44th European Team Championships
Appeals 14-26

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Alfrredsson	Hirst	Ekberg	Semp
-	-	-	2
Dble	2	Pass	Pass
2NT	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: three of clubs Result: nine tricks, -600 to East/West The Facts: West had explained his bid of Two No-Trumps to South as being for the minors, while East had not alerted and expected it to be natural, invitational. North claimed he would not have led clubs if he had received the explanation that West had given. The Director: Agreed with North and awarded an adjusted score. Ruling: Score adjusted to Three No-Trumps, making six tricks, -300 to East/West. East/West appealed. The players: East explained their system: the Double was Take-Out, so Two no-Trumps must mean that West has some extra values, and with his points, he was happy to accept the invitation. A direct 2NT over the Multi would have shown 15-17, an indirect 2NT would be for the minors, so this sequence must be something else, but there are no firm agreements about it, as they are not a regular partnership. South stated that he had called the Director immediately after the lead, and that West had stated at that time «there seems to be a misunderstanding». East/West's captain told the Committee that in his opinion the opening lead did the damage, not the explanations. The Committee: Decided that the explanation that East had given was very likely to be the correct one. West may well have intended his bid to be invitational, but had explained his hand rather than his agreements. North therefore had the right explanation before he made his opening lead. The Committee's decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result restored. +600 to East/West. Relevant Laws: Law 75A. Deposit: Returned Appeal No 15. Misbid Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Nissan Rand (Israel). Ladies Teams Round 9 Sweden v the Netherlands

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Simons	Andersson	Pasman	Midskog
-	-	1	Pass
2	Dble	2	Pass
3NT	Pass	4	All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, played by East Result: twelve tricks, +680 to East/West The Facts: Two Clubs was alerted on both sides of the screen, but North did not ask what it meant and doubled to show clubs. South did ask what Two Clubs meant, namely natural or heart fit with as little as 2 points. South subsequently explained the double as Take-Out. West claims she would have bid Two No-Trumps (forcing), if she had known that the Double of Two Clubs showed clubs They might then have reached Six Hearts. The Director: Adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to Six Hearts, making, +1430 to East/West. North/South appealed. The players: West feared that because of the Take-Out Double behind her, the suits would be breaking badly for her, and that was why she had taken a rather conservative action. The Committee: Decided that North/South had been lucky in the bidding. North did not ask for the meaning and consequently made a wrong bid. The explanation by South was however correct, and so East/West cannot claim any redress. The Committee's decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result restored. +680 to East/West Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Returned Appeal No 16. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Senior Teams Round 10 Ireland v Sweden 3

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jensen	Dowling	Troberg	Hanratty
-	-	-	1
Pass	1	Pass	3
Pass	4	Pass	4
Pass	4NT	Pass	5
Pass	5	Pass	6
Pass	6	All Pass

Contract: Six Spades, played by North Lead: Two of Hearts Result: twelve tricks, +1430 to North/South The Facts: Five Spades was bid after a substantial pause, and East/West complained about South's subsequent bid of Six Diamonds. Five Hearts had been Roman Key Card Blackwood, but North/South had been insecure about the meaning of their bidding before that. South had understood 4 to show diamond support and he was surprised at the call of 5, perhaps meant as a sign-off to 5NT. The Director: Considered that the pause made it easier for South to bid on to the slam level. Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Spades, making twelve tricks, +680 to North/South. North/South appealed. The players: North/South admitted to the pause, which was agreed to be long, if maybe not as long as East claimed (2 minutes). South stated the pause had nothing to do with his bid of Six Diamonds. He had made a mess of the auction, and decided to get back to his trump suit. According to South, the meaning of the bidding was: 3 strong, 4 forcing, ongoing, 4 showing the Ace, 4NT RKCB agreeing diamonds. According to North, no trump suit had been agreed and 5 was meant as a sign-off. The Committee: Believed that North/South were honest, but still considered that Pass was a Logical Alternative, and that Six Diamonds may well have been suggested by the break in tempo. South should not have returned to his own suit. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned Appeal No 17. Misinformation, Self-Protection, Procedural Penalty Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 18 Monaco v Lebanon

