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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Fallenius	Kwiecen	Nilsland	Pszczola
-	Pass	Pass	1NT
Pass	3NT	All Pass

Opening lead: queen of diamonds

Facts: South called the TD at the end of the hand complaining about the lead of the queen of diamonds. West led the Q, which was allowed to hold the trick as South played the 5. West switched to the 8, taken in dummy with the ace. Declarer led the 8 from dummy and cashed his eight winners, when East showed out - going one down. It was stated in the convention card that the lead of a king was from KQ, queen from QJ, and jack from J10.

Result on the board: 8 tricks to N/S; N/S -100.

TD's ruling: The TD asked E/W if they had an agreement about leading the queen to ask partner to unblock the jack. West said that the had not discussed this for a long time, but both East and West confirmed that it might be understood as an agreement, and East said that he would have played the jack if he had had it. TD asked South why he had played the way he did, and he said that West could not have the king of diamonds.

The TD ruled no damage, score stands.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: South claimed that he had played West to have a very weak hand and to be short in diamonds. His only hope was that West would continue the suit when he had the lead or were given it later, and that West would not the find the switch to the dangerous club suit.

Asked by the committee, South told that he had not considered lowering the screen to ask West about the lead although he could see that it was not a normal one against 3NT. When West did not continue the attack in diamonds, South had seen it as his chance to find West with the Q 10 and to duck the 8 to West. He had not considered the possibility of setting up his ninth trick in clubs if West really had a very weak hand. West explained that it in New York where he lives and plays rubber bridge it is common practise to lead the queen asking partner to unblock the jack, and that he thought his partner would have understood it even if he had forgotten that they had ever discussed it.

The committee's decision: The committee found that South had stopped thinking after having looked into the convention card and seen that the queen was not led from KQ. South had done nothing to protect himself against the queen being an irregular lead, which he might have suspected seeing the jack in dummy and considering the bidding and the lead to be in a minor suit.

The committee therefore upheld the TD's decision. A minority of the committee said that it was normal in high level bridge to try to get partner to unblock the jack in situations like this. A small majority felt that E/W should have mentioned the possibility on their card and wanted to fine the pair for not having done this.

The committee fined E/W 1/2 VP. The deposit was returned.

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Taschiyan	Sapounakis	Popov	Kotsiopoulos
1	1	Dble	Pass
2	2	3	All Pass

Opening lead: king of hearts.

Facts: Dealer, West, called the TD when the dummy was exposed. The TD asked him to play the contract and West called again at the end of play saying that he had been misinformed by South who had told him that 2 was a cue-bid. He therefore took 3 as a natural bid and claimed that he would have bid 3 had he known that 2 was natural and 3 thus a cuebid.

The TD found out that the 1 opening was Precision and that neither North nor South had alerted the bid of 2, but that South probably had said "cuebid" when asked about the meaning of 2.

The TD changed the contract from 3 down two to 4 down one, +100 to N/S as he thought it likely that West would make only nine tricks. Just before the end of "appeal-time" E/W lodged an appeal, claiming that West would have made 4.

The Players: East explained that there had been serious language difficulties on the West/South side of the screen, but that it had been clear to his partner that South had said "cue-bid" when asked about the 2 bid. On his own side he had not asked, as he took the bid as natural because of the missing alert, and that meant that his own 3 was a cuebid. He claimed that West was considered a strong player in his home country and that he would have made 4.

Asked by the committee, North said that he and his partner had no agreement about 2 when playing against Precision, but he felt safe to make a natural diamond bid as he had a diamond suit as well as a good hand. Under those circumstances he would not alert 2 and East never asked about the meaning. On behalf of his partner he admitted that the word "cuebid" had been said to West.

East said that West was playing in his first European Championship, but that he had won his national championship three times. He claimed that West would have made 4 as the bidding had shown that North held almost all the missing high cards, making the line of elimination obvious. He said that at the table his partner had not focussed on the play in 4 and had not therefore objected to the ruling of 4 down one. He could not explain why the decision to appeal had been postponed to the last moment.

