NORTH   Q 10 6 5   9 6 5 2   Q 3 2   10 6
WEST   8 7   K 10   A K 9 6   9 8 5 4 2		EAST   A K 9 3 2   Q 8 3   8 4   K J 7
	SOUTH   J 4   A J 7 4   J 10 7 5   A Q 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	1	Dbl
Rdbl	Pass	Pass	2
Dbl	2	Pass	Pass
2NT	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Result at table: 3NT-2, N/S +100 Facts: West called the Director after the play and stated that 2 had not been alerted, and that he had gone down as a result. South stated that 2 had been a tactical bid and that he prepared to redouble (SOS) if he had been doubled. TD's Decision: No misinformation, Score Stands, Law 40A. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: Repeated their statements to the Director. South had made a tactical bid; West claimed he would have played differently with the explanation that South could hold only 3 clubs. The Committee: The Committee tried to establish with what distributions East would double. With 2-3-3-5, he would have bid 2 or Pass; with 2-5-4-2, two hearts or Pass; with 1-5-4-3, he would also have doubled. North would have passed if West had not doubled, but he admitted that South would almost certainly have 4 Hearts for his Double. The Committee ruled: The decision of the Director is changed to "misinformation, no damage," so the Result still stands. East/West are advised that the Committee considers the 2 bid to be within their system and, if unalerted, liable to be considered misinformation. In this case there was no damage, but in future it should be alerted and mentioned on the Convention Card. Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 39 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, Chairman), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Round 2 Italy v India North/South: Castellani/Catarsi East/West: Kiran Nadar/B. Satya Narayana

Board 15 N/S Game Dealer South	NORTH   - - -   - - -   J 9   - - -
WEST   K 7   - - -   - - -   - - -		EAST   - - -   Q   10   - - -
	SOUTH   - - -   2   6   - - -

Contract 3NT by West, South on lead Facts: South led the 6 and North played the nine before tabling the Jack TD's Decision: The Director established that the Nine of Diamonds had been held "so that it is possible for his partner to see its face," which, according to Law 45C1, means that it "must be played to the current trick." Two tricks to East/West (-430). Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North stated that the Declarer had improperly hesitated on the first trick, and this had affected his defence. West vehemently disagreed about any hesitation. North stated he had wanted to claim two tricks. The Committee: The Committee concluded that in his anger about the play thus far, North played the wrong card. There was nothing in his statements that made the Committee think the Director had made a wrong decision if North had wanted to claim, as seems normal, he would have shown his two cards even before Declarer had played to the trick. The Committee ruled: Decision upheld. Deposit forfeited.

Appeal No. 40 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Mazhar Jafri (Pakistan), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Round 2 France v Israel North/South: Bernard/Caumenl East/West: Podgur/Kalish

Board 8 E/W Game Dealer West	NORTH   A Q 10 7   2   Q J 9 8 5 3 2   10
WEST   J 9 5 3   A 10 9 8 7   - - - -   9 7 6 4		EAST   2   K Q J 6 5 3   6   A K 8 3 2
	SOUTH   K 8 6 4   4   A K 10 7 4   Q J 5

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
2(1)	3	4NT(2)	5
Pass(3)	Pass	5	Pass(4)
Pass	6	Dbl	All Pass

(1) + , 5+ - 4+ Weak (2) Blackwood (3) DOPI = one ace (4) Agreed huddle Defence: Trick 1 A; Trick 2 K. Result at table: 6 doubled making, N/S +1090. Facts: The pass over 5 was slow (agreed). TD's Decision: 5 making, N/S -450. They considered a split score because of the bad defence but decided against it. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: West did not attend the hearing. North said the 6 bid was obvious, since he had no defence to 5. He did not bid 6 the previous round because after 5 was passed the opponents might have let him play in 5, possibly doubled. It was the last board of the round and he did not notice the hesitation amongst the noise and bustle. The Committee: This was a high level guessing game and North was not permitted to guess right. There was some discussion whether to return the deposit. The Committee ruled: Director's ruling upheld. N/S -450. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 41 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), John Wignall (New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Ladies' Pairs Sweden v France North/South: Mellström/Midskog East/West: Renoux/Isoard

Board 11 Dealer South	NORTH   K 7 6 3   Q J 7 4 2   3   10 6 4
WEST   J 9 2   9 8 6   Q J 10 4   Q 9 8		EAST   A Q 4   A K 5 3   A 7   A 7 5 2
	SOUTH   10 8 5   10   K 9 8 6 5 2   K J 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	2(1)	Dbl	Pass
Pass	2	Dbl	2
Pass	Pass	Pass/Dbl(2)

(1) 7-11, 5/4 in the Majors (2) under discussion Result at table: Three down, scored as -150. Facts: East placed a Green card on the tray and wanted to change it to a Double. TD's Decision: The Director had to give a ruling at the table and decided not to accept the change of call. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: There was some amount of discussion as to whether or not the tray had been passed after the attempt at changing the call, before the Director had reached the table. East, through a translator, told the Committee that of course she intended to double on that hand, and that the green card had been a mechanical error. The Committee: The Committee decided to believe that East had wanted to double, but had taken a green card inadvertently. The Committee believed that she had tried to change her call without pause for thought. If this was indeed the case, then East should have been allowed to change her call without penalty, according to Law 25A. The Committee did not want to change the ruling without hearing the Director one last time, and it turned out he may well have ruled as he did because of language problems at the table. The Director, having also heard the evidence presented at the Committee hearing, indicated that he had no problem with the Committee's decision. Since there basically was no Director's error, there was no reason to rule under Law 82C, which could provide for average plus to both sides, but rather under Law 93B3, which allows the Committee to exercise the Director's powers. So basically, the Committee decides to allow the change of call. Now in some cases, this might lead to an incomplete board, but in this particular case, the Committee decided that the board would end with a contract of 2 doubled, making the same number of tricks. The Committee ruled: The result was changed to 2 doubled, down three, -500 to both sides. The deposit was refunded.