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Baroudy	Guglielmi	Hamdan	Gavino
1	Pass	1NT	2
Pass	5	All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs, played by North Result: eight tricks, -300 to North/South The Facts: Two Hearts was explained by South to West as «any two-suiter». North explained it as «Ghestem, clubs and spades» and bid accordingly. East called the director, claiming he would have doubled with the correct information. While the Director was at the table, North told South under the screen, in French, to state to the Tournament Director that South had made a wrong call. Both opponents and the director heard and understood this remark. The Director: Ruled that South had given a wrong explanation of his own bid and considered that West could have doubled with a correct explanation Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Clubs, doubled, three down, -800 to North/South. North/South appealed. The players: North/South showed their convention card to prove that they did play Ghestem. They stated that they also played this after 1H-Pass-1NT. West stated that South had waited a long time before making his final pass. He had even gone into the bidding box and had touched the Six Clubs card. All this influenced him in not doubling. South agreed that he had thought, and even touched his bidding cards, but that it was Five Diamonds he was thinking off. He did not see very clearly, so he may have touched the 6C-card. West also explained his pass by pointing to his club holding. If the Clubs are mainly to his left, he is far less certain of making two tricks in the suit than if they are more evenly distributed. As regards the remarks made in French when the Director was at the table, North claimed he had said «comme d'habitude tu as oublié le système» (as usual you have forgotten the system). East stated it had been «surtout dis à l'arbitre que tu as oublié le système» (certainly tell the director that you have forgotten the system). The Director confirmed that the second version was what she had heard too. The Committee: Found that North/South, by their misbid / misexplanation, had caused damage to East/West. They should receive, in accordance with Law 12C2, the most unfavourable result that is at all probable, which according to the Committee should be –800. The Committee then turned their attention to West. Several reasons were listed to explain why he had passed. If South's hesitation had played any part, this was of no consequence, since the Committee did not feel that South had done this deliberately and that any conclusions West drew from this were at his own risk. Finally the Committee gave the most weight to the consideration that West should realise that 5 was a very strange bid (North had not bid 2 or 4 in the first round - 3 would have shown a two- suiter). West could have asked South for a more complete explanation, especially since he was last in hand and any questions he would ask would be of dummy, not of declarer. That might have cleared the situation more for him. Finally the Committee turned its attention to North's remark to his partner at the table, trying to influence his partner's explanation to the Tournament Director. This was deemed a serious attempt to influence the fact-finding mission of the Director, which the Committee found completely unacceptable. The Committee decided to give North/South a penalty of 2VP for this action. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to: For North/South: -800 For East/West: +300 2VP penalty to North/South Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2 Law 90A, Law 90B8 Deposit: Returned Appeal No 18. Misbid Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark). Open Teams Round 19 Netherlands v San Marino

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
de Boer	Fiorini	Muller	Briolini
-	-	-	1
Pass	1	2	2NT
4	5	Pass	Pass
5	Dble	5	All Pass

Contract: Five Hearts, played by East Result: twelve tricks, +480 to East/West The Facts: One Diamond could be short, since North/South play a strong club system. Two No- Trumps was explained by South as showing a spade fit, but by North as showing the minors. When the tray came back with a bid of Five Clubs, South realised he had made a mistake and he corrected the explanation. East/West claim they could have bid the slam if they had received correct information. The Director: Found there had been no misinformation, and even no damage. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: North/South explained their system: without intervention, 1D-1S-2NT would have shown minors, whereas 1S-2NT shows the spade fit. With intervention, this is basically the same, even if they could not prove this by their convention card. This was the reason South gave for his mistaken bid. When the tray came back, his explanation was «maybe partner thinks I have shown minors». East explained that he had not bid further than 5 because he knew the diamonds could very well be 5-0 and he feared a ruff coming from that suit. This was the same reason he gave for not redoubling, since he already knew the slam would not be made. The Committee: Concluded that North had given the correct information about the agreements. Although East had drawn a correct conclusion, he was not damaged by any misexplanation, but rather by South's misbid. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 19. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Senior Teams Round 11 Italy 2 v Great Britain 2

Board 18 N/S Game Dealer East	NORTH   J 8   K Q 10 9 7 3   J 10 6 5 4   -
WEST   K Q 10 9 7 2   J 6   7   10 7 5 2		EAST   A   5   A Q 8 2   A K Q 8 6 4 3
	SOUTH   6 5 4 3   A 8 4 2   K 9 3   J 9