The committee found that there had been an infraction caused by the different explanations, and that the TD had been right to change the contract to 4. As, however, the elimination line was very difficult to find (and was in fact overlooked by the Bridgerama commentators) and probably had not been found by E/W until the last moment for an appeal, the committee decided thatWest would have made 4 only 20% of the time, going down one 80% of the time and so corrected the score to the average of the two.

The committee therefore changed the score to -50 N/S.

The deposit was returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Naki Bruni, Italy, Guido Ferraro, Italy, Tjolpe Flodqvist, Sweden, Peter Lund, Denmark and Kees Tammens, The Netherlands.

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Terraneo	Johnsson	Bieder	Arnarsson
-	1	1	Dble
2	Pass	Pass	Dble
2	3	Pass	3
Pass	3	Pass	4
Pass	4	Pass	6
All Pass

The Bidding: N-S play Standard American with five card majors. South's first double was alerted and explained as negative at both sides of the screen. West's 2, the bid in question, was alerted by West to South as a transfer to diamonds. East did not alert this bid to North.

TD: N-S called for the TD claiming they were damaged. N-S: North asked East about the 2C-bid and East explained it as natural. If North had known 2 was a transfer he would have bid 3 immediately. After North's pass over 2 South believed North was weaker than what was actually the case. E-W: The 2C-bid was in fact a transfer to diamonds. The TD changed the score to 7 making.

E-W appealed.

E-W: N-S found a fit and had a cuebid-sequence and had a lot of space. N-S did not even try to find a grand slam. NS had no difficulty understanding the meaning of North's 3C-bid.

N-S: When North got the explanation that 2 was natural, a double by him would show a strong balanced hand and 3 would be a cuebid with a strong hand. From North's point of view he could not show clubs on this round of bidding. From South's point of view seven was never a question after North failed to bid a natural 3 over 2.When opponents overcall they play that a pass show lesser values than a direct bid so North could not have the hand he actually had. From then on the bidding sequence became a bit shaky. South did not believe the trump suit was firmly established until he bid 6. 3 showed values in hearts. 3, again from South's point of view, denied a diamond stopper and perhaps indicated that North was interested in a spade contract on 4-3. South was afraid of ending up in spades and did not want to risk a 4NT-bid.

The Committee's Reasons for their Ruling:
East committed an infraction when he a) failed to alert West's bid of 2, b) when being asked about the meaning of this bid explained it as natural.

The committee believes in N-S's statement that given a correct explanation North would have bid 3 directly over 2.Then N-S would have had a fairly easy route to the grand slam. After North was misinformed about the meaning of the 2C-bid, it was difficult, almost impossible, for him to describe his hand properly to his partner.And North himself was never in a position to take control of the bidding. Consequently N-S has been damaged by the misinformation.

By a small majority the committee judged it to be obvious that N-S were damaged by misinformation and that E-W should not have appealed.

The Committee's Ruling: The TD's ruling is upheld. The deposit is forfeited.

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Gulyas	Fahs	Szalay	Hamdan
-	Pass	1NT	Pass
2	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Opening lead: 2.

Facts: South called the TD after the play was completed claiming that he would have led a club and defeated the contract, if he had had a complete explanation of the Stayman sequence used by E/W. The TD found out that 2 had been alerted on both sides of the screen and explained by West to South as "non-forcing Stayman", while North did not ask any questions on the other side of the screen.There had been no more alerts. It was established as a fact that East, according to the system would reply 2 and later bid hearts with a minimum and 4-4 in the majors, while he would reply 2 and later bid spades with a maximum and 4-4 in the majors. 3 was only invitational in the actual bidding sequence. The declarer had taken the opening lead with the queen in dummy and played a spade to the king and ace. South had returned a club to the ace in dummy and when the declarer now played a diamond from the table, North stepped in with ace and returned a heart.The declarer thus made his contact with three tricks in, spades, hearts and clubs.

The TD found that N/S had not been damaged by the failing alerts and let the result stand. He fined E/W 1 VP for failure to alert. N/S appealed.

The Players: South explained that he would normally not lead from king empty fourth against 3NT.As he, however, understands it, when playing non-forcing Stayman, the no trump opener denies a heart suit when he replies 2. He (South) therefore had a good chance of finding a "heart fit" with his partner and decided to break his own rule instead of leading a club.