Appeal No. 42 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), John Wignall (New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Belgium), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Qualifier Poland v Switzerland North/South: Olanski/Starkowski East/West: Bigler/Garzetti

Board 22 E/W Game Dealer East	NORTH   - - -   K Q 8 7 2   9 4   K Q J 9 6 2
WEST   J 5 4 2   A 5   10 5 2   A 5 4 3		EAST   A 10 9 8 7   10 9   K 7 6   10 8 7
	SOUTH   K Q 6 3   J 6 4 3   A Q J 8 3   - - -

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	1
Pass	1	1	2
2	3	Pass	4
Pass	4	Pass	5
Pass	6	Pass	Pass
Dbl	All Pass

Play: Trick 1 A ruffed Trick 2 to J and A Trick 3 return Trick 4 K led Result at table: 6 doubled minus one, N/S -100. Facts: When the K was led, there was a break in tempo. Declarer ran the K and went down. If he ruffs, ruffs a spade and finesses a diamond, he can set up the diamonds and make the slam. TD's Decision: 6 making, N/S +1210. Laws 73F, 12C2. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: North/South did not attend the hearing. The Director confirmed that they had been told about it. East said he was expecting a diamond to be played, so he did not play immediately when the K appeared. The break in tempo was quite short. The Committee: The Committee might have reached a different conclusion if the North/South players had been present and thus able to answer some questions the Committee wished to ask. The Committee ruled: Result at table restored (N/S 100). Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 43 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), John Wignall (New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs India v Netherlands North/South: Gokhale/Kejriwal East/West: Versluis/Vis

Board 21 N/S Game Dealer North	NORTH   A 7 5 3   Q 10 7 2   8 5 4   Q 9
WEST   Q 9   9 6 5   K Q 10 6 3   10 5 3		EAST   K J 6 2   K J 8 4   A 9 7   4 2
	SOUTH   10 8 4   A 3   J 2   A K J 8 7 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	1NT(1)	Dbl(2)
Rdbl(3)	Pass	2(4)	Dbl(5)
2	Dbl(6)*	Pass*	3
Pass	3	Dbl	Pass
Pass	4	All Pass

(1) 11-13 (2) not alerted, but single suit (3) start of escape sequence (4) automatic (5) not alerted, but penalty (6) not alerted, cards * Tray was slow being returned - hesitation Result at table: 4 -1, N/S -100 Facts: The tray was slow in coming back with the asterisked Double and Pass. Since East/West had completed their escape sequence, it was clear that North had hesitated. TD's Decision: 2 doubled, making, N/S -180. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North stated that he had not hesitated, only asked questions about the bidding thus far. East confirmed these facts. The tray must have taken some 15 to 20 seconds to return to South/West, and all players agreed on that timing. The Committee: The Committee decided that Pass was not a Logical Alternative and therefor to allow South's 3 bid. The Committee ruled: The original result was restored: N/S 100. The deposit was refunded.

Appeal No. 44 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (Canada), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Qualifier Austria v Israel North/South: Bamberger/Terraneo East/West: Safiv/Poplivov

Board 13 Dealer North	NORTH   Q 8 7 6   J 3   K 9 3 2   8 5 4
WEST   3   A K 6   10 7 5 4   A K J 9 3		EAST   K 2   Q 9 8 7 5 2   Q 6   7 6 2
	SOUTH   A J 10 9 5 4   10 4   A J 8   Q 10

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	2(1)	2
Dbl(2)	Pass	3	Pass
4	All Pass

(1) Multi (2) Alerted Result at table: 4 making, N/S -620. Facts: West meant the double as takeout, to be passed if East had spades. East explained it as penalties. East's English was very poor. The convention card showed Negative doubles through 2. TD's Decision: 4 doubled minus one, N/S -200. Laws 21B3, 40C. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: East explained that the double showed "cards". She had difficulty making herself understood. North said, that East had used the word "Punitivo", otherwise he would have raised, at least to 4. He did not look at the convention card. South said that the adjustment to 4 doubled did not allow for the possibilities of the opponents failing to double 4 or even bidding 5; West would have a difficult decision. The Committee: The Committee said that more care should be used when describing this double. When there are language difficulties, the players should always write explanations down and more use should be made of the convention card. However, North/South had received a very favourable ruling anyway, and for them to ask for more was inconceivable, as it was for Oliver Twist! The Committee ruled: 4 doubled minus one, N/S -200. Deposit forfeited.

