44th European Team Championships
Appeals 27-38

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Bitran	Szalay	Voldoire	Szilagyi
1	Pass	1	4
Dble	All Pass

Contract: Four Diamonds, played by South. Lead: Ace of Clubs Play:

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
A	3	7	2
8	5	9	A
5	8	6	A
K	xx	7	J

Result: claimed for nine tricks by South, -100 to North/South The Facts: One Diamond showed hearts. The Director had earlier been called to this table, during the auction of this deal, by South, who complained that when he had asked about the meaning of the Double, West had responded in a loud voice «punitif!». That had however nothing to do with the later ruling, or with this appeal. After trick four, South claimed the remainder of the tricks, minus the queen of diamonds and the ace of spades, that is a total of nine tricks. A score of –100 was entered on the score form. 27 minutes after the end of the match, the defenders came to the Director, wishing to withdraw acquiescence to the claim. When West returns a heart in trick five, there is no way the defence can avoid going two down. The Director: Applied Law 69B, which says that a trick is transferred only when all normal lines of play result in a different outcome. He considered a club or spade return also as normal. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: East showed the Committee that he was quite aware of how the play had gone so far. South admitted that he had improperly claimed before West had the chance to return the Heart. East/West stated they had acquiesced in the claim, counting on the good intentions of South, and because of time pressure. The Committee: Read Law 69B: Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. and the footnote which defines the word «normal»: For the Purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, «normal» includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. The withdrawal of the acquiescence was within the correction period, so the Director, and now the Committee, had to decide whether or not there were normal lines that lead to nine tricks. If any of those lines could be found, the claim had to stand. The Committee noted that in the definition of the word «normal», there is a reference to the class of player, which was in this case very high. The Committee came to a first conclusion that said that if West returns a Heart, no normal line will then lead to anything more than eight tricks. So the Committee had to decide on the normality of some other return than a heart at trick five. The Committee regretted that South had claimed at precisely this moment. The Committee accepted that it would be irrational for a player of West's ability to do anything other than continue with the hearts. He had already shown, by discontinuing his Club start at trick two, that he had read East's length signal on trick one, and he is able to recognize that there is no imperative to lead a Spade – the trick cannot disappear. Furthermore, his partner's nine was very helpful. A player of his quality will not get it wrong. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to eight tricks, -300 to North South Relevant Laws: Law 69B Deposit: Returned Separate decision of the Committee: The Committee took note of the happenings earlier on the board and found the alleged events disturbing. The Committee asked the Director to investigate, giving the ruling he had not given at the time, and applying a penalty if this appeared appropriate. (The Director subsequently held his investigation and decided to give a warning but no penalty) Appeal No 28. Misexplanation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Anton Maas (the Netherlands) , Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Ladies Teams Round 16 Israel v Sweden

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Goldberg	Zur-Campanile	Gronkvist	Levit-Porat
-	-	1	1NT
Dble	All Pass

Contract: One No-Trump, doubled, played by South Result: five tricks, -500 to North/South The Facts: This is the same hand as on appeal 29. West had intended her double as penalty, and had not alerted it. East explained the double to be Take-Out. North called the Director, saying that if she had known East could pass the double, she would have bid Two Clubs, waited for the Double, and Redouble for SOS to finally find the Spade contract. The Director: Accepted that it was a case of misexplanation but judged all other possible results to be equal to –500. Ruling: No Damage - Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: North explained that she had written on a piece of paper «is it penalty or take-out», to which West had answered by underlining take-out. That paper was available at the hearing. East stated she had at first tried to explain that the Double showed either four cards in spades and the other suits, or some good hand. She had also written 8+ on a paper, but this paper was no longer to be found. She agreed that she had answered Take-Out by underlining this, but stressed that the Take-Out double promises 8+ HCP. West stated that the double showed 8+, nothing else. East explained why she had passed the double if she did not believe it to be for penalties, by stating that she had no other suit to run to and wanted to defend. North claimed that it was not certain that they would end up in Two Spades doubled. The opponents might have bid on. They might decide not to double. She might go less than two down. The Committee: Decided that the Director had ruled correctly. There had indeed been misinformation. However, there was no reason to believe that any alternative contract to one No-Trump doubled would not be at least two down doubled, which made the appeal without merit. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 29. Inference from Opponent's Action Appeals Committee: Anton Maas (Chairman, the Netherlands), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), , Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Ladies Teams Round 16 Denmark v Iceland