East said that the range of the notrump bid was 14 - 17, but that he had treated his hand as a minimum because of the soft values in the minor suits -- therefore the systemic 2 reply. After the invitational raise to 3 he had reconsidered and found out that the hand was a maximum for notrump purposes. He admitted that he (and West) should have alerted 2.

The committee agreed that there had been an infraction because of the failing alerts, but that this had not damaged South. On the contrary an alert and the correct explanation would have assured South that East could not hold four hearts. South had just been unlucky to choose a heart lead. After having found out that there was no way to defeat 3NT after the heart lead the committee made its decision.

The committee upheld the TD's decision.

The deposit was returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Naki Bruni, Italy, Nissan Rand, Israel, and Kees Tammens, The Netherlands.

Board 17 Game All Dealer North WEST	NORTH   K 7 6   10 6 2   A K Q J 5   J 4	EAST
J 9 4   J   10 9 7 6 4 2   A Q 10	SOUTH	A 10 8 5 3 2   K 7 4   - -   K 8 7 2
	Q   A Q 9 8 5 3   8 3   9 6 5 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Lustin	Andersson	Crozet	Kärrstrand
-	1NT	2	4
4	Pass	Pass	5
All Pass

1NT: 14-16

Result: down 2

The Bidding: South alerted her bid of 4, the bid in question, to West and explained it as a transfer to hearts. North did not alert the bid. Before her final pass East asked North about South's hand and was told that South had clubs and hearts.

E-W called for the TD claiming they were damaged.

E-W: If East had known that South only had hearts she would have doubled 5. Now she thought that the clubs were in the South hand.

N-S: South forgot their system. There was nothing on the convention card about 4 as a transfer.

The TD allowed the score to stand.

When the NS captain met the EW captain to compare the official score the NS captain was told that the directors had changed the score to 5 doubled down two. The NS captain was then informed by the directors that she had 30 minutes to appeal.

NS appealed about 2 hours after their captain had been informed about the changed ruling.

The committee first had to decide whether the appeal was made in due time.

The captain of the NS team told the committee that when she was informed about the changed ruling her players had gone out to eat, she did not know where. She neither had her coach or the captain of the Swedish open team available. She did not know with whom she could confer. This championship is her first assignment as a captain of a national team. She did not know it was sufficient to just make the appeal and later on explain why she appealed.

Given the special circumstances about the change of the ruling and the fact that the captain of the NS team was grossly inexperienced, the committee decided to go beyond the strict rules and allow the appeal to proceed.

TD: Later on the TD found out that the convention card used by the NS players and the one officially filed at the tournament were the same. The convention card kept in the TD's file, which was the basis for the changed ruling said that 4 was a transfer in uncontested auctions. An older version incorrectly not substituted for the correct one did not mention 4 at all.

NS: They have changed their system just before the beginning of these championships. Earlier they played 4 as a transfer in uncontested auctions. Now they don't. They have never played 4 as a transfer after overcalls. North thought 4 was a natural bid. 3 would show clubs NF.With a forcing hand South would start with 2NT FG with ensuing natural suit bidding.

EW: East had difficulties assessing the value of her hand if South had a two-suiter. If West had been given a correct explanation she might have passed over 4.

The Committee's Reasons for their Ruling:
North gave East a correct explanation of the systemic agreements by NS. East was not misinformed and consequently this is no ground for changing the actual score. South's description of NS's agreements caused disruption which resulted in the TD having to give a ruling and, subsequently, in the appeal. "System Disruption" is not automatic grounds for a score adjustment and in this case no adjustment is made. But in serious cases, such as this one, it is grounds for a procedural penalty. The Appeals Committee will normally award a 1/2 V.P. penalty in these circumstances.

The Committee's Ruling: The result is changed to 5 down 2, NS -100. NS are given a procedural penalty of 1/2 V.P.

Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Tjolpe Flodqvist (Sweden), Nissan Rand (Israel) and Kees Tammens (The Netherlands).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Kulmala	Kofoed	Mantyla	Cilleborg
-	Pass	2	Dble
2NT	3	All Pass

Result: just made, NS +110

NS called for the TD claiming they were damaged.