Appeal No. 45 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (Canada), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Qualifier France v Croatia North/South: Laugier/Icard East/West: Kiplovic/Blazencic

Board 4 Dealer West	NORTH   Q 7   K 10 9 6 5   A Q 6   A K 6
WEST   9 6 2   A J 2   K J 7 5 4   Q 9		EAST   A J 10 8   8 3   10 3 2   J 7 4 2
	SOUTH   K 5 4 3   Q 7 4   9 8   10 8 5 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
1	1	1	Pass
2	Pass(1)	Pass	2
All Pass

(1) Hesitation Result at table: 2 plus two, N/S +170. Facts: The Director was called by East at the end of the auction. North's pass was after a break in tempo. Originally, it was believed there was no damage since 2 would go two off, but a later analysis corrected this and then a corrected ruling was given. TD's Decision: 2 minus one, N/S +100. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: South did not attend the hearing. North did not speak English, so the Committee's comments and questions were transmitted to North by East, and his replies and comments were transmitted to the Committee by one of its members (Kokish). North believed that he could beat 2 by two; he suggested various defensive lines. His overcall showed 12 to 19 HCP, though the convention card just said "Natural". The Committee: The Committee decided that North/South should give a better description of the range of their overcall on their convention card. There was some discussion as to whether unauthorised information was transmitted when the tray was returned slowly, which was not resolved. It was not believed that Pass by South was a logical alternative. The Committee ruled: Table score reinstated (N/S +170). Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 46 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (Canada), Becky Rogers (USA), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Open Pairs Semi-Final France v Greece North/South: Doussot/Harari East/West: Yantsis/Delibaltadakis

Board 4 Dealer West	NORTH   2   Q 10 6   K Q J 10 9   Q 10 6 5
WEST   A Q 10 5 3   9 7 2   A 6   9 8 3		EAST   9 4   A K 8 4   8 4 3 2   J 7 4
	SOUTH   K J 8 7 6   J 5 3   7 5   A K 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Pass	Pass	Pass	1
Pass	1NT	All Pass

Play: Trick 1: HK, 3, 2, 10 Trick 2: H4, 5, 7, Q Trick 3: DK, 4, 5, 6 Trick 4: DQ, 2, 7, A Trick 5: H9, 6, A, J Trick 6: H8, S6 (1), S3, S2 Trick 7: S9, J, Q, C5 Trick 8: C9, (1) Hesitation Result at table: 1NT plus one, N/S +120. Facts: The Director was called by West at the end of the hand. Declarer paused at trick six before playing from dummy. TD's Decision: Score stands. Law 72D1. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: South and East did not attend the hearing. West said the hesitation was about 30 seconds, and it meant that North could not have the Q, otherwise the discard from dummy was obvious. North said the hesitation was about 5 seconds, and said he was just wondering what to do next. (Note: the Director agreed he had not considered the length of the pause since it was an agreed pause.) North said he had not paused earlier in the hand since he was following suit. The Committee: The Committee decided (as a majority view) that for a player to think before making his first discard of the hand was normal, and inferences could not be taken therefrom. The Committee ruled: Table score stands. Deposit returned.

Appeal No. 47 Reported by David Stevenson (Great Britain) Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Herman De Wael (Belgium), John Lenart (New Zealand), John Wignall (New Zealand), David Stevenson (Great Britain). Seniors Pairs Italy v Germany North/South: Longinotti/Resta East/West: Schneider/Gromöller

Board 10 Dealer East	NORTH   10 5   Q J 3 2   10 4 3   A K J 2
WEST   J 8 7 2   10 7 6   K 8 6   Q 8 3		EAST   Q 6 3   K 9 8   A J 7 5 2   9 6
	SOUTH   A K 9 4   A 5 4   Q 9   10 7 5 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	1
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	1NT	All Pass

Play: Trick 1: S3, 4, J, 5 Trick 2: D6, 3, A, 9 Trick 3: D2, Q, K, 4 Trick 4: D8, 10, J, Result at table: 1NT making, N/S +90. Facts: The Director was called by East, after West had won the J at trick one. East wished to reserve his rights. The flap was not put down and East's comments were audible to West. North/South play a Precision Club. TD's Decision: 1NT plus one, N/S +120. West had unauthorised information from East's reservation of rights, so the diamond return was disallowed; this would have given North/South nine tricks. However, the alert was not acknowledged, so the actual ruling was also based on misinformation, and an assigned score based on an opening diamond lead leading to eight tricks. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East called the Director because there were only two diamonds in the dummy and he wished to reserve his rights because he would have led a diamond if he had been alerted. He had seen the convention card but had not looked at the diamond length. North claimed he had alerted East but the alert had not been acknowledged. He showed his convention card to East. West claimed his diamond switch was obvious. The Committee: The Committee made it clear that when there is extraneous information available to a partnership, and certain actions may have been affected by this information, the Committee has to give the benefit of any doubt to the other side. This does not indicate that anyone had deliberately used the information. When summoning the Director, players would do well to avoid giving unauthorised information as much as possible, for example, by dropping the flap or waiting to the end of the hand. General CoC 16.2. "the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.." The Committee reminds everyone that an alert is not made until it has been acknowledged. The Committee ruled: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit returned.