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Silverstone	Longinotti	Waterlow	Resta
-	-	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	3	Pass
3	Pass	4	Pass
4	Pass	6	All Pass

Contract: Six Clubs, played by East Result: twelve tricks, +920 to East/West The Facts: There had been different explanations on either side of the screen. 2 was Forcing to Game, and 2NT showed any good six card suit headed by KQJ at least. According to West, 3 and 4 had been asking relays, and he had shown a spade suit by his bid of 3, and only six spades (by his 4). According to East, 3, 3 and 4 had been natural, and 4 was a cue-bid. North/South claimed they could have sacrificed in Six Hearts if North had received the explanations West had provided. North would then have doubled 3 and South would have bid 4. The Director: Considered that 6 would certainly have been doubled, and probably four down (-1100 to North/South), so he ruled there had been no damage. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: East/West, by way of their captain, explained the misunderstanding. West did play these meanings with another partner, but not in this partnership. North stated he did now not ask redress from a possible sacrifice, but from interventions by North/South that might keep East/West out of slam. The Committee: Found that a player who did not intervene over 2NT, when holding a 6-5 in the red suits, and some playing strength, would not intervene later either. The Committee found that there was really no reason for North/South to appeal. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 20. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 21 Monaco v Czech Republic

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Lariviere	Fort	Allavena	Jansa
-	1NT	2	Dble
2	Dble	All Pass

Contract: Two Spades doubled, played by West Result: two tricks, -1700 to East/West The Facts: West called the director during board 15 of the match. South had intended the double over the Multi as a penalty in diamonds. On the other side, the Double had been explained as penalty over one of the Majors. This difference in explanation was supposedly the reason for the strange final contract. West intended his Spade bid to be «pass or correct», whereas over a penalty double over Majors, the bid would indicate an independent spade suit. The Director: Gathered these facts but found no reason to change the score. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: West told the Committee that over a Double over their 2, which showed diamonds, they just bid as if there had been no Double. But when the Double would show penalty over one or both Majors, they would bid their own suit, or pass without an own suit. The Committee: Asked the pair if they could show this system on paper, but they could not. They did not play exactly the same defence over a Multi-2D opening, as there would be far less likely that a double in that case would be a penalty for majors. Since they were deemed unable to provide proof of that their system was as they described it, the Committee found that there was no reason to rule in favour of East/West. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A Deposit: Returned. Appeal No 21. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 20 Germany v Monaco

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Guglielmi	Frerichs	Gavino	Wenning
-	-	Pass	Pass
1NT	2NT	3	Pass
3NT	Pass	4	Pass
Pass	Dble	All Pass

Contract: Four Spades doubled, played by East. Lead: 8 Result: ten tricks, +790 to East/West. The Facts: Two No-Trumps showed any two-suiter, in a good hand. East's 3 was intended as a transfer to spades, and explained to North in that way. When the tray came to the South/West side however, the following sequence of events occurred: - South waited for an alert, which did not come; - West asked for the meaning of 2NT; - South wrote «any good two suiter» - West read on the paper « 4 + 4 », which had been an explanation of a few boards earlier. - South passed - West bid 3NT - The tray got passed through, and meanwhile West explained the 3 bid as showng a stopper. When the tray later came back with the 4 bid, there was first some confusion, after which it became clear that West had read the wrong line. South and West then called the Director, who told them to continue the bidding. After the play, North recalled the Director, claiming that if he had got the information that 3 showed a stopper, he would have not have doubled, but defended in Five Diamonds. The Director: Did not see there was any link between the misinformation and the possible damage. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: West and South explained the happenings at their side of the screen, as set out above. West added that he did in fact alert before South was able to pass, but this was denied by South. North explained that he had not acted over 3NT, hoping the opponents would play there. The Committee: Was sympathetic to West's mistake. South did in fact receive misinformation, but in the Committee's view this was not damaging to South. The Committee further concluded that North had received correct information, and that the bad result was due to his decision to double, and to South's lead, but not to any form of infraction by East/West. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A Deposit: Returned, mainly due to the complexity of the problem in South/West. Appeal No 22. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 20 Spain v Slovenia

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Senk	Goded	Ambroz	Lantaron
-	-	Pass	Pass
1NT	2NT	3	Pass
3NT	Dble	4	Pass
4	Dble	All Pass