NS: North asked East about West's 2NT bid and was told it was "relay asking". After the opening lead was made East changed her mind and told North it was "transfer to clubs". If North doubles a relay asking bid it would be for penalties. Consequently North decided to bid 3 instead. If North had known that 2NT was a transfer to clubs a double would be responsive, showing cards and no suitable bid. In that case NS would find their heart fit.

The TD considered that 4 by NS would possibly make and consequently changed the contract to that, NS +620.

EW appealed.

EW: 2NT was a relay to 3, either to play or forcing with a two-suiter. East forgot that at first. The opponents were not damaged by the misinformation since a) the 3 bid in itself was aggressive and should not have hindered NS, b) if North doubled and South bid 3 North would not raise to 4, c) 4 would not make.

NS: South's double was for majors. They play a responsive double by 4th hand as showing 8+ points.When made over a preemptive raise in a minor it shows 3-3 in the majors. If North made a responsive double NS would have had a chance to reach 4, now they never got that chance. North did not ask about the strength of 2NT. A cue-bid by North would primarily ask for a stopper in clubs and would not be forcing to game, but the bid is not discussed in detail. North did not want to make a penalty double of 2NT since she was afraid EW had 6 club tricks.

The Committee's Reasons for their Ruling:
East gave North an inaccurate description of the EW system agreements. However, North could have asked East about West's strength, especially since a strong hand by West would tend to indicate that they were playing with a deck of cards containing more than 40 HCP. If North had done that and received an answer that, in the context of the bidding, indicated a strong hand by West, the Committee might have considered that NS were indeed damaged by misinformation. As it was North was damaged by her own negligence.

East's misinformation to North disrupted the game and they are therefore given a procedural penalty (compare Appeals Committee number 5).

The Committee's Ruling: The contract is changed to 3 by North making 3, NS +110.

EW is given a procedural penalty of 1/2 V.P. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Naki Bruni (Italy), Tjolpe Flodqvist (Sweden) and Kees Tammens (The Netherlands).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Terraneo	Perron	Bieder	Chemla
-	-	1	Pass
1	Pass	2	Pass
2	Pass	3	Pass
3	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Lead: 10

Result: just made, NS -400

EW play canapé by both opener and responder. 2 was 9+ cards in + (with or the longer suit). 2 was fourth suit.

NS called for the TD claiming they were damaged.

NS: Before the lead South asked West about East's 3 bid, the bid in question. West replied "Natural. Three cards". If South could have known it was a four-card suit he would have led a spade defeating the contract.

EW: West told South the 3 bid was "Natural. Likely three cards."

The TD ruled that result stands.

NS appealed.

EW: East could rebid 1NT with his actual distribution but since his clubs where so good 2 was also OK.

The Committee's Reasons for their Ruling:
Whether West said "Natural. Three cards" or "Natural. Likely three cards", South should have considered the possibility of it being a four-card suit, e.g. 0-4-4-5. He could also have asked West for a more detailed explanation. NS were therefore not damaged by the explanation South received.

The Committee's Ruling: The TD's ruling is upheld. Deposit returned.

Recommendation made by the Chairman of the Comittee

Though in this case it did not influence the outcome of the Committees decision, the Committee want to emphasise that anyone who wishes to protect himself should ask the opponents to write down their explanations, as Captains were told at the Captains meeting.

Subject: Hesitation, technical evidence

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Naki Bruni (Italy),Tjolpe Flodqvist (Sweden), Peter Lund (Denmark) and Jean Paul Meyer (France).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Calderwood	Militsopoulos	Shek	Kannavos
-	-	-	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
2	Pass	2NT	Pass
3	Pass	3	Pass
4	Pass	4	Pass
4NT	Pass	5	Dble
5	Pass	6	All Pass

Lead: A

Result: just made, EW +980

The Bidding:

1 17+
1 7-11, no 5+M or 6+m
2 Natural and asking in
2N 7-9, fewer than four spades, if three spades then Jxx at best
3 + Natural
4 Cuebid -- control in , no control in
4 Cuebid -- control in and implicitly in
4N Cuebid in
5 Control in and implicitly 2nd but not 1st round control in

TD's Ruling: NS called the TD after the board had been played claiming they were damaged.