Appeal No 48 Reported by Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard, USA (Chairman), Barbara Nudelman, USA, Chris Compton, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. Open Pairs. N/S: Levy-Forges, Schmidt, France E/W: Z. Biro, G. Biro, Germany

Board 25 E/W Game Dealer North	NORTH   J 9 8 6 5 4   8 5 4   K 7   5 4
WEST   A Q   J 6   10 8 6 3   J 9 8 6 2		EAST   10 7   A K 10 9 2   5   A K Q 10 7
	SOUTH   K 3 2   Q 7 3   A Q J 9 4 2   3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	1(1)	3(2)
Dbl(3)	4	Pass	Pass
5	Pass	6	Pass
Pass	Pass

(1) 16 +. (2) Preemptive. (3) Explained from West to South: "For penalty". From East to North: "Optional" (understood by North) or "4+D, but I may remove it!" (which is what West claims to have said.) Table result: 6 by East making 12 tricks; +1370 for E/W. The TD: : The TD was called to the table after the end of the play. The problem seems to have been misinformation as to the meaning of the double of 3. Neither questions, nor answers, were written down. North should have inquired and East should have replied in a written form, as North did not speak English. Even if East said "Optional", 4 is far from a good bid. It was hard luck for N/S that the opponents found the slam. The TD deemed the two replies to be almost identical. Consequently, there was no mis- information, and according to law 75C and 40C the table score was ruled to stand. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: N/S: North had a language problem, as he spoke no other language than French, and his partner translated for him. He said, though, that East had said to him that he was uncertain as to the meaning of the double, but he regarded it as "optional". When asked by the Appeals Committee how he could have heard and understood all this, considering his language problems, North stated that even if he couldn't speak English, he understood quite a lot. When asked by the Appeals Committee why the appeal had been launched, N/S stated that if North had had the correct explanation of the double of 3, North might NOT have bid 4, and the opponents might NOT have bid the slam. E/W: East categorically denied having said anything to the effect that he was uncertain as to the meaning of the double. He repeated what he told the TD that he had said. The Committee: The Appeals Committee acknowledged that there may have been a possible misexplanation. However, the double of 3 had nothing to do with the final result on the board. Therefore, the appeal was found to be without merit. The table score stands and the money is forfeited. The Committee suggested to North that since his knowledge of the English language was poor, he should write down every question and insist upon a written reply.

Appeal No 49 Reported by Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard, USA (Chairman), Barbara Nudelman, USA, Chris Compton, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway. Open Pairs. N/S: Kurt Feichtinger, Strafner, Austria E/W: Hakan Nilsson, Magnus Eriksson, Sweden

Board 2 N/S Game Dealer East	NORTH   3   A 2   K 6 3 2   A K Q 8 6 3
WEST   K Q 9 8   K Q 10 8 6 4   J 4   5		EAST   A J 7 6   J 9 5   10 8 7   J 9 4
	SOUTH   10 5 4 2   7 3   A Q 9 5   10 7 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
1	2	2	3
3(1)	3NT	Pass	Pass
4	Pass(2)	Pass	Pass

(1) Explained from West to South: "Game try. has nothing to do with the Diamonds." From East to North: no alert and no explanation. (2) Alerted from North to East and explained as "Forcing". Not alerted from South to West. Table result: 4 by West 2; +100 for N/S. The TD: : The TD was called to the table after the end of the play. North complained that if he had had the right information about the 3 bid, he would have doubled. Then his partner would have known about the double fit, and they could have reached 5 or even 6 or 6. The TD only had access to E/W's convention card, and therefore it could not be proved which explanation was correct. According to law 75C and the footnotes in 2, the TD ruled mistaken explanation. Because of North's failure to alert, and supported by law 12C1, he ruled that there could have been numerous continuations and therefore decided on an artificially adjusted score: 60% to N/S and 40% to E/W. E/W appealed. The players: N/S: From South's point of view, the 3NT bid only showed a heart stopper and no diamond stopper, while North believed to have shown a stopper in both red suits. E/W: East/West could offer additional proof as to their system, and had brought all their system sheets to the Appeals Committee. Since these were in Swedish, this information had not been available to the TD. However one of the members of the Appeals Committee had a very good understanding of the Scandinavian languages, and could ascertain that the non-alert to North (i.e. the 3 bid was a positive trial bid showing the suit) was, in fact, the right explanation. The Committee: Based upon the evidence presented by E/W, the Appeals Committee found that East had given the correct information. In a way, West had also given the correct information as he had described what he could see in his hand. However, the laws require players, when asked, to describe what their system and conventions are and not what their hands are. Thus, there has been misinformation from West to South. But this is not the main issue here. By posing a number of questions to N/S, it became apparent to the Committee that the real complaint from N/S to the TD was not related to the 3 bid at all. The fact that North volunteered 3NT vulnerable, made his pass over 4 forcing. South did not realise that, or, if he did, he passed anyway. N/S therefore wanted the Appeals Committee to reopen the bidding, so that they could get a better score. However, the Committee decided that even though there had been a misexplanation, this fact had nothing to do with the result. Thus according to Law 75D2, the footnote did not apply. It was only South's passing a forcing pass that made N/S's result bad on this board. Therefore, the Appeals Committee ruled the score to be restored to the original table result: 4 by W with 8 tricks; +100 to N/S. Furthermore, E/W received a procedural penalty of 10 % of a top for the misexplanation. The money was returned.