Contract: Four Spades doubled, played by West Result: ten tricks, +790 to East/West The Facts: This was the same hand as Appeal 21. North called the Director at the end of the hand. Three Diamonds had been explained to him as invitational in Spades, but West had told South it had promised a stopper in Diamonds. The Director: Found out that East and West, even after the hand was over, could not agree on the true meaning of Three Diamonds. East said they had recently agreed upon the meaning «invitational in spades», but West couldn't recall. The Director did not see how the different explanation could be the reason for the bad result to North/South. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: In the Committee, West stated that East's explanation had been correct. North said that he had originally planned upon going to 5 or 6 in some minor. But then East had indicated Spades, and West had indicated he lacked spades but was holding a diamond stopper. Therefore North suspected some bad misfits around the table. That was why he had doubled. North/South told the Committee that there had also been some hesitation in East/West's bidding. They had not told this to the Director at the table. East/West disputed there had been more than normal breaks in tempo. They had of course alerted and explained their actions, but had not paused for thought in the bidding. The Committee: Decided not to consider any breaks in tempo. Since these had not been brought to the attention of the Director at the table, there was now no way to properly establish whether or not there had been unauthorised information. The Committee would give a ruling on misinformation, since East/West were unable to prove that either explanation was correct. However, the Committee found the link between the possible misinformation and North's decision to double too small to warrant giving an adjusted score. North decided to double Four Spades and should live with the consequences. As to East/West, the Committee decided they could be allowed to keep their good score, as they were guilty of nothing worse than incomplete agreements. Often, a bidding misunderstanding leads to a bad score. When occasionally it leads to a good one, the mere fact of the misunderstanding is not enough reason to take the good score away. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Returned, but only just. Appeal No 23. Procedural Penalty Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Senior Teams Round 17 The Facts: One of the players of this match was 3 minutes late to arrive at the table. The Director: Applied the penalty, prescribed in the regulations. Ruling: 1VP Penalty The Player appealed. The Player: Is a well known personality, who had been in an official meeting prior to the match. He thought it was unfair to his team to punish them for his engagements. He always plays fast enough and in fact ended the match with almost half an hour to spare. The Committee: Noted that the regulations contain automatic penalties for some good reasons. The Committee did not accept the excuse for being late and did not think that the case should have been put before the Committee. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Regulation B.2.1 Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 24. Misinformation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Herman De Wael sat in on the meeting to be able to act as Scribe. Ladies Teams Round 18 Italy v Belgium

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jeunen	Rosetta	Hardeman	De Lucchi
-	-	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	4NT	Pass
6	Pass	7	Dble
7NT	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Seven No-Trumps, doubled, played by West. Lead: Ten of Hearts Result: thirteen tricks, +2490 to East/West The Facts: Two Clubs could show any of three possibilities: weak with 4-4 in the Majors, any Semi- Game-Forcing hand, or a very strong balanced hand (24+). Two-No-Trumps was a strong forcing relay, showing 14 points or more, but the meaning of rest of the bidding was not clear: According to West, 4NT showed the strong balanced hand, and 6 was natural, with the intention of playing there. According to East, 4NT was Blackwood, and she explained to North that she was uncertain of the situation and that she regarded the call of 6 to be natural but that it could also be 2 aces and a heart void. The Director: Did not find any damage. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: North explained that after the explanation that maybe West held a heart void, South could well have the Ace in that suit, and this is why she led Hearts. East explained that all she had wanted to know after partner had shown 14 points, was the number of Aces. They don't play answers at the six level, so all she did was answer to North: «I don't understand nothing» (sic) West explained she had bid Seven No-Trumps, because nobody knew about her second suit. The Committee: Was quite clear: Life is like that. More often than not, you benefit from opponent's errors. The Committee felt the appeal basically had no merit but decided not to keep the deposit because of the confusion in the bidding at the high level. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Returned, but only just. Appeal No 25. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 24 Croatia v Monaco