NS: South claimed that West took a long time to bid 5 after the double. North claimed that the tray took long time to come back. They questioned if East had the values for a 6 bid. EW:West disagreed with South, it did not take a long time to bid 5. East disagreed with North, the tray did not take a long time to come back.

The TD ruled that score stands.

EW appealed.

EW: East's bids were nearly automatic. EW were not sure whether 4 showed a first-round control, but both believed that to be the case. Without it West could instead bid 3NT which would initiate cue bidding. Over 5 doubledWest could redouble which would show 1st round control in diamonds.A pass by him would show interest in what kind of control East had in diamonds.

West said he bid 5 since he was not interested in a slam -- he was missing the heart king and the CAKQ and his partner hardly could have many of them since his 7-9 HCP included a diamond control. He spent a lot of time before he bid 4NT and analysed the different answers he could get and what he would do. Consequently the 5S-bid was made in normal tempo, perhaps it took two seconds.

When East analysed the 5 bid he tried to show that it somehow could be constructed as forward going. East's reasoning was not made entirely clear to the Committee. One point of view was that if West really was interested in East having a 1st round control in diamonds, West could have passed, and his choice of not doing so in some way indicated to East that East's actual diamond-holding was suitable for a slam. East also emphasised the fact that he had a singleton heart.When asked how West could sign-off after 5 doubled, East's answer was not intelligible.

NS: Especially the 5 bid took time.

The Committee reasons for the ruling: 1. Was there a noticeable break in tempo ? The Committee first had to establish if any break in tempo had occurred and if that was the case, for how long time it was. Here word stood against word.

The Committee decided to call as a witness the scorer at the table. This person, who was a bridge player, testified before the Committee that West's pause over 5 doubled was longer than all other of his pauses on the board.

The committee also contacted Mr Baldi who is responsible for the computer system used at this championship. Mr Baldi could supply technical evidence.

The Chairman had asked Mr Bavin and Mr Kooijman (Mr Dadoun, the chief tournament director, was not available) of their opinion about using evidence of a technical nature. They had given their approval. The Committee decided to accept technical evidence.

Mr Baldi: This table was the Closed Room in the rama match.At the side of the relevant table a typist sat and registered into the computer all the calls and plays made. The computer also stores the time interval between the registrations. Based upon the stored data a printout of the bidding has been made. On it all bids taking at least 10 seconds are substituted for the number of seconds constituting the time interval. When the typist types the calls there are two different methods used. Either you wait until both bids at one side of the screen are made until you type them or you type each bid when it's made. The typist used at this occasion uses the second method which will be apparent when analysing the printout -- if the first method is used South and North will be accredited with all the time on their respective side of the table.

(Excerpt of printout)

1	--	1	--
40	--	2NT	--
3	--	3	10
4	--	4	--
53	--	5	x
20	--	13	--
--	22

(End of excerpt) The committee decided that the statement of the scorer and the printout made by Mr Baldi constituted enough evidence that there had been a break in tempo of at least 20 seconds. There was no need to assess the value of the respective statements made by both sides.

This length of 20 seconds was considered to be so great that the basic requirement for score adjustment in hesitation cases, a noticeable break in tempo, was fulfilled.

2. Could the break in tempo, from East's point of view, be attributed to West or South? The committee believed that, in this situation, a break in tempo of such magnitude decidedly more often than not would stem from West rather than South.

3. Did West's hesitation indicate to East that 6 would be a winning bid more often than it would have been if West had bid 5 in tempo ?

The statements of EW clarified that 5 was the weakest bid West could make. The slower the weakest available bid is made the more probable it is the bidder has extra values. The hesitation also may have indicated to East that there were not two quick tricks missing. The hesitation therefore indicated to East that 6 would be a winning bid more often than it would have been without the hesitation.

4. Did East have a logical alternative to bidding 6 ? In cases of hesitation the partner of he who hesitates may still make a bid indicated by the hesitation provided there is no logical alternative to this bid.

East's hand featured both plus and minus factors. He had more controls than a normal hand containing 7-9 HCP would produce. His singleton heart was of slightly dubious value since he had only three low trumps. His high card values were in the middle of the range he had promised. He had no honours in his partner's suits -- his partner may well have counted him for the king of hearts.