Appeal No. 50 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), George Retek (Canada), Naki Bruni (Italy), David Stevenson (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Semi Final USA v South Africa North/South: Passell/Freed East/West: Mansell/Cope

Board 26 Dealer East	NORTH   J 8 7 4 3   9 7 2   K 10 8   Q 6
WEST   A 9 5 2   Q 8 3   4 3   J 10 5 4		EAST   Q   J 10 6 5 4   A Q 9 6 5 2   9
	SOUTH   K 10 6   A K   J 7   A K 8 7 3 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	2(1)	3(2)
Pass	3	Pass	4
All Pass

(1) Weak, can be six cards and 5 of another (2) N/E: Majors, S/W: Asking for stopper Result at table: 4 made, N/S +620 Facts: West called the director, claiming he could have bid his second suit if he had received the explanation that 3 asked for a stopper. TD's Decision: Misinformation, Damage, Score changed to 5 doubled, 1 down, N/S +200. Appellant: North/South appealed. The players: North explained that, in fact, the explanation he had given should have been the correct one, but that since he was not able to prove this conclusively, he accepted the ruling on misinformation. North asked the committee to consider two other points though: firstly, that he thought it unlikely that East/West would defend up to the five level; and secondly, that he thought 5 should go two down, or even three. East stated that he would certainly have shown his second suit, but was barred from this by the explanation that South held both majors. The Committee: The Committee decided that there was to be a ruling based on mis- information. The Committee accepted that East would indeed bid 4, but found it less likely that West would continue with 5, over the 4, which would have come then, as now. The Committee went on to see if the result of 5 doubled down one or two would be "at all probable" and decided against that one as well. The Committee ruled: Original result restored, N/S +620. 10% Procedural penalty to North/South because of misexplanation and/or misbid. Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 51 Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (CAN), Becky Rogers (USA), John Wignall (NZL) Open Pairs, Semi-Finals, 01 September 98 FRA (N/S) v GBR (E/W) N/S: Cuthbertson/Mathieson E/W: Chemla/Levy

Board 10 Dealer East	NORTH   Q 8   K J 9 7 4 3   9   A K 8 6
WEST   K 10 6 5 3   - - -   A Q 8 7 6   9 7 4		EAST   A 9 2   Q 10 5 2   J 5 4 3   5 2
	SOUTH   J 7 4   A 8 6   K 10 2   Q J 10 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	Pass	Pass
1	2	2	3
3	4	Dbl	All Pass

Facts: East led the 5 and the play continued (the card led is *): W N E S 1 C4 CA *C5 C3 2 S3 *HK H2 H6 3 C7 *H4 H10 HA 4 C9 H7 HQ *H8 5 DQ D9 *4 ??? The TD was called at the above point in the play. E/W claimed that they heard North call for the 10 from dummy. West, without seeing the card played by dummy, won the Q and began thinking about his next play. Both North and South believed that North had called the K from dummy. South said that he had moved the K into a played position by sliding it toward the edge of the table. While West was in thought, North called for the 2 from dummy, at which point confusion ensued about who had won the previous trick. The TD had difficulty determining exactly what happened. E/W both contended that they had heard declarer call for the 10; N/S both insisted that North had called for the K. When the TD arrived, he noticed that dummy's three diamonds were arranged with the K closest to the edge of the table, somewhat separated from the other two, with the 2 next and the 10 farthest away. The other suits were all arranged with their highest card closest to the edge of the table and the other cards descending in rank as they were placed toward the center of the table. TD's Decision: The laws say that a card is played from dummy when declarer either names the card or touches it with the intention of playing it. The TD ruled that the K had been played from dummy and that West's Q was then a played card. This produced a table result of 4 doubled making four, +790 for N/S. Appellant: E/W appealed. The players: North was absent, attending another appeal being held at the same time as this one. Both sides repeated what they had told the TD at the table, South contending that he heard his partner call the K from dummy (and reporting that North was adamant that he had called the king) and E/W contending that they both heard the 10 called. Both East and West admitted that they did not actually see dummy detach a card before West played his queen. West stated that after "winning" the Q he began thinking about the next trick. He first considered whether declarer might hold a second diamond and then thought about what card to play (the king or a small one) if he shifted to spades (playing his partner for the A). While he was thinking, North called for the 2 from dummy, and South slid that card towards the edge of the table into a "played" position. This all confused West, who thought he was on lead. North then said that the lead was in dummy (with the K, which he had played to the previous trick). E/W both disputed this, and the TD was called. The Committee: After questioning the three players present, and reviewing the pertinent laws with the Chief TD (William Schoder), the Committee decided that the K had been legally played from dummy and that West's Q was therefore a played card. It was clear to the Committee that both East and West truly believed they had heard the 10 called from dummy. It was also the opinion, of several of the Committee members, that the lawful adjudication of this case, and others like it, does not achieve what should be our primary goal, that of restoring equity in situations where no infraction has been committed. The Committee's Decision: The Committee assigned the result achieved at the table after the TD ruled that the K was played at trick 5. The score was adjusted for both sides to 4 doubled made four, +790 for N/S.