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

Contract: One No-Trump, played by South Result: four tricks, -300 to North/South The Facts: This appeal was on the same hand as appeal 28. North took some time to pass over One No-Trump and this influenced East into inaction. At the end of the play, East called the Director. She claimed she would have reopened the bidding with a Double, which West would have left in. The Director: Asked North to confirm the nature and length of the pause. She had indeed showed a slight hesitation, thinking of bidding Two Clubs, which was non-forcing Stayman. The Director ruled that North had had a bridge reason for her actions and that therefore East had drawn inferences at her own risk. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: North explained that she had indeed thought about initiating a non-forcing Stayman sequence. She may have shown this to East. South stated that at that side the hesitation was not noticed. The Committee: Decided that the Director had ruled correctly. Law 73F2 says: if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C) The Committee decided that North did have a bridge reason for her slight pause, and that therefore the inference that East took was completely at her own risk. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 73F2, Law 73D1 Deposit: Returned, but only just Appeal No 30. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 29 Israel v Czech Republic

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Svoboda	Tur	Kurka	Greenberg
-	3	Pass	Pass
Dble	All Pass

Contract: Three Diamond doubled, played by North Result: six trick, -800 to North/South. The Facts: This board also featured in appeal 33. North called the Director when the dummy came down. He told the Director that East had been thinking for a long time before passing, and that this might have influenced West in doubling. Neither South, nor his Captain, who was scoring at his side, had called the Director. South had even gone to the toilet immediately after spreading his hand. The Director: Found that since South did apparently not remark the hesitation it is not clear that there had in fact been unauthorised information for West, who was therefore free to double. The Director also pointed out that North was dealer, and that a pause is therefore less clearly attributable to East. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: East admitted that he had thought for about one minute. North had been very quick in bidding Three Diamonds, and he had to work out what was best for him. First he thought of bidding 3NT, but in the end, he chose to take the certain route to +300 or +400 by passing. North stated that he could not call the Director any earlier than he did. South stated that he did remark the break in tempo, and even checked the board to see who was dealer. West said he did not remark the hesitation, since it was the first round of bidding. The Committee: Was unanimous in deciding that West should have passed if he had been in the possession of unauthorised information. The Committee was divided in its determination of this unauthorised information. All the members agreed that in the first round of bidding, it is unwise to stick to a strict application of the 15 second rule (note). A majority in the Committee felt that the pause of 1 minute is for sure enough to be considered unauthorised information. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to Three Diamonds, not doubled, down three, -300 to North/South Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned Minority Opinion: by Peter Lund and Herman De Wael We are strongly of the opinion that it should be the partner at the side of the screen opposite the hesitation (in this case South), who should call in some way attention to the perceived hesitation, and thus prove that the unauthorised information reached the other side. We feel that South did exactly the opposite, by leaving the table after tabling his dummy. In the absence of proof that West was in the possession of unauthorised information, we feel that the result should have stood. Note: "the 15 second rule" In the Conditions of Contest, in use in Malta, there was a regulation : C.1.3 The International Code of Duplicate Laws is in effect except as specified below: … LAW 73D: … A delay of the bidding tray on one side of the screen of up to 15 seconds (at any time during the auction and whether or not out of tempo) shall not give rise to any inference of unauthorized information. Players are advised to vary the time the tray is passed so that pauses of up to 15 seconds can be considered normal. Appeal No 31. Psychic Call Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 29 Portugal v Romania

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Popescu	Diegues	Feber	Castanheira
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1	1	Dble
1	2	Pass	3
All Pass

Contract: Three Clubs, played by North Result: 11 tricks, +150 to North/South The Facts: One Heart was a psychic call. The Director: Applied Law 40A, and found no evidence of anything wrong in East/West. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: North/South felt that East should have bid 2 or even 3. They have 8 cards in hearts (or that is what East should believe), so why did they let North/South play 2 or 3? West stated that with a hand like this, he would try a psyche of this nature even in an individual tournament. There can be no question of illegal partnership understanding. One partner lives in Paris, the other in Romania. They had met only once in the past 12 years, and the Romanian federation decided to align them in partnership only two weeks before the tournament. Since then, they had played with each other for 50 boards over the Internet, and of course a few hundred boards here. East stated he did not find it right to raise to Two Hearts when South had made a negative Double and North had made the strong bid of Two Diamonds. West found the usage of the words «controlled psyche» by opponents inappropriate. The Committee: Found that the Director had done enough to ascertain that East/West were not guilty of anything untoward. This was a psyche, as permitted by Law 40A. A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. The Committee was of the opinion that this case should not have been brought to the Committee. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 32. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands). Open Teams Round 30 Poland v Italy

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Duboin	Tuszynski	Bocchi	Jassem
-	-	2	Pass
2	Pass	Pass	3
Pass	Pass	Dble	Redble
3	Dble	Pass	4
All Pass

Contract: Four Clubs, played by South. Result: seven tricks, -300 to North/South The Facts: Two clubs showed 3-10 points, at least 4-4 in the Majors. East's Double over 3 was for take-out, showing a maximum opening. North's Double was after a hesitation of more than one minute. West called the Director immediately after the call of Four Clubs. The Director: Changed the result Ruling: Score adjusted to Three Spades doubled, made, +530 to East/West. North/South appealed. The players: North admitted his pause for thought. East/West told it was 5 minutes long. North had never seen this auction. First an intervention of 3, and then a Redouble. It must mean a good suit, and something more. He was trying to work out how South would interpret his Double and finally came to the conclusion that he could indeed Double, knowing that South would understand it as asking for a spade stopper in order to play 3NT. South explained that his Redouble would normally show some offensive values. West pointed out that it was clear that North/South had not discussed this sequence, but that by thinking for 5 minutes North transferred the meaning that the Double was not for penalties. The Committee: Considered the hesitation to be proven. The Committee concluded that the answers to three questions were all that was needed, and that these were surprisingly easy: 1) was there unauthorised information? Yes 2) did the unauthorised information suggest bidding? Yes 3) is Pass a logical alternative? Yes The decision was then so straightforward that the Committee was close to keeping the money. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned, but only just Appeal No 33. Prior Disclosure of System Appeals Committee: Anton Maas (Chairman, the Netherlands), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark). Open Teams Round 29 Iceland v Cyprus

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Daverona	Magnus	Christofides	Throstur
-	3	Dble	All Pass

Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by North Result: six tricks, -800 to North/South The Facts: This hand also appeared in Appeal 30. Before the match, North/South presented East/West with a convention card that contained a few changes. East/West agreed to play. After this hand, North complained to the Director that one of the changes was from Take- Out Doubles over pre-empts to Fishbein (penalty doubles). North claimed he would not have opened 3 if he had known this in advance. The Director: Decided that North/South had agree to play, that the change was clearly marked, and that in any case the hand was worth a pre-emptive opening. Ruling: Result Stands 1VP penalty to East/West for changing their system without the approval of the Appeal Committee. North/South appealed. The players: East, also the Captain, explained that he had sent in a convention card some weeks before the tournament, and that they had made some alterations during the last weeks of coaching. He had come with a changed convention card to the line-up desk, and apparently they had not told him what to do. He had played the same convention card throughout the tournament and nobody had complained. North told the Committee that he had strict orders from his captain not to open in his usual aggressive style against penalty doublers. The Captain told the Committee that Fishbein was one of the conventions he looked for in the opponent's cards, and he told his players before the match. When asked, he could provide the names of at least one pair in the championship that played penalty doubles over pre-empts. The Committee: Reached a split decision. The majority found that North, in accepting to play, had forfeited his rights to prior knowledge of opponent's system. The changes were clearly marked and if North had asked the Director for some extra time, he would have got it. That would have been ample time to agree on the aggressiveness of the pre-empts. One member of the Committee wanted to be more strict. The system of prior lodging of systems exists to enable captains to prepare their players. The players should not be asked to do their captain's work at the table. It is a very rare occurrence to find that a team is actually damaged through failure to lodge systems, but when it does happen, the Committee should be extremely severe in giving the benefit of the doubt to the non- offenders. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40E1, Regulation A.6.2 Deposit: Returned Committee's note: It is prohibited to play any change in one's Convention Card before the changes have been approved by the chairman of the Appeals Committee. Appeal No 34. Hesitation Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, Great Britain), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 31 Croatia v Bulgaria

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Miladin	Karaivanov	Diklic	Trendafilow
Pass	Pass	1	1
Dble	2	3	4
Pass	Pass	Dble	Pass
5	All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs, played by East. Result: 10 tricks, -50 to East/West The Facts: One Club was strong, and the first Double showed 7 points or more. Two spades was artificial and showed heart support. East's Double came after an agreed hesitation of around 45 seconds. The Director: Ruled that a Pass for West was a logical alternative to the suggested action of pulling the slow double. Ruling: Score adjusted to Four Hearts doubled, made, +590 to North/South. East/West appealed The Players East/West explained that the pass of Four Hearts was forcing; on this type of sequence they cannot be pre-empted below their own game level (five clubs) and all passes below that are forcing. They were not able to arrive in five clubs more quickly because their methods are to reverse the usual principle that quick arrival indicates no interest in proceeding further. For this pair the delayed arrival is weaker than the quick arrival which would show a mild interest in slam. North/South did not wish to comment. The Committee: Was surprised to hear of the E/W style of bidding and considered it should be mentioned on the convention card. In the absence of such corroborative evidence, and since there was unauthorised information, the Committee decided against the East/West pair. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned Appeal No 35. Misinformation - No Damage Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, Great Britain), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 28 Greece v Liechtenstein

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Cesana	Filios	Zucchini	Papakyriakopoulos
-	Pass	Pass	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
4	Pass	4NT	Pass
6	All Pass

Contract: Six Spades, played by East Lead: small Club Result: 12 tricks, +1430 to East/West The Facts: Four Diamonds was alerted by East to North and explained as Splinter, but West explained it to South as a cue-bid. South claimed he would have led a diamond if he had received the explanation that Four Diamonds was a splinter. The Director: Considered the lead of a diamond to be normal whatever the explanation. Ruling: No Damage - Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: South stated that, having been informed that the Four Diamond bid was a cue, he assumed the hand lacked a control in Clubs. If not able to take Ace and King, he hoped to to find the Queen at least with partner. East and West admitted they had given different explanations of the bid either side of the screen. The Committee: Found that there was misinformation but also that there was no damage to North/South in consequence of the misinformation. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 36. Disputed Facts, Misinformation, Equity Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 33 France v Cyprus

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Multon	Koumas	Mari	Politis
-	1	Pass	4
Pass	5	Pass	5
Pass	6	All Pass

Contract: Six Spades, played by North Lead: queen of diamonds Result: 12 tricks, +1430 to North/South The Facts: Four Diamonds was explained on both sides as Splinter, but there was some disagreement about how and when this was done. According to West who asked about the meaning of 4 when the tray came back with 5, South said «Splinter» and only wrote it when West insisted. According to South, he had never said anything, and only written the response. East stated he had heard South, on the other side of the screen, say «Splinter», and North immediately thereafter said «of course 4 is splinter» before he bid 6. North stated he had alerted 4, East had asked nothing and North said he had heard nothing. The Director: Applied Law 85B: If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he shall make a ruling that will permit play to continue, and notify the players of their right to appeal. He ruled there had been no unauthorised information. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: Repeated their statements to the Director. East/West maintained that South had spoken, North/South denied this. North called his decision to go to slam a gamble, and he explained his decision to bypass naming the Heart control in the same manner: he did not want to tell the opponents. East tried to explain why he had led a diamond. He was certain from the bidding that North controlled the clubs and the hearts. During the explanations, it became obvious that North/South had a different definition of «Splinter» than what is the general understanding. When asked, both North and South explained that to them, a splinter showed trump agreement and a first round control, Ace or void. The Committee: Found that there was no clear evidence that North had used unauthorised information in bidding the slam. There had however been misexplanation towards East, and the Committee decided to take away the diamond lead from East. The Committee was not certain that East would always find a club lead, and decided to use Law 12C3: An appeals committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. The Committee decided to award the lead of clubs, and the slam going down, in 70% of the cases. The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to the weighted average of: 70% of Six Spades going one down, -100 to North/South 30% of Six Spades making, +1430 to North/South The same score should go to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C3 Deposit: Returned Final result of the match: The result at the other table was +680 to North/South. The balance is then: 70% of (-100-680 = -13IMPs) + 30% of (+1430-680 = +13IMPs) = -5.2 IMPs, rounded in favour of the non-offending side, so 6 IMPs in favour of the team of East/West at this table (France). Appeal No 37. Inference from Opponent's Action Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 33 France v Cyprus

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Multon	Koumas	Mari	Politis
1	2	3	Pass
4	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts doubled, played by West. Result: 9 tricks, -200 to East/West The Facts: Three Hearts was a limit bid. South asked about the meaning of Three Hearts before passing. North thought before his pass, and this hesitation was not denied. West thought to conclude from South's actions that the trumps might be 0-4, and so he played a spade from the table at trick two. When this was ruffed by North, there was no way he could avoid going one down. The Director: Ruled that South did indeed have a bridge problem, which makes that West takes the conclusions from South's hesitations at his own risk Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: West took the view that South should not double without four trumps, after the hesitation by North. He explained that his plan was logical given these considerations. The Committee: Decided that the Director had ruled correctly when he let the score stand. West could easily well have concluded that South's hesitation after 3 may well have been an indication that South held four spades. There was clearly no damage to East/West. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 73D1 Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No 38. Card Played Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (Great Britain), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands), Krzysztof Martens (Poland). Open Teams Round 34 Italy v Ireland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Timlin	De Falco	Keaveney	Ferraro
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	Pass	1NT	Pass
2	Pass	2	Pass
2	Pass	2NT	All Pass

Contract: Two No-Trumps Lead: two of spades Result: eight tricks, +120 to East/West The Facts: After six tricks, this was what was left:             NORTH   -   Q   K 7   7 6 5 3 WEST   8   J 9 5   A 8   4 EAST   -   -   J 9 4   A K J 4 SOUTH   -   7   5 2   Q 10 8 2 Declarer East now played small diamond to dummy and called for the eight. North thought he heard the «ace» and played the seven. The Director: Established that the eight had been called for, and ruled that the seven was played. The eight made the trick. Ruling: trick seven to dummy with the eight. North/South appealed. The players: North admitted that he had played before the dummy had touched the card that was called for. He pointed out that declarer spoke in a very strange accent. East also related the story, during which several members of the Committee had to ask whether he said «eight» or «ace», since both sounded something like «aitch». When West related the story, the same similarity in pronunciation was noticeable. The Committee: Found that the Director had ruled correctly. Dummy had played the card that declarer had called out. North should not have played too soon. The Committee's decision: Director's decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 45B Deposit: Returned, because the Committee had experienced first hand the same language difficulties that North had faced.