The committee is of the belief that a substantial number of players would choose to pass in the given situation. The Committee's Ruling: The contract is changed to 5 by West making 6, EW +680.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Guido Ferraro (Italy), David Burn (Great Britain) and Jean Paul Meyer (France).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Andersson	Baldursson	Gothe	Thorbjornsson
-	-	-	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
1	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	All Pass

1 17+
1 negative
1 natural, 3 or more spades with possible canapé, if 3 spades then minors 5-4 or 6+

Lead: ace of hearts

Result: just made, EW +600

TD's Ruling: NS called the TD 10 minutes after the halftime had been played claiming they were damaged.

NS: North claimed to be misinformed about West's hand, he was told that West had held 3-1-5-4 or 3-1-4-5 shape.

EW: East said he had told North that West did not have 5 Spades, and that the 3-1-5-4 shape was one of the possibilities. He had also mentioned the 4-1-4-4 shape. He had not mentioned 4-2-5-2.

The TD ruled that the score stands.

NS appealed.

NS: West had told south that he would not have bid 3NT with a singleton. North had not received the same information. If he had known that the shape was 4-2-5-2, he would never have led his ace of hearts but a club and the contract would have been set. He had asked about the meaning of the auction for a long time (2 minutes), but East had never mentioned the 4-2-5-2 shape.

EW: East added that he had alerted the One Spade bid. This was not contested.

It had been South who had written on the pad between South and East 4-2-5-2.West had also mentioned the 3-1(5-4) possibility in his explanation.

East did confirm that he never mentioned the 4-2-5-2 normal meaning and had concentrated perhaps too much on the anomalous and not on the normal meaning.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The committee was unanimous in agreeing that North would not have led the ace of hearts, had he correctly interpreted the auction. The committee also agreed that the contract would then have failed.

Having agreed upon causality and damage, the committee concentrated on the misinformation.

There were two opposite considerations. On one hand, East did not mean to mis-inform. He wanted to protect his side in case of the exception. He thought the normal meaning was obvious and did not mention it. On the other hand, North tried hard to get the information, but failed to receive it. Even in the two minutes it took, he failed to ask the right question.

In a vote, a small majority ruled in favour of East-West. The Chairman of the Appeals' Committee wants to stress once more that this problem might not have occurred had the explanations been written down.

The Committee's Ruling: The result stands. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Tjolpe Flodqvist (Chairman), Peter Lund (Denmark) and Jean Paul Meyer (France), with Naki Bruni (Italy) as interpreter.

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Olivieri	Jacobsdottir	Golin	Kristjonsdottir
-	-	Pass	1
1	2NT	Pass	3
Pass	3NT	All Pass

Lead: Heart seven

Result: Contract just made, NS +600

North-South play Precision and the 1 opening was according to this. 2NT was explained by South to West as 11-12 hcp and minors. North told East that 3 by South showed both minors.

TD's Ruling: East called the TD when the dummy was tabled after the lead. East said that the dummy was not what she had been told.After the contract was made East again called the TD and claimed that if she had known about South's explanation, she would have led a diamond which would have made it more difficult for North to make her contract.

NS: North claimed that 2NT was indeed a natural call and that the 11-12 hcp with minors possibility only applied after a double by the opponents. South disagreed on that. TheTD ruled that the score stands, and took 1/2 a VP away from North-South for not knowing their system.

EW appealed.

On the North-South convention card nothing special was mentioned about the 2NT bid, neither after the overcall or after a double.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee judged that all evidence indicated that North's explanation of the bidding was correct and thus East had not been misinformed.

The Committee's Ruling: The TD's decision was upheld. Deposit returned.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Guido Ferraro (Italy),Tjolpe Flodqvist (Sweden), Jean-Claude Beineix (France) and Kees Tammens (Netherlands).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Shacham	Elsinen	Levin	Kiema
Pass	1	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	Pass	4
Pass	4	All Pass

2NT Spade support, at least invitational
3 minimum
4 explained by South to West: void in hearts explained by North to East: non-systemic

Lead: a heart

Result: just made, NS +620

TD's Ruling: East called the TD. at the end of play claiming they were damaged.

EW: East said he would have led his diamond singleton instead of the heart if he had known South held a void in hearts. North might then have misguessed the Spades for one down.

NS: North and South do not play regularly together and got mixed up in their bidding systems. They did inform East-West that Three Hearts would have been a singleton. The TD ruled misinformation but no damage, so the score stands.

EW appealed.

EW: Maintained that with a correct explanation the contract might have gone down.

NS: It was determined that South in fact uses the said convention, but that North (with his regular partner) used One Spade - Four Hearts to show support and a void. South knew this but did not dare use it here in case partner should pass.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee was unanimous in deciding upon misinformation. No real evidence to the contrary had been provided, and according to Law 75 the director shall rule misinformation. The Committee was also unanimous in deciding there had been no damage. After the diamond ruff and seeing the lie of the clubs, declarer will always play East for the longer Spades and start low towards the ace.

The Committee was unanimous once more in deciding East-West should not have lodged the appeal.

The Committee's Ruling: The result stands. Deposit forfeited. North-South were fined 1/2 VP for not knowing their system.

A final note from the Committee: In fact, the heart lead is more likely to set the contract than a diamond. If declarer misguesses, East might get his ruff after winning a trick with the trump Queen.

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Naki Bruni (Italy), Tjolpe Flodqvist (Sweden) and Jean Paul Meyer (France).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Vainikonis	Szalay	Paliulis	Gulyas
-	-	-	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	2
Pass	4	All Pass

Result: one down, EW +100

West led a diamond won by South. South cashed the ace and king of spades. South then led a small club from dummy. East played the four and South the king.

TD's Ruling: After the board had been played North called for the TD claiming NS were damaged.

There had been problems before. Lots of calls for the TD. The players were late. There was a nervous tension at the table. The parties told him the following:

NS: East hesitated about five seconds before playing the four of clubs and thereby misled the declarer about who had the ace of clubs.

EW: Agreed about the hesitation. East was thinking about the right card for signalling.

The TD referred to law 73 F2 and changed the score to NS +620.

EW appealed.

EW: East does not understand English. When the TD arrived to the table he understood that the ensuing discussion was about his tempo of play. He did not understand it was alleged that he hesitated for 5 seconds. In reality his hesitation was not more than about 2 seconds. He did not agree to anything at all. When the TD left the table to consider his ruling, East got the impression that the matter was solved. He was very surprised when the TD came back and told them about the score adjustment. They play distributional signals in this situation and the four of clubs, the card he actually played, showed an even number of clubs, and was the correct card to play according to their methods. The reason for his hesitation was that he considered falsecarding in clubs.

NS: East was a slow player but his play to this trick was slower than normal. South played his and dummy's cards in normal tempo. From the fall of the cards South "knew" East had the 10 of spades.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
This was a case of severe language difficulties. During the meeting the questions made to the East player was made to a Polish translator who translated it into Belorussian, which the captain of the Lithuanian team in turn translated into Lithuanian. The answer by the Lithuanian player then came back the opposite way.

The relevant law, 73 F 2, says

Law 73 Communication between players.
F.Violation of proprieties.
2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception.
"If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive ... tempo... of an opponent who could have known, at the time of his action, that the deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score. (See Law 12)"

The parties have agreed that East hesitated. East did not play the four of clubs in normal tempo.Whether East hesitated for two or five seconds is of little importance. East has not told the committee about any legitimate problem of his, neither could the committee find one. East therefore should have played his card in normal tempo.

The Committee felt that without the hesitation it was quite possible South would play the ten (arguably the best play). After the hesitation it was normal for him to play the king. South should therefore be credited with making the correct guess in the club suit.

The Committee's Ruling: The TD's ruling is upheld. Deposit returned.

Appeal 13

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Guido Ferraro (Italy), Krysztof Martens (Poland) and Jean Paul Meyer (France).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Jansma	Szalay	Van Cleeff	Gulyas
-	-	-	Pass
Pass	1	Pass	1
Pass	1	Pass	1NT
Pass	2	Pass	2
All Pass

Result: just made, NS +110

TD's Ruling: EW called the TD at the end of play.

EW: said that the South player had taken a long time before bidding 1NT. West felt that Pass was a logical alternative to Two Clubs with the North hand.