Appeal 52 Reported by Rich Colker, USA. Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (CAN), Becky Rogers (USA), David Stevenson (GBR) Open Pairs, Semi-Finals A, 31 August 98 FRA (N/S) v GRE (E/W) N/S: Doussot/Harari E/W: Yantsis/Delibaltadakis

Board 4 Dealer West	NORTH   2   Q 10 6   K Q J 10 9   Q 10 6 5
WEST   A Q 10 5 3   9 7 2   A 6   9 8 3		EAST   9 4   A K 8 4   8 4 3 2   J 7 4
	SOUTH   K J 8 7 6   J 5 3   7 5   A K 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Pass	Pass	Pass	1
1NT	All Pass

Facts: East led the K and the play continued (the card led is *): Trick WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1 H2 H10 *HK H3 2 H7 HQ *H4 H5 3 D6 *DK D4 D5 4 DA *DQ D2 D7 5 *H9 H6 HA HJ 6 S3 S2 *H8 S6 (after a pause for thought) 7 SQ C5 *S9 SJ 8 *C9 . . . 1NT made two, +120 for N/S. West called the TD to the table at the end of the hand. There was a pause by declarer during trick 6, before discarding from dummy. He thought this indicated that declarer could not have the Q because then he would have had an "automatic" discard of a spade from dummy and nothing to think about. Therefore, West played the 9 at trick 8 in the hope of taking two more spade tricks and a club trick. TD's Decision: The TD ruled (under Law 72D1) that the result at the table stood. Appellant: E/W appealed. The players: West stated that North's long thought (he said it was at about 30 seconds) before discarding from dummy at trick 6, caused him to assume that North did not have the Q, since no reasonable declarer would be thinking about discarding his exit card in clubs. Therefore, instead of cashing the A, West played the 9, believing this play would produce down two whenever his partner held QTx or better and could not cost unless declarer held both JTx and solid diamonds. North said he paused to think for about 5-10 seconds at trick 6, while deciding what to pitch from his own hand (not the dummy). He made his decision and played promptly at that point. The Committee: Declarer is entitled to think when it is his turn to play and is not obliged to play from dummy in order to inform the opponents which play (his own or dummy's) or even which trick he is thinking about. In addition, until trick 6, declarer had simply been following suit, while now he was about to make his first discard, from both hands. It is neither unusual nor improper for a player to think at such a time, even one who had been playing without pause for thought until then. The Committee's Decision: The Committee allowed the table result to stand. The deposit was returned.

Appeal 53 Reported by Rich Colker, USA. Appeals Committee: Rich Colker (Chairman, USA), Eric Kokish (CAN), Becky Rogers (USA), David Stevenson (GBR), John Wignall (NZL) Open Pairs, Semi-Finals I, 01 September 98 IND (N/S) v DNK (E/W) N/S: N. K. Gupta/R. Tewari E/W: M. Askgaard/J. Mathieson

Board 25 E/W Game Dealer North	NORTH   A Q 5 3   Q 7 2   7   Q 9 7 4 3
WEST   9 4   A K 10 9 8 6   A 9   J 10 6		EAST   K J 10 8 6   J 3   K 6 3 2   K 5
	SOUTH   7 2   5 4   Q J 10 8 5 4   A 8 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	2(1)	Pass	3
All Pass

(1) Alerted; explained as 4414 or 4405 with short diamonds Facts: 3 went down two, -100 for N/S. On both sides of the screen, the 2 opening was alerted and explained as 4414 or 4405 with short diamonds. At the end of the round, after discussion between the players, West discovered that N/S's agreement was that the 2 bid could be made (infrequently) with four-three in the majors and a singleton diamond. The TD was called and West explained that, had he known that North could hold only three hearts, he would have had a chance to find a heart contract. As it was, he had no chance at all. TD's Decision: The TD ruled that the incomplete explanation given to West, by South, could have affected the result on the board (Law 75). Since the Directing Staff could not decide what result would have occurred, had the infraction not occurred, they decided to assign an artificial adjusted score (Law 12C1) of Average Plus (60%) to E/W and Average Minus (40%) to N/S. Appellant: N/S appealed. The players: N/S stated that they had described the 2 opening to their screen- mates as 4414 or 4405 because those were the distributions that were held most of the time. In addition to a verbal explanation (there were language problems), South offered his convention card to West for inspection. West admitted that he glanced at the card briefly, but did not examine it in detail. It contained complete and accurate explanations of the 2 opening in two places (the front and second pages) including that the bid showed 4414, 4405 or (unusually) 4315 distribution with 11-15 HCPs. The Committee: The Committee determined that, although East had not been accurately informed of the possible distributions for the 2 opening, an accurately filled out convention card was available to him and his actions were unaffected by the information in any case. West, on the other hand, had been offered (and even looked at) N/S's convention card. This was found to be an acceptable (and even desirable) way to communicate system information especially when there are language differences, as here. The beautifully filled out N/S convention card contained all of the information West was seeking. Players are obligated to exhaust all reasonable means of obtaining the information they seek, including (written) questions, looking at the opponents' convention card, and even summoning a TD who speaks the opponents' language and can help with communication. West failed to make a sufficient effort to obtain the readily available information he needed. He relied only on South's verbal explanation when there was reason to have looked further. The Committee's Decision: The Committee restored the original table result (3 down two, -100 for N/S) to both sides. The deposit was returned.

Appeal 54 Reported by Rich Colker, USA. Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Virgil Anderson (USA), Rich Colker (USA, scribe), John Lenart (New Zealand), Dan Morse (USA) Tournament Director: O. Beauvillain Ladies Pairs, 29 August 98 South Africa (N/S) v South Africa (E/W) N/S: Modlin/Mansell E/W: Bloom/Holroyd

Board 30 Love All Dealer East	NORTH   K Q 7 2   K 6 4   A 10   K 10 9 5
WEST   A J 8 6 5 4   7   Q 9   Q J 7 4		EAST   3   A 10 9   K J 6 5 4   A 6 3 2
	SOUTH   10 9   Q J 8 5 3 2   8 7 3 2   8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	1	2(1)
2	Dbl(2)	3	Pass
3	Dbl	3NT	Pass
4	Dbl	All Pass

(1) Alerted; weak jump overcall (2) Alerted by South to West; North's alert not seen by East Facts: At the table, 4 went down one, plus 100 for N/S. The TD was called, by East, at the end of the hand and told that she had not been given the information that North's double of 2 showed a heart honor (N/S's agreement) and was not penalty. North had pulled her alert card partly up from her bid box (which was mounted on the side of the table), but East never saw this action. Thus, East chose to "escape" to 3. East told the TD that, had she known the double only showed a heart honor she would have passed and the auction would have been different. TD's Decision: The TD ruled that, had she been properly alerted, East might have passed North's double of 2. N/S would then, most likely, have ended up in 3, which would have gone down one. Thus, according to Laws 75C, 40C and 12C2, the TD adjusted the score for both sides to 3 down one, -50 for N/S. Appellant: E/W appealed. The players: North admitted negligence in not making sure that East saw and acknowledged the alert. South said she fully expected the Committee to deal with her side accordingly, but did not believe that East's 3 bid merited the redress afforded it by the TD. South then stated that the two partnerships had played against one another for many years in their home country and that E/W were thus familiar enough with N/S's system to have known the meaning of North's double, even without an alert. In response, East asked South to describe what the double of 2 would have meant in E/W's system had they been in the N/S seats. South admitted that she had no idea how E/W played such a double. East then made the point, "Then how can you say that we should have known your system when you don't know ours?" In response to a Committee member's question, South stated that she would have bid 3 had East passed North's double of 2, and N/S agreed that 3 was then likely to have been the final contract. The Committee: The Committee decided that North had not properly alerted her double of 2. The rules state that in alerting with screens, a player should place his alert card on the tray, where his screenmate's next bid will be placed; the alert is acknowledged by returning the alert card to the alerter. While some players alert by simply pointing to their alert card or making some other gesture, they still have the responsibility to obtain a clear and unmistakable acknowledgment that the alert has been received. In cases where any doubt of this exists, a player who has not followed proper procedure will be ruled against. This was the case here. The Committee's Decision: The Committee decided that, had East been properly alerted, 3 would have been the final contract and would have gone down one trick. The Committee adjusted the contract for both pairs to 3 down one, -50 for N/S. The deposit was returned.

Appeal No. 55 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Mazhar Jafri (Pakistan), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Senior Pairs Final USA v Great Britain North/South: Jonas/Eisenberg East/West: Gordon/Shapiro

Board 9 E/W Game Dealer North	NORTH   Q 10 5   10 7 5   J 10 3   Q J 8 7
WEST   K J 8 4   A J 4   A K Q 6 4   A		EAST   A 9 6 3 2   Q 8 6   9 7 2   6 4
	SOUTH   7   K 9 3 2   8 5   K 10 9 5 3 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	Pass	Pass	3
Dbl	Pass	3	Pass
4	5	Pass	Pass
5(1)	Pass	6	All Pass

(1) Agreed long break for thought Result at table: 6 made, N/S -1430 Facts: North called the director to establish the clear break in tempo by East and complain about the 6 bid. TD's Decision: Unauthorised Information, Damage, Score changed to 5 +1, N/S -680. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East stated that he had an absolute maximum for his call of 3, since with seven points he would have bid 4. His Pass over 5 was forcing, and so over 5, he was always going to bid six. West agreed that he had thought for a considerable time and was considering doubling. He decided to bid 5 because his partner could still be absolute minimum. The Committee: The Committee was not certain if the hesitation suggested any call over any other. Law 16 only applies if some action is suggested by an unauthorised information. The Committee felt that if East had passed with the same hand, with the contract only just making, a call for Director and subsequent appeal was just as possible. In a majority decision, the Appeals' Committee decided to allow East to bid 6. The Committee ruled: Original result restored, N/S -1430. Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 56 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Jaime Ortiz-Pati€o (Switzerland), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Mazhar Jafri (Pakistan), Steen Møller (Denmark), George Retek (Canada), John Wignall (New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Final USA v Sweden North/South: Stansby/Martel East/West: Lindquist/Fredin

Board 24 Love All Dealer West	NORTH   7 3 2   8 7 4 2   9 8 2   8 7 4
WEST   A 10 8 6   A Q 6   Q 3   A K 5 2		EAST   Q 9 5 4   10 5 3   K 6 5   Q 9 3
	SOUTH   K 5   K J 9   A J 10 7 4   J 10 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
1(1)	Pass	1(2)	1NT
Dbl(3)	Pass	Pass	2
Dbl(4)	All Pass

(1) 11-13 or 17+ any distribution (2) 0-7 (3) 17+ (4) Take Out Result at table: 2 Doubled -3, N/S -500 Facts: After his second double, which was made quickly, west himself pushed the tray through. TD's Decision: Unauthorised Information, Damage, Score changed to 60% for N/S, 40% for E/W. The Director presented to the Committee evidence of one previous occasion, on which the same player, as West, had pushed the tray through himself. For this reason, the Director also gave East/West a Procedural penalty of 25% of a top. Appellant: East/West appealed, on the score adjustment, not on the Procedural Penalty. The players: West did not attend the meeting and the Committee told East that he should have. East explained why he passed. At worst, his partner held a singleton Diamond. The double was also consistent with a 4405 shape, but East did not consider this. He found his hand to be worth more in defence than in offence, and he did not consider a game score in their direction likely. He took a long time in deciding this, but he did not think the fast double influenced him. When asked if his partner often pushed the tray, East replied that yes, he had already told his partner off on this. He called his partner "emotional", but "honest". The Committee: The Committee found it not unreasonable for East to pass. However, West took a very inopportune moment to transgress on a procedure. The Committee decided, by majority, that there was indeed unauthorised information that suggested passing. The Committee felt, however, that if East did not pass, he would surely push to game and the resulting score would be 450. The Committee ruled: Assigned Adjusted Score of, N/S -450. Deposit refunded. The Committee did not rule on the Procedural Penalty, but decided to investigate the matter further. In a separate meeting, the Committee decided to double the penalty but leave the matter at that.

Appeal No. 57 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, Chairman), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Final Canada v Great Britain North/South: Graves/Mittelman East/West: Hackett Justin/Hackett Jason

Board 19 E/W Game Dealer South	NORTH   K 10 6   Q 9 7 3   K 5   J 9 7 5
WEST   A Q 3   5   A J 6 2   A Q 10 6 3		EAST   J 4 2   A J 6   Q 9 8 7 3   6 4
	SOUTH   9 8 7 5   K 10 8 4 2   10 4   K 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	-	Pass
1	Pass	1NT	Pass
2	Pass	3	Pass
3	Pass	3NT	Pass
4	Pass	4	Pass
5	All Pass

Result at table: 5 made, N/S - 600 Facts: The tray had taken some time to come back with 3NT. This was not disputed. West stated to the Director that partner should not have 2 heart stoppers, or he would have bid 2 over 2. TD's Decision: Unauthorised Information, result changed to 3NT-2, N/S +200. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: West restated the comment he had already made at the table to the Director. He knew partner could not have a double heart stopper. The Committee: In a majority decision, the Committee decide to believe West's interpretation of the bidding and allow the 4 call. Minority Opinion: There was some possibility that the 4 bid might have been influenced by the agreed upon hesitation, therefor, according to Law 16, the bid of 4 should not have been allowed. The Committee ruled: Original Table result restored: N/S 600 Deposit refunded.

Appeal No. 58 Reported by Herman De Wael (Belgium) Appeals Committee: Joan Gerard (USA, Chairman), Barbara Nudelman (USA), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium). Open Pairs Final Spain v Netherlands North/South: Knap/Lantaron East/West: Jialal/Meijs

Board 22 E/W Game Dealer South	NORTH   Q 10 9 6 2   J 7 6   5   9 5 4 2
WEST   8   Q 8   K Q J 2   A K J 10 7 6		EAST   A 7 5   A 10 9 2   A 10 7 6 4   3
	SOUTH   K J 4 3   K 5 4 3   9 8 3   Q 8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
-	-	1	Pass
2	Pass	2NT	Pass
3	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	Pass	4	Pass
4	Pass	4NT	Pass
5	Pass	5NT	Pass
7	All Pass

Result at table: 7 made, N/S 2140 Facts: The tray had taken some time to come back with 3NT. This was not disputed. TD's Decision: Unauthorised Information, result changed to 3NT+4, N/S 720. Appellant: East/West appealed. The players: East stated that after the 3 bid by partner, he was going to slam, no matter what happened. North/South agreed upon the further bidding after 4, but disputed that east had the right to press on after the slow 3NT. The Committee: It took a long time to reach a decision, because, as one member stated it, there was an "Elephant path" between the two results. Eventually, in a majority decision, the Committee decided not to allow the 4 bid, which may have been influenced by the hesitation. The Committee ruled: Director's decision upheld. Deposit refunded.

Personal note on appeals 57 and 58. Herman De Wael When appeal 58 was presented to the Committee, immediately after number 57, I thought I was seeing double. In both cases, a slow 3NT was taken out in diamonds. In both cases, the Director turned the score back to a contract of 3NT, and in both cases, East/West appealed stating they would have bid on regardless of the hesitation. In the end, the Committee decided to rule in favour of one appellant, and not the other. What is the difference between the two cases then? First of all, both were decided after a long discussion and a final vote, in each case 3-1. This should already explain why the outcome might seem strange, especially to the losing sides. But apart from that, there is the important element of the meaning of the hesitation. In the British case, West decided to run to diamonds because of a perceived lack of heart stoppers. West knows that partner has a heart stopper, and he claims to know he doesn't have two. But East does not know that he has to bid 3NT with two stoppers, and his hesitation cannot imply a lack of double stopper. In the Dutch case, on the other hand, East does not have any more for his opening than a 12 count. He has already heard partner to hold clubs, and he knows partner has only a limited number of cards in the majors. The hesitation to him can mean one thing: partner has excess values. Although we may well believe him that he is going to slam anyway, the hesitation in his case suggests bidding on, and the Committee felt that passing was a logical alternative. If anything distinguishes the two cases, the question of what the hesitation suggests does.