Board 16 E/W Game Dealer West	NORTH   K 10 9 2   J 10   3   A Q J 6 4 2
WEST   8 4   Q 8 7 5   A J 9 7 6 4   10		EAST   Q 6 5 3   A K 9 3   10   9 7 5 3
	SOUTH   A J 7   6 4 2   K Q 8 5 2   K 8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Guglielmi	Miladin	Gavino	Diklic
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	2	Pass	3
Dble	Pass	3	3
4	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, doubled, played by East. Result: six tricks, -1100 to East/West The Facts: Two Clubs showed 11-16, six cards in clubs, Two Diamonds was a relay, and Two Spades showed exactly four cards in spades. Three Diamonds was explained as forcing by South to West, but as non-forcing by North to East. The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation and that West would not open the bidding if he had received the other explanation. Although he could not tell in which contract North/South would end up, several of them would end up one down. Ruling: Score adjusted to –50 to North/South North/South appealed. The players: North/South were unclear about the meaning of Three Diamonds. Their system notes were quite elaborate about the meaning of Two No-Trumps (the next asking relay), but nothing was there about the alternatives. According to South, West had doubled first, and only later asked about the meaning of Three Diamonds. West denied this. West explained that over the forcing Three Diamonds, he doubled to show his diamond suit, meanwhile also asking for the lead. When his partner bid a (in his view) free Three Hearts, he felt he should raise this to Four, because he thought that partner had good hearts and something in diamonds. East explained that since to him Three Diamonds had been explained as non forcing, he interpreted the double to be for Take-Out, so he duly bid his heart suit. South told the Committee that he had explained his bid of Three Spades also as forcing. The Committee: Accepted that the double had been misexplained to West, and would have ruled in favour of East/West in case the auction had ended in Three Hearts doubled. The Committee found that West - whose partner had not overcalled in hearts, and having been told that both 3 and 3 were forcing - had produced a bad bid in going for Four Hearts, and that East/West should keep their –1100 as a result. The Committee felt that North/South, although they had contributed in the mistake, would be allowed to keep their good score. The Committee did not find it normal that a pair come to European Championships without an understanding about the second level bidding of a quite normal, uncontested bidding sequence. The Committee's decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result restored. North/South fined half a VP for different explanation in a simple auction. Relevant Laws: Law 75A Law 74B1 Deposit: Returned Appeal No 26. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 25 Ireland v Portugal

Board 20 Game All Dealer West	NORTH   9 7   A K 9 8 7 6 5   8 3   10 2
WEST   K 8 5 4 3 2   10 2   J 7   A 9 8		EAST   A Q 10   Q 3   10 9 5 4 2   J 7 6
	SOUTH   J 6   J 4   A K Q 6   K Q 5 4 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Sa	Keaveney	Barbosa	Timlin
2	Pass	3	Pass
Pass	4	All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, played by North Result: ten tricks, +620 to North/South The Facts: Two Spades was weak, and Three Spades was pre-emptive, partner should not bid Four. The tray had come back from South/West, after a considerable delay. All the players agreed the break in tempo had been of the order of 90 seconds. The Director: Found that Four Hearts by North was an action that was suggested by the break in tempo and that Passing would have been a Logical Alternative. Ruling: Score adjusted to –200 to East/West North/South appealed. The players: Did not deny the break in tempo. North explained he was not able to bid Three Hearts in his system, but when he learnt from East that East/West did not have game values, he felt that Four Hearts was a self- evident call. He had asked about the meaning of 3 once again, especially since he was aware of the pause and knew the Director would be called. He explained his decision by counting points. His partner held at least the values of a weak No-Trump opening, and he would always raise that to game on this hand. He thought some 90% of players would bid 4 on his hand. East/West pointed out that the break in tempo makes the call of 4 to be less risky. The Committee: Found the call of Four Hearts to be quite reasonable, but was not certain that it was the only Logical alternative. A 7222 distribution with 6½ losers is not very good, and two spade losers are very likely. The hesitation took away all doubts that could very well have remained in a substantial minority of players. Ton Kooijman's analysis in a previous article suggests that the definition of a logical alternative in the EBL should be: A Logical Alternative is any action that would be taken by some of the players' peers, where some has to be interpreted as around 25%. The Committee felt that Pass was a logical alternative. The Committee also found that the Director had been wrong in calculating the Adjusted score. If North is deemed to have passed, West will play three Spades and is very likely to make 8 tricks. The Committee's decision: Director's decision changed, Score adjusted to Three Spades down One, -100 to East/West. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned