Board 19 East/West Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   K 8 6 4 2   Q J 3   A 8 4 2   A
WEST   10 3   A 7 5   J 6   K 10 8 6 5 2		EAST   J 9 7   8 6 4   10 7 5 3   J 9 3
	SOUTH   A Q 5   K 10 9 2   K Q 9   Q 7 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Dudzik	Cibarelli	Kusion	Spirito
-	-	-	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	3
Pass	6NT	All Pass

Contract: 6 No-Trumps, played by South Lead: Ten of Spades Result: 12 tricks made, +990 to North-South The Facts: North had first made a call of One Spade, before he noticed the 1NT opening by his partner. When attention was drawn to this by East, North changed his call to Two Spades. East accepted the change without calling the director. Two Spades, according to the system, was a transfer to clubs, and South explained it like this to West, and presumably also by North to East. After the opening lead, West called the director. The Director: established these facts with the help of Polish and Italian translators and determined that 2 Spades was indeed a transfer to clubs according to the system. Ruling: no misinformation, score stands. East-West appealed. The Players: No extra information was brought forward at the hearing. West stated that he would have led Clubs if he had had the correct information. The Appeal Committee: West had received the correct information about the system. There is no infraction and therefor no reason for a score adjustment. Since a Polish Director had explained this ruling in Polish, to the Polish Pair, the Committee felt the appeal was totally without merit. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +990 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Forfeited Comments: Despite the simplicity of this case, it raises some points of note for players: 1) When screens are in use, an insufficient call may be changed without penalty, if attention is drawn to the irregularity before the tray is passed to the other side. 2) The change can be to any other call. 3) If screens were not in use here, it is wrong to assume that the simple raise can be done without penalty. In the 1997 Laws, there has been a change, making the correction to an artificial call (such as the transfer bid of Two Spades used here) no longer possible without penalty. Appeal 2 Appeal Committee: Steen Møller (Denmark), Chairman, Apolinary Kowalski (Poland), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Qualifying session 1 Poland v Poland

Board 1 None Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   K 9 5   A J 5   Q   A K Q J 5 3
WEST   Q 10 8 3 2   Q 10 8 4 2   3   7 4		EAST   A J   7 6   A K 10 9 6 5 4   10 6
	SOUTH   7 6 4   K 9 3   J 8 7 2   9 8 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jellinek	Zakrzewski	Jellinek	Piasecki
-	1	1	Pass
1	2	3	Dbl
3	3NT	Pass	Pass
4	Dbl	Pass	Pass
4	Dbl	Pass	Pass
5	Dbl	All Pass

Contract: 5 Hearts Doubled, played by West Result: 5 Down, -1100 to East-West The Facts: 1 Club was Polish, and the 1 Diamond overcall could show several different kinds of hands. 2 Diamonds was explained differently at either side of the screen. The Director: The Director was unable to fully establish the facts, due to language problems. He called in a Polish colleague, but that too proved a long process, which did not result in a quick solution as the evening progressed. Ruling: Average (50%) to both sides. North-South appealed. The Players: With the help of the Polish Appeal Committee member, the following facts were established: On the North-East side of the screen, 1 Diamond was explained as "Diamonds or 1 Major suit (7-12HCP)". North then explained his 2 Diamond bid as asking for a stopper. On the East-West side of the screen, the opinions differed: According to South, 1 Diamond was explained to him as "4-4 Majors", and so he explained 2 Diamonds as "Natural, Strong, 5 Clubs and 4 Diamonds". According to West, he explained 1 Diamond as "anything except a 5-card Major", and that is why he interpreted 3 Diamonds as "close to 12HCP with both Majors". The Convention Card indicated 1 Diamond as being "7-12HCP, no Major suit". The Appeal Committee: decided that if there had been misinformation by North-South about the meaning of 2 Diamonds, then this was largely due to the differing explanations of the 1 Diamond overcall. East-West are to blame for their own bad result. The Committee asked the Director to check if the 1 Diamond bid constituted a "Brown Sticker" convention. It does not, because only overcalls over natural openings of 1 in a suit are subject to limitations, and a bid of 1 Polish Club is not considered a natural opening. Decision: Table result restored, -1100 to both sides. Deposit: Returned Appeal 3 Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Germany v Italy

Board 19 East/West Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   A Q J 4 3   A 7 4 3   4   J 7 6
WEST   K 8 6 2   K 9 8   A K 10 7 6   4		EAST   10 9 7 5   Q J 2   9 5 2   A K 5
	SOUTH   -   10 6 5   Q J 8 3   Q 10 9 8 3 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Rinaldi	Holowski	Fulca	Haas
-	-	-	2NT
Dble	4	Dble	5
Dble	All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs doubled, played by North Result: 9 tricks made, -300 to North-South The Facts: The double over Four Clubs was not alerted on either side, but South asked for the meaning and was told it was not for penalties. North received the same explanation. The Director: established that the Double was indeed not for penalties. Ruling: No misinformation, Result Stands North-South appealed. The Players: repeated their statements The Appeal Committee: saw no reason to change anything to the Director's decision and considered the Appeal to have no merit whatsoever. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -300 to both sides. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 4 Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Hungary v Poland

Board 27 Both Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   10 9 7 4 2   K Q 10   A 10 7   6 3
WEST   Q   J 9 6   Q J 9 6 5 4 3   K 7		EAST   J 6 3   A 8 7 5 2   K 8   A 10 8
	SOUTH   A K 8 5   4 3   2   Q J 9 5 4 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Honti	Kucharski	Vikor	Lutoslawski
-	-	-	1
3	Pass	Pass	Dble
Pass	3	All Pass

Contract: Three Spades, played by North Result: 9 tricks made, +140 to North-South The Facts: The Pass by North was made out of tempo. It was established that there was a pause of some 15 seconds, and that the tray had remained at the North-East side of the screen for about 25 seconds. The Director: established these facts and was told that the Double by South was automatic. Ruling: The hesitation did not influence South's bidding. Result stands. East-West appealed. The Players: North agreed he had thought before passing. It could well have been something like 15 seconds. South said that he had not noticed the delay and that he thought his action was automatic. The Convention Card indicated that the double was "reopening". West explained that at the table the players had not disagreed about a 30 second delay, and considered that he did not find the reopening Double automatic on a weak hand with singleton diamond. The Appeal Committee: Reached their conclusion in three stages: 1) The hesitation is established at 25 seconds 2) The reopening Double is not considered automatic and Pass should clearly be considered a logical alternative, so without screens a score adjustment should be in order 3) With screens however, it is not clear in this case if it is North or East who has broken tempo, and there is therefor no Unauthorized Information. Decision: Directorial Ruling changed to "no Unauthorized Information, Result Stands", +140 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 16 Deposit: Returned Appeal 5 Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Great Britain v Poland

Board 1 None Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   10 7   Q J 9   A 10 7 3 2   10 7 2
WEST   K 8 3   K 10 6 2   J 5   J 9 5 4		EAST   Q J 9 6   7 5 4   K 8   A Q 8 3
	SOUTH   A 5 4 2   A 8 3   Q 9 6 4   K 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Harasimowicz	Thomas	Hocherer	Goodman
-	Pass	1	Dble
1	2	Pass	2
All Pass

Contract: Two Spades, played by South Result: 6 tricks made, -100 to North-South The Facts: South understood the opening to be natural, and doubled for Take-Out. North considered the One Club opening to be of the Polish variety, in which case South's Double showed Hearts. This was the reason for the reaching of a poor contract. The Director: found there had been misinformation and damage, but could not establish a normal bridge result for North-South. Ruling: Artificial Adjusted score of Average Plus to North-South, Average Minus to East-West. East-West appealed. The Players: East-West presented their Convention Card which showed that the opening of One Club could signify several types of hands: 11-15 balanced, 18-24 balanced or natural, no 5-card Major, and that in all these types there is a minimum of 2 cards in Clubs. That is not the standard Polish Club system. West confirmed that the Convention Card was not at the table, and that when asked, she explained the call as "2 cards, normal". East had explained the same call as "may be strong, may be weak". North and South explained that their system indeed had different features for different types of One Club openings, and that they considered Polish Club to be like a strong Club. They would have treated this variant as a strong club system. The Appeal Committee: There is a strong obligation upon West to explain the system correctly. There is also an obligation upon South to clearly inquire about opponent's systems, especially when the meaning of your own call depends heavily on it. The Committee decided that it was West who had most clearly not completely fulfilled her obligations, and thus confirmed the Director's decision to award an adjusted score. The Committee also tried to find an adjusted score but finally decided to go with the Director and award an artificial score. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, Average Plus to North-South, Average Minus to East-West. South is urged to protect himself more fully. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1 Deposit: Returned Appeal 6 Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Qualifying session 3 Italy v Ireland

Board 12 North/South Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   A J 10 9 5   J 10 6   A   A J 10 2
WEST   4 3   -   K J 10 9 7 2   Q 8 6 4 3		EAST   Q 8 6 2   A K 8 5 3   Q 6 3   7
	SOUTH   K 7   Q 9 7 4 2   8 5 4   K 9 5

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Guariglia	Hanlon	Di Bello	McGann
3	Dble	3	Dble
4	Dble	4	4
All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, played by South Lead: Four of Spades Result: 9 tricks made, -100 to North-South The Facts: The jack of spades made the first trick, and declarer played the jack of hearts, covered with the King. Diamond to the ace and spade from the table, on which East discarded a diamond. The contract went one down, and several rounds later North-South realized that West must have revoked in the fourth trick. They called the director, who told them to go to their opponents. These immediately told West had discarded the three of spades in the second trick. When questioned about this by the Director, East said he had immediately known that was what he was going to ask because South had reacted surprised at the table at the time. The Director: established these facts and chose to follow his opinion in that there had indeed been a revoke. Although it was now too late to penalize the revoke, the Director should restore the table result to normal. If West does not revoke, South should make his contract. Ruling: Four Hearts just made, +620 to North-South East-West appealed. The Players: West repeated that he had thrown the three of spades on the second trick. He had done so in order to show partner his distribution. North told the story about how he had approached East and, without asking a question ("He did not even know if I wasn't just offering to buy him a beer"), East had offered the explanation that West had thrown the spade in trick two. East told the Committee that North had told him enough for him to realize what the question was about. This was a different explanation than the one he had given to the Tournament Director. South explained the line he had taken. He had counted West to 1075, and so East must have only 2 diamonds. That is why he ruffed just one diamond before endplaying East. East-West stated the hand had been completely played out, so that the revoke should have been discovered at the table. North-South maintained that only 11 tricks had actually been fully played, before West offered the rest to dummy. The Appeal Committee: decided: 1) that they had uncovered a lot of new facts concerning the case, none of which proved nor disproved the alleged revoke; 2) that in such a case the opinion of the Tournament Director, after he had investigated the facts should be trusted; 3) that there had had in fact been a revoke; 4) that without a revoke, South is quite likely to make his contract. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +620 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 64C Deposit: Returned Appeal 7 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 France v Germany

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Wladow	Coupere	Gromoller	Prevoteau
-	-	1	Pass
1	Pass	2	Pass
2	Pass	3	Pass
5	All Pass

Contract: Five Diamonds, played by East Lead: ace of spades Result: 10 tricks made, -100 to East-West The Facts: On the ace, North hesitated for some time before contributing the jack. South switched to hearts and the contract went one down. The Director: established that the jack was an encouraging signal, and the hesitation might have contributed the information that a switch was needed. Ruling: Unauthorized Information, score adjusted to 12 tricks, +620 for East-West. North-South appealed. The Players: North, translating for his partner, explained that South knew declarer had only one spade, and that the only way to defeat the contract was the heart switch. East explained that in their system, Precision, the bid of Three Hearts could have been done on AQ doubleton, in which case Souths deductions would have been wrong. South was surprised at this. She had not realized East-West were playing Precision and had worked out East to have 1354 shape. The Appeal Committee: realized that South had two reasons for the heart switch: her deduction, although erroneous, from the bidding, which is Authorized Information, and the hesitation which accompanied the jack, which is Unauthorized Information. When a player is in the possession of Unauthorized Information, he should not choose the alternative that is suggested by it, when there are logical alternatives present. The Appeal Committee felt that it was not sufficiently proven that the spade continuation was no longer a logical alternative, and therefor could do nothing but award the contract. It was felt by all present, including East-West, that the award of 12 tricks was very generous, and 11 tricks was a much more likely outcome. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed but slightly adjusted, -600 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 16A Deposit: Returned Appeal 8 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Great Britain v Poland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Kubicki	Rowlands	Czeczotko	Lee
-	Pass	Pass	1
1NT	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: six of diamonds Result: 9 tricks made, -600 to North-South The Facts: East-West were not certain of their system. According to East, Two Diamonds was a transfer to hearts, while according to West, it was asking for a stopper. That, and the resulting misinformation, was not the main complaint though. The problem was with South, who had asked West about Three Diamonds and had received a shrug in return, with a hesitant "control". When West later confidently bid Three No-Trumps, South concluded that he had a strong stopper, and did not return the suit, which might have defeated the contract. The Director: found no reason to believe that the misinformation caused damage, if there was damage in the first place, because Three No-Trumps could well be made even after the diamond continuation. Ruling: Score Stands North-South appealed. The Players: South recounted the story from his side of the screen. From all West's actions, he had received the impression that there was a stronger stop. He played his partner for the doubleton six and five of diamonds. East-West were not present at the hearing. The Appeal Committee: was quite clear in finding there was an infraction concerning the incomplete explanation of the bid of Three Diamonds. The Committee was equally certain of damage, since this has to be seen in favor of the non-offending side, and Three No-Trumps is far more likely to fail with a diamond continuation than without it. The Committee was less certain that the infraction actually caused the damage, but in the absence of East- West, was unable to see deep enough into the matter and decided to rule in favor of North-South. Decision: Directorial Ruling reversed, Three No-Trumps making eight, -100 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1 Deposit: Forfeited Comments: You should always appear before the Committee, even if the Director originally ruled in your favor. This decision was sufficiently close for it to have easily swung the other way if a more complete picture had been painted. Appeal 9 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 1 Turkey v Italy

Board 30 None Vul. Dealer East	NORTH   9 8   A 10 5 2   9 6   A K J 10 3
WEST   A K 5 4   Q 8   Q J   9 7 5 4 2		EAST   10 6 3 2   K 9 7 4 3   5   Q 8 6
	SOUTH   Q J 7   J 6   A K 10 8 7 4 3 2   -

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Lanutti	Gitmek	Baldestein	Sevket
-	-	Pass	Pass
1	Dble	1	2
Pass	Pass	2	5
Pass	Pass	Dble	All Pass

Contract: Five Diamonds Doubled, played by South Result: 11 tricks made, +550 to North-South The Facts: North had misinterpreted the system played by East-West. It was standard Five Card Majors, Four Card Diamonds, but when North read (2) next to the clubs, he used his defense against a strong club, in which the Double showed Clubs. When his partner bid the cue of Two Clubs, he assumed it to be a simple raise and he passed. The Director: concluded that if East gets the correct information about the bid of Two Clubs, he will Pass. Ruling: Adjusted score, based on Two Clubs by South, making eight tricks, +90 to North-South. North-South appealed. The Players: North explained his mistake. In Turkey, the 4432 gets opened One Diamond. East was asked to explain his Double over Five Diamonds and he replied that at Pairs, you need tops. The Appeal Committee: It is quite important to realize that although players are entitled to know their opponents' system, they have no absolute right to know that opponents are having a problem. So the question that needs to be answered is what East would do on the auction if he simply knows that the double is for Take-Out, and that North subsequently passes the cue bid. The Committee agreed with the Director that in all probability, East would indeed Pass. The Appeal Committee had great problems though with East's actions. The Double over Five Diamonds is not good, and the bid of Two Hearts is bad. After all, if what he is told is true, partner must hold only two clubs, and thus four hearts. If he does not raise to Two Hearts himself, there must be some reason and passing Two Clubs is the correct action. The Committee felt that when placed in the other position, this East might well make the same mistake. The Committee placed a 50% chance on this but rather than work out some complicated score, decided to award an artificial score (50%). North-South were allowed to benefit from the same probability, but they were deducted 10% for their misbid and misexplanation. Decision: Directorial Ruling changed, 50% of the available Matchpoints to East-West, 40% to North-South. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C3 Deposit: Returned Appeal 10 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 1 Poland v Poland

Board 15 North/South Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   J 5   J 7 2   10 9 8 7 4 3   7 6
WEST   A K Q 8 2   A 9   A J 6   Q 9 5		EAST   10 9 7 4 3   K 8 4   -   A 10 4 3 2
	SOUTH   6   Q 10 6 5 3   K Q 5 2   K J 8

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Romanski	Matula	Kowalski	Brede
-	-	-	1
Dble	2	3	Pass
4	Pass	4	All Pass

Contract: Four Spades, played by East Lead: king of clubs Result: 12 tricks made, -480 to North-South The Facts: The bid of Two Clubs, which showed diamonds, was misexplained by South to West. West found that this prevented him from better describing his hand with a cue-bid of Four Diamonds. The Director: found confirmation for these facts, but could not tell for certain that East-West would reach the slam. Ruling: Artificial Adjusted score : Average plus to East-West, Average minus to North-South. North-South appealed. The Players: North explained that South had taught him this convention just prior to the Championships, and then it is South who forgets it. North thought that East should have bid on after Four Hearts. West explained that he had no other call: Four Clubs would show club control, Four Diamonds would show a natural suit and strong. So Four Hearts was his normal call. East explained that he feared Four Hearts, showing control, was based on a singleton, in which case his King is worthless. The Appeal Committee: Felt that the Director had acted correctly in not awarding East-West the full benefit of the misexplanation. The Committee also felt that North-South should not have appealed. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, Average plus to East-West, Average minus to North-South. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1 Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 11 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Naki Bruni (Italy) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 1 Sweden v France

Board 31 North/South Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   9 4   9 5   9 3   K J 10 8 7 5 4
WEST   K 9 8 6 2   J 8 4   K 7 4   9 6		EAST   A J 10   A 7 3 2   A 6 2   Q 3 2
	SOUTH   7 5 3   K Q 10 6   Q J 10 8 5   A

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Beaumier	Lindqvist	Jeanneteau	Fredin
-	-	-	1
1	Pass	2	Pass
2	3	3	Pass
3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: small Club Result: 9 tricks made, -400 to North-South The Facts: Two Diamonds and Three Diamonds were alerted by East to North, but on the other side, South did notice the alert on Two Diamonds, but not the one on Three Diamonds. West had alerted by pointing to his alert card. After winning the first trick with the ace of clubs, South returned the king of hearts. The Director: found that West had failed to follow the rules and regulations page 9, but that there was no damage. Ruling: Score Stands. North-South appealed. The Players: South said that he could not have doubled Two Diamonds for the lead as this double would only promise a strong hand, not necessarily a good diamond suit. He told that he had waited for an alert from West of Three Diamonds and had looked some time at him while he waited, but that there was no alert. He therefore assumed that the bid was natural and did under these circumstances not want to make a lead directing double. He explained that his opening bid could have been made with four small diamonds and that it therefor was natural for his partner not to lead a diamond, when there had been no lead directing Double over Three Diamonds. He claimed that Three No-Trumps would have been defeated after a diamond lead. After winning the first trick and seeing the dummy he could have played a diamond in stead of the king of hearts. This would have made it less easy for West to make the contract, but he said that the play of the heart was by far the best and would be chosen by all experts as it would only be wrong with the actual distribution of that suit. West said that he had alerted Three Diamonds by tapping on the table with a finger, which was how by far the most players in these championships made alerts. The Appeal Committee: It was clear to the Committee that West had committed an infraction by not alerting in the proper way. South could have asked for the meaning of Three Diamonds. It is very unusual in any system to be able first to make a cue-bid in the opponent's suit and then in the next round bid it naturally The Committee found that West had himself to blame if he felt damaged and that he done absolutely nothing to protect himself. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -400 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 85A Deposit: Returned Comments: East/West was warned for not alerting in the proper way. The Committee takes this opportunity to remind players that if an alert is made in an improper way the tournament directors will treat it as an infraction if the opponent claims that he has not noticed it. Appeal 12 Committee Members: Bill Pencharz, Chairman (Great Britain), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Denmark v Poland

Board 8 None Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   J 9 7 3   Q J   K 8 5 3   A 9 4
WEST   A K 10 4   10 9 6   A 9 6 2   Q 7		EAST   8 6 5 2   K 8 7 6   J 4   10 6 3
	SOUTH   Q   A 5 3 2   Q 10 7   K J 8 5 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gardynik	Graversen	Przybora	Clemmensen
1	Pass	1	Pass
1	Pass	2	Dble
Rdble	3	All Pass

Contract: Three Diamonds, played by North Result: 8 tricks made, -50 to North-South The Facts: One Club was Polish, One Diamond weak relay, and One Spade showed either 11-14 with Spades or 11-18 with Spades and Clubs. The Redouble now promised the higher end of the second alternative, and East told North that the three bids in combination showed Clubs and Spades and strength. The Director: Since there had been no explanation on the other side of the screen, the Director took the hand as an indication that there had been misinformation. Ruling: Result changed to Three Clubs, making, +110 to North-South Both sides appealed. North-South wanted the score to be changed to Two Spades Redoubled, going several down. East-West wanted to have the table result reinstated. The Players: North stated he would have passed if he had known West to be weak and balanced. South added he would also have passed, for penalties. South also stated he would be able to make ten tricks in clubs. East was not at the meeting, but together with an interpreter, West explained that the explanation had been correct. The One Spade bid still allowed for two of the original three possible meanings of the Polish One Club: either weak and balanced (11-14 with 4 spades), or natural with both black suits (11-18 with 5 clubs and 4 spades). While the meaning of the Redouble could not be proven on paper, it is logical that this would mean 16- 18 with clubs and spades. West stated he had made a deliberate psyche. The Appeal Committee: accepted the explanation of the system. It is not completely clear whether West did in fact make a psyche, or simply a misbid, but the explanation from East must be considered correct. Therefor there is no infraction, and no score adjustment is needed Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, table result restored, -50 to both sides. East-West are asked to add one word (OR) on their Convention Card. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Both deposits were returned. Appeal 13 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Naki Bruni (Italy) Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 2 Iceland v France

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Voldoire	Snorri	Bitran	Aron
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1	2	2
3	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Three Hearts Doubled, played by East Result: 8 tricks made, +200 to North-South The Facts: North's Pass was after a hesitation. The Director: concluded that it was clear enough that it was North who had hesitated, so there was Unauthorized Information to South. Passing is a logical Alternative. Ruling: Score corrected to Three Hearts, not doubled, one down, +100 to North-South. North-South appealed. The Players: North said that he had paused for about 15 seconds thinking of bidding 3 Spades. The tray had stayed on his side of the screen for about 20 seconds. South admitted that the tray had been a long time on the other side but said that he could not know for sure that it was due to a hesitation by his partner. He also said that his hand certainly was worth one more bid. East and West both agreed to the explanations concerning the time spent by North and on the North/East side of the screen. The Appeal Committee: It was not absolutely clear to South that North had used almost all of the time the screen stayed on the North/East side. But even if this had been clear, South's hand was of such a good quality that he should not have bent backwards because of partners hesitation. The Committee was sure that only very few of the players in these championships would have passed Three Hearts and found that Pass was not a logical alternative to any action South might chose. Decision: Original Table Result restored, +200 to North-South Relevant Laws: Law 16 Deposit: Returned Appeal 14 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 2 Israel v France

Board 5 None Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   K 9 7 4   J 10 3   J 4   A Q 8 7
WEST   J 8 5   9 6 4   K 10 7 6 3   9 6		EAST   Q 6 3 2   A K 8 5   Q 9 2   J 3
	SOUTH   A 10   Q 7 2   A 8 5   K 10 5 4 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Allouche	Wax	Zuker	Wax
-	Pass	1	Pass
3	All Pass

Contract: Three Diamonds, played by East Result: 7 tricks made, +100 to North-South The Facts: Three Diamonds was explained by West as pre-emptive, by East as fit and normal. East had not alerted the bid. North said he would have doubled if he had known it was weak. The Director: ruled that the Pass was normal, even with correct information. Ruling: Result stands North-South appealed. The Players: North did not know if he would have doubled. He estimated his chances of doubling at 35%. But he did not get the chance, because of the misexplanation. West explained they played the inverted minors, usually showing some 5-8 points. It was not her habit to have such a weak hand for the bid. The Appeal Committee: found the chance of North entering the bidding insufficiently large to merit a score correction. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +100 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Returned Appeal 15 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Italy v Ukraine

Board 8 None Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   J 9 7 3   Q J   K 8 5 3   A 9 4
WEST   A K 10 4   10 9 6   A 9 6 2   Q 7		EAST   8 6 5 2   K 8 7 4   J 4   10 6 3
	SOUTH   Q   A 5 3 2   Q 10 7   K J 8 5 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Motuzko	De Falco	Karlikow	Ferraro
1NT	Pass	2	Dble
2	Pass	Pass	Dble
Pass	2NT	All Pass

Contract: Two No-Trumps, played by North Result: 10 tricks made, +180 to North-South The Facts: West called the director because he claimed South had doubled the second time because he had heard commotion coming from the other side of the screen. The Director: established that there had indeed been some noises made at the North/West side, mainly because of language problems, director calls and such. There had been, among others, a dispute about whether Two Clubs had been alerted or not. Ruling: No Unauthorized Information, Score stands. East-West appealed. The Players: West said that South had claimed his second Double had been "automatic", but that it took him 30 seconds to bid it. South replied that when he said "automatic", he had meant that all players would make the call, but that did not mean he could not think about it. North explained what had happened at the other side of the screen. He had not asked about One No-Trump, but he had asked about Two Clubs, since that call had been alerted, even though it was (weak) Stayman. When he had inquired about Two Spades, he had first to explain that South's first Double meant clubs, and when he then wanted to know if Two Spades showed or denied a club stopper, it took him quite some time, and Directorial help, to get a satisfactory reply. The Appeal Committee: Decided that no further evidence had been brought before the Committee that would suggest that the Director had made the wrong decision. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +180 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 16 Deposit: Returned, but only because of the language difficulties. Appeal 16 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Poland v Spain The Facts: The appealing side chose not to come to the hearing, which would take place after the third session. The Director: was able to tell the opponents about this, and told the Committee there would be no hearing The Appeal Committee: decided not to hear the case and keep the deposit. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 17 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 3 France v Poland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gawrys	Samy	Lesniewski	Samy
-	-	Pass	Pass
1	2	Dble	2
3NT	Pass	4	Pass
4NT	All Pass

Contract: Four No-Trumps, played by West Lead: heart Result: 9 tricks made, +100 to North-South The Facts: The convention card showed that the bid of Two Diamonds was a Major two-suiter with 5 or 6 losers. Based upon that information West cashed the ace of diamonds in trick two and went down as a result. The Director: accepted West's reasoning and considered the description on the convention card to be erroneous. Ruling: Score changed to Four No-Trumps, making twelve tricks, -690 to North-South. North-South appealed. The Players: North explained she had been playing for only four years and now she was in the semi final of the European Championships. They had had a few bad boards and she wanted to do something. She would not normally consider overcalling on this weak a hand. South pointed out that he had freely bid Two Spades and so it would be impossible, from declarer's view, for North to actually have the strength she was showing. The Appeal Committee: For North to have five or six losers missing two top honours in spades and three in hearts, she needed to have a really wild distribution (like six - six), making the double finesse very attractive. Furthermore East had failed to execute a discovery play by cashing two clubs before deciding how to play the diamonds. The Committee accepted that North had made a non-systemic bid. Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, Original Table result restated, +100 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Returned Appeal 18 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Italy

Board 15 North/South Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   A J   9 7   A Q 9 8 2   A 7 3 2
WEST   3 2   K 10 6 3 2   K J 7 6   K 9		EAST   K Q 10 8 7 4   J 8 4   5   10 6 5
	SOUTH   9 6 5   A Q 5   10 4 3   Q J 8 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Alpini	Quaglia	Sconocchia	Petronio
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1	1	Pass
2	Pass	2	All Pass

Contract: Two Spades, played by East Result: 8 tricks made, +110 to East-West The Facts: When the tray came back with Two Spades - Pass - Pass, North called the Director claiming he had received the information concerning Two Diamonds a bit too late. The Director asked to continue the bidding and North Passed. After the hand, North said he would have bid Three Clubs over Two Diamonds if he had known it was conventional. The Director: established that One Diamond was Precision, and Two Diamonds was Cue. It was not alerted by East, but he considered it normal that this bid could be asked for. Ruling: Score stands. North-South appealed. The Players: The Director pointed out that he did not know who East-West were at the time, but that in all probability it was also an Italian pair, since this had been in the first round. This turned out to be true, and Naki Bruni, regular Appeal Committee member who was present as interpreter, confirmed that the opponents were a little known pair from central Sicily. After that, Naki Bruni was readmitted as a full member of the Committee. North said that they play Two Diamonds as natural. The Appeal Committee: found it really awkward that two pairs from the same country could play two boards without discovering that they spoke the same language ("well, sort of", says Naki) and ruled that North had really not done enough to protect himself. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -110 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 40B Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 19 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium), Patrick Jourdain (Great Britain) Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Poland

Board 1 None Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   J 8 4   A 10 3   10 8 4   10 9 5 4
WEST   A K Q 10 7 3   7   A 6 3   K 8 7		EAST   9   K 9 5   Q 5 2   A Q J 6 3 2
	SOUTH   6 5 2   Q J 8 6 4 2   K J 9 7   -

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Wisniewski	Moritsch	Laskowski	Guerra
-	Pass	2	2
3	Pass	3NT	Pass
4	Pass	5	Pass
6	All Pass

Contract: Six Clubs, played by East Result: 12 tricks made, -920 to North-South The Facts: Two Clubs was Precision, and North asked East about the meaning of Three Spades. He was told it was non-forcing. North called the Director at the end of the play, stating that if he had known it was in fact forcing, he could have bid Four Hearts, perhaps resulting in East-West failing to find the correct slam but settle for Six Spades in stead, which fails on the obvious club ruff. The Director: decided that West had learnt nothing after the actual bidding, so the possible infraction did not result in damage to North-South. Ruling: Score stands North-South appealed. The Players: North repeated that he did not get the chance to bid Four Hearts. East did not attend the meeting, but West explained that they had failed to have a prior agreement about this situation. West was quite certain that his interpretation (strong and forcing) was the correct one and he accepted the ruling based on misinformation by his partner. West gave a possible continuation after a Four Heart bid by North, the bidding might go:

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

with East showing one Key-card and the queen of clubs. The Appeal Committee: Accepted the arguments by East-West. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -920 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Returned Appeal 20 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Seniors Pairs - Final - session 1 Poland v France

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jezioro	Szwarc	Klukowski	Damiani
-	-	1	Pass
1	Pass	2	Pass
2NT	Pass	3NT	Pass
4NT	Pass	5	Pass
5NT	Pass	6NT	All Pass

Contract: Six No-Trumps, played by West Result: 13 tricks made, +1470 to East-West The Facts: One Club was a standard Polish club, One Spades shows 7+ with 4+ spades, Two Hearts is 18-21 with five or more hearts, Three No-Trumps is balanced, Four No-Trumps invitational. Five Spades is explained by East as a good hand, but by West as two aces and a king. Five No-Trumps came after a hesitation. The Director: adjusted the score because of Unauthorized Information. Ruling: Five No-Trumps making seven, +710 to East-West. East-West appealed. The Players: East confirmed that he had noticed the hesitation but that he was accepting the slam invitation of Four No-Trumps by bidding on. He was trying to show the support in Spades that he had not yet given, and West was wrong in thinking they gave their Aces when accepting. That would have meant bidding Five Hearts (2 aces and 0 or 3 kings). East said he did not bid Six Spades because he knew Five to be forcing, and he wanted West to make the final choice. He admitted that he had overlooked the possibility of bidding Six Spades in stead of Five, in order to avoid the problems that now arose. West told the Committee he thought partner showed two aces and one king, in which case on a sub-minimum, he wanted to allow East to pass Five No-Trumps. The Appeal Committee: was unanimous in believing that East, on a hand so far better than the minimum of what he had shown, would always bid on and therefor Passing was no longer a Logical Alternative. Then even despite the Unauthorized Information, bidding the slam is allowed. Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, Original Table result restored, +1470 to East-West. Relevant Laws: Law 16 Deposit: Returned Appeal 21 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Consolation - session 1 France v Great Britain

Board 14 None Vul. Dealer East	NORTH   3 2   K 10   A J 8 7 5 4   K 10 9
WEST   K J 6   A Q 9 5   Q 2   Q 7 6 4		EAST   8 7 5 4   J 6   9   A J 8 5 3 2
	SOUTH   A Q 10 9   8 7 4 3 2   K 10 6 3   -

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Senior	Romanski	Martin	Kaplan
-	-	Pass	Pass
1NT	Pass	Pass	2
Dble	Pass	3	All Pass

Contract: Three Clubs, played by East Result: 9 tricks made, +110 to East-West The Facts: There was some confusion on the North/East side concerning the meaning of the Double. East assumed it was Take-Out, but did not alert it. He stated he did not know this. North assumed it was for penalties, but he asked the second time around, got the response it was for Take-Out, told his screen-mate that this should have been alerted, and passed. At the end of the hand he called the Director, claiming he would have bid Three Diamonds. The Director: ruled that at three times North could have called the Director, the last time just before pushing the final pass under the screen, and he would have been allowed to change his call. Since he did not call the Director, he could not claim an adjustment now, under Law 11A. Ruling: Result Stands. North-South appealed. The Players: There was some confusion about the real order of things: according to North, he had received the information before passing, according to East, he was already holding a Pass card while asking for the information. West informed the Committee that in his opinion this type of Double was always for penalties, and East agreed to this and admitted that he had gotten that wrong. When asked why North did not take action sooner, he told the Committee that in his system, an overcall of Two Diamonds showed four diamonds and five in a Major. He had passed on the Double because he had wanted to play the contract. South had not shown spades, since they do play Two Clubs for Majors in that position. In typical fashion, West drew the Committee's attention to North's hand: "anybody with red blood in their veins would bid with that hand". The Appeal Committee: established that the explanation by East was incorrect. In that case it did no longer matter in what order the pass and question came, and the Committee ruled that the Director had gotten it wrong when applying Law 11A. The Committee then needed to make a ruling from scratch. It was felt that North should have an easy bid of Three Diamonds, if the explanation Take-Out is heard. North- South have a heart fit (South usually has better hearts than that), and East-West have club and spade fits (South usually has worse spades than that). Three diamonds cannot be wrong. If the explanation would have been "penalties", then our heart fit is not as good, but our diamond fit should be better. Three diamonds is again a normal bid, only slightly more easy than in the first case. All in all, the Committee felt the damage was too small to justify rectification of a bad call. As one member put it, "this is the Appeal Committee, not the Rescue Committee". Decision: Directorial Ruling changed to "no damage", score stands, -110 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Returned Appeal 22 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 1 Israel v Poland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Herbst	Choniawko	Gelbard	Jeleniewsky
-	-	1	1NT
Dble	Pass	Pass	2
Dble	Rdble	Pass	2
3	4	Pass	Pass
6	Pass	Pass	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Six Clubs Doubled, played by West Result: 9 tricks made, +800 to North-South The Facts: There were no problems whatsoever on the North/East side of the screen. The overcall of One No- Trump by South, which showed five or more clubs and four spades, was not alerted by South to West. South later explained Two Clubs as natural and the Redouble as SOS. East's pass over Four Spades was forcing, and West chose what he thought to be the correct contract for them. The Director: West explained that he thought One No-Trump and Two Clubs were psychic bids, but did not furnish any alternative bids except Double or Pass to his choice of Six Clubs. Ruling: No Damage, Score stands. 10% procedural penalty to North-South for their failure to alert. East-West appealed. The Players: South explained that he had pointed to his convention card rather than alert. West did not see this. South said he had explained Two Clubs as "at least five cards". West only remembered "natural", but it may well have been that South had said "five" as well. The convention card has this overcall on the left side, but not on the right one under "special bids that may require defense". West explained his reasons for the strange looking call of Six Clubs: -When One No-Trump is not alerted, he assumed it to be 15-17. As he can count to 25 himself, he was thinking that South has psyched. -When South next escapes to Two Clubs, rather than stay in the doubled contract, this reinforced him in that conviction. As it might well be a double psych, he was not worried about the club suit. Opponents must have a spade fit, and the psych is probably based on a long spade suit. -When the Redouble is explained as SOS, and not as would be more correct "play in your major", this again reinforces his belief that his partner has clubs and South long spades. The Appeal Committee: West was correct in his reasoning after the non-alerted One No-Trump. He was definitely damaged and should receive an adjustment. As it is impossible to determine a normal bridge result, an artificial adjusted score shall be given. Decision: Directorial Ruling changed, Average Plus to East-West, Average Minus to North-South, additional penalty of 10% from director maintained (resulting in 30% to North-South) Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1 Deposit: Returned Appeal 23 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 1 Poland v Netherlands

Board 22 East/West Vul. Dealer East	NORTH   A 9 7   9 6 5   A K 10   K Q 7 2
WEST   J 2   K Q 10 8 4   7 6   A J 8 5		EAST   8 6 4 3   J 3 2   9 8 4   10 4 3
	SOUTH   K Q 10 5   A 7   Q J 5 3 2   9 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Walczak	Paulissen	Kaczanowski	Ramer
-	-	Pass	1
1	1	Pass	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by South Lead: Queen of Hearts Result: 10 tricks made, +430 to North-South The Facts: There was a lot of confusion concerning the first card from East. According to East-West, it was the two, according to South, the three. The card had come after some hesitation. South had waited to make his plan, and when he called low from dummy, this was not heard. After North put the card in the played position, East took some more time in contributing the low heart. He claims this is because he was not certain that South had actually called the card. The Director: decided that the hesitation may have contributed to the heart continuation and ruled Unauthorized Information. Ruling: 11 tricks, +460 to North-South East-West appealed. The Players: The convention card mentions the lead of the King from all king-queen combination except KQJ. East stated that he had led the Queen because this asks to unblock, except when there is enough communication. East said that on the Queen, West had given count with the three (upside down count). South stated that he had asked East, in Polish, why he had continued the hearts and what the two had meant, and that he had gotten the reply "small encouraging". The Appeal Committee: decided that there had been a hesitation, that it was unclear what the signalling really meant and that therefor it is not impossible that the continuation was suggested in an unauthorized manner. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +460 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, 12C2 Deposit: Returned Appeal 24 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium), Sergei Litvak (Russia), Hans Christian Graversen (Denmark) Open Pairs - Consolation - session 2 Italy v Poland

Board 8 None Vul. Dealer West	NORTH   J 5   A Q 2   J 9 3   Q J 9 6 4
WEST   A K   10 9 8 7 3   Q 10 6 5 4   5		EAST   Q 10 6 4 3 2   J 5 4   -   A 8 7 3
	SOUTH   9 8 7   K 6   A K 8 7 2   K 10 2

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Kandybowitz	Forlano	Kowalczyk	Frattura
2	Pass	2	Pass
Pass	3	Pass	Pass
3	Pass	Pass	4
All Pass

Contract: Four Clubs, played by North Result: 8 tricks made, +100 to East-West The Facts: Two Diamonds showed five diamonds and five of another suit, 7 to 11 points. Two Hearts was explained by West as "asking, weak", but by East as "indefinite". North stated he would have Doubled Three Hearts if he had gotten a better explanation. The Director: Asked East to write the explanation of the Two Heart bid and received "MAX 12". He ruled there had been no misinformation. Ruling: score stands North-South appealed. The Players: North told that he had asked "How Points" and had received the reply "indefinite". The Appeal Committee: agreed with the director that North could very easily have asked for a good explanation of what was after all a very natural kind of bidding sequence. North should have written "2H?" on a piece of paper, and would have received a good description. He should not have appealed, something a few people had told him as well. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -100 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 25 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Sergei Litvak (Russia) Seniors Pairs - Final - session 2 Poland/Belgium v Germany

Board 11 None Vul. Dealer South	NORTH   -   J 9 4   A J 10 6 4   Q 10 7 4 3
WEST   K 10 5   K 10 6 3   K 8 7   A 6 5		EAST   9 8 7 6 4 3   Q 7 5   9   K 8 2
	SOUTH   A Q J 2   A 8 2   Q 5 3 2   J 9

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jamka	Jauniaux	Jamka	Wala
-	-	-	1
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	2	Pass	Pass
Dble	Pass	2	3
3NT	4	Pass	Pass
Dble	All Pass

Contract: Four Diamonds, Doubled, played by North Result: 10 tricks made, +510 to North-South The Facts: One Club is Polish, One Diamond can be negative, strong 16+, or 7-9 with diamonds. West called the Director and said he had not received enough information about the meaning of One Diamond. North had simply said "standard Polish". The Director: ruled misinformation, but could not ascertain a reasonable alternative contract. Ruling: Artificial adjusted score, Average Plus to East-West, Average Minus to North-South. North-South appealed. The Players: South stated that he had been speaking Polish with opponents. Although they appear for Germany, he remembered their faces. When he answered "standard Polish", in Polish, he assumed his opponent knew that system. West did not ask any other question during the rest of the auction. The Appeal Committee: Sergei Litvak confirmed that the meaning of the One Diamond call as North-South play it is indeed the standard meaning in Polish Club. When West does not press on, South is correct in believing he has fulfilled his obligations. Law 40B includes "unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". The Committee finds this to be the case. The Director, who did not apply a penalty because he adjusted the score, was now asked to apply a penalty if he saw fit, and he did penalize North-South 10%. Decision: Directorial Ruling reversed, Original Table result restored, +510 to both sides. Procedural penalty of 10% to North-South. Relevant Laws: Law 40B Deposit: Returned Appeal 26 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Naki Bruni (Italy) Open Pairs - Final "B" - session 2 France v Czech Republic

Board 1 None Vul. Dealer North	NORTH   10 5 3   7 6 4   Q 8 5   Q J 10 2
WEST   Q   K 9 8   K J 4 3   A 9 8 5 3		EAST   K J 7 4 2   Q J 5 2   9 6 2   4
	SOUTH   A 9 8 6   A 10 3   A 10 7   K 7 6

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Hnatova	Dehaye	Zadrazil	Ghestem
-	-	2	Dble
All Pass

Contract: Two Hearts Doubled, played by East Result: 8 tricks made, +470 to East-West The Facts: Two Hearts was weak with both Majors. South claimed he was insufficiently explained this. He asked "weak" and received a nod in reply. West disagrees and did not notice any question being asked. The Director: ruled there was no misinformation. Ruling: score stands North-South appealed. The Players: South restated he had asked, and believed he had received a reply. "It is impossible that I do not ask, and I led spades!" The Appeal Committee: ruled South should have protected himself better, as by asking to see the Convention Card, which was properly filled out. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -470 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Forfeited Appeal 27 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Poland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Magnani	Ratynski	Baldi	Siwiec
-	Pass	1	1NT
Dble	Rdble	Pass	2
Pass	3	All Pass

Contract: Three Spades, played by North Result: 7 tricks made, -100 to North-South The Facts: South had made a psych. The Director: found no evidence to suggest anything strange. Ruling: score stands East-West appealed. The Players: North-South did not attend the meeting. West found the Convention Card badly filled in (the 1NT overcall was almost the only thing that was on there), and stated that South had alerted Two Diamonds, and explained it as forcing. The Appeal Committee: found no evidence either, not for fielding, nor for undisclosed agreements. They did see West's point though, in wanting the case investigated. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -100 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 40A Deposit: Returned, specifically because North-South were not present and the Committee could therefor not rule on the merits of the case. Appeal 28 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 3 Great Britain v Poland

Board 26 None Vul. Dealer East	NORTH   Q 5   A Q 8 3 2   Q 9 7 5 3   J
WEST   10   J 7 6 4   A K 10 4 2   9 7 5		EAST   K 8 4   9   J 8 6   A K 10 8 3 2
	SOUTH   A J 9 7 6 3 2   K 10 5   -   Q 6 4

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Biegajlo	Hackett	Pawszak	Mossop
-	-	2	3
Dble	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by East Result: 5 tricks made, -200 to East-West The Facts: Two Clubs showed 11-15 with six clubs or five clubs and four of a Major. Three spades was pre- emptive and the Double, which was negative, was not alerted by East to North. The Director: ruled that in a final of a European Championship, a player should be able to protect himself more completely. Ruling: score stands North-South appealed. The Players: East said he thought it was normal to use negative doubles and he simply forgot to alert. North assumed it was a penalty Double, and did not want to ask, be told it was for penalties, pass and thus reveal he was thinking of raising. He would have bid Four Spades if it had been alerted. The Appeal Committee: agreed with the Director. The Committee strongly suggested that the Director apply a penalty for the failure to alert, which he did. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -200 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Returned Appeal 29 Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Nissan Rand (Israel), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium) Seniors Pairs - Final - session 3 Great Britain v Poland

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
LeightonM	Baluk	LeightonC	Krupinski
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	2NT	All Pass

Contract: Two No-Trumps, played by North Lead: Six of Spades Result: 8 tricks made, +120 to North-South The Facts: One Club was Polish, One Diamond negative relay, Two Hearts showed a strong hand with hearts and Two Spades was explained differently at either side of the screen. South explained it as 4+ cards, and did not really speak about points, while North wrote "5+S, 4-6HCP". East stated he felt damaged by the misexplanation. The Director: decided there was no misinformation, and even if there had been, that East was not damaged in his choice of lead. Ruling: score stands. East-West appealed. The Players: South stated he believes his system is correct, and that with this hand he should bid Two Spades. North thought his explanation was correct. The Director, himself Polish, confirmed that this was the standard approach, but would maybe also bid Two Spades on the South hand. East explained his choice of lead by saying that it was the only suit he would not give anything away in. West defended his play of the queen on the jack in trick one by saying his partner would not lead into a known suit without at least an honor. When pressed, East admitted he would also lead spades if he had received an explanation that included the possibility of four-nil in the Majors. The Appeal Committee: agreed totally with the Director's ruling and deplored East-West's decision to appeal. Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +120 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C Deposit: Forfeited