NS: North said he had not noticed any delay in the bidding, and thought his auction was normal.

The TD changed the result to 1NT minus one, -50 to EW.

NS appealed.

NS: South spoke for the partnership and explained that Two Clubs was a normal bid. With the singleton Heart, it must be preferable to play in a suit contract, even if in a Moysian fit. South had hesitated before his 1NT bid because One Spade was forcing, and he considered and rejected a Pass and a raise to Two Spades.Also Two Clubs was out of the question, as this would have been fourth suit.

EW: did not attend the appeal.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
At the appeal, NS no longer contested the hesitation. In fact, the computer had recorded the match and the printout showed a 35-second break.

The Committee agreed that there had been unauthorised information.

However, the Committee members raised two points: The hesitation did not necessarily suggest bidding on. In fact, in similar cases players were ruled against because they DID pass in a similar situation. The hesitation might also have suggested a longer Heart holding, in which case bidding on might prove to be worse than passing.

Furthermore, the Committee accepted the statements by NS, suggesting that Pass was not a logical alternative. In fact, the computer recording showed that North had taken only six seconds to place on the tray his bid Two Clubs, suggesting that he had not taken the hesitation and its possible implications into account when deciding upon his bid.

The Committee's Ruling: The director's ruling is overturned. The result is again set at Two Spades, making, +110 to NS. Deposit returned.

The Chairman of the Appeals' Committee asked the director to tell the North player not to deny noticing hesitations in future.

Appeal 14

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Misinformation

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Guido Ferraro (Italy), Krysztof Martens (Poland), John Wignall (New Zealand) and Jean Paul Meyer (France).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Diklic	Brantive	Miladin	Ivanov
Pass	1NT	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	Pass	3NT
All Pass

1NT 15-17
2NT Transfer to diamonds
3 Positive with support

Lead: Queen of Spades

Result: just made, NS +600

TD's Ruling: EW called the TD at the end of play.

EW: said that the bidding was explained by South to West as: 2NT -- transfer, 3 Positive with support, but that North had explained the bidding as: 2NT -- transfer or 8-10 balanced, 3 -- Control, Honour in diamonds. If East had got the correct explanation, he would have led an "attacking club" in stead of a "passive spade".

NS: did not contribute to the arguments, except to provide the explanations as described.

The TD ruled that the result stood, as there had been no damage.

EW appealed.

EW: East maintained his arguments to support his choice of lead.

NS: Mr Martens asked the Bulgarian NS pair in Russian, to explain the meaning of their bidding and what was said at the table. North explained that they sometimes could bid a 5-3-3-2 in diamonds in the said way, and that that was why he had answered "Yes" to the question: "can he be balanced?"

The Committee reasons for the ruling
After hearing the explanations, it was not clear that there had in fact been a different explanation on either side. The spade and club leads were deemed to be just as probable.

It was felt that East-West had appealed "looking for luck". The Committee unanimously agreed that the deposit should be forfeited, but it was returned after all, because the language problems had caused the EW pair to believe that they had been damaged.

The Committee's Ruling: Result stands, NS + 600. Deposit returned.

The Chairman of the Appeals' Committee wants to add that this should not encourage teams to appeal simply because they do not speak the English Language as fluently as might be hoped.

Appeal 15

Subject: Misinformation & damage

Appeals Committee: Tjolpe Flodqvist (Chairman), Peter Lund (Denmark), Kees Tammens (Netherlands), Jean-Claude Beineix (France) and Naki Bruni (Italy).

Board 21 NS vulnerable Dealer North WEST	NORTH   J 6 5   10 7 4   10 3 2   A 10 9 2	EAST
9 2   K 9 8 6 2   K J 9 8   7 5	SOUTH	A 10 7   A J   A Q 7 6 4   K Q 8
	K Q 8 4 3   Q 5 3   5   J 6 4 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Grotheim	Garvey	Aa	O'Brien
-	Pass	1	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
1NT	Pass	2	Pass
3	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	Pass	4	Pass
4	Pass	4	Pass
5	Pass	6	All Pass

Lead: Club Ace

Result: Contract made, NS -920

East-West had a relay sequence were East showed a strong hand and West replied to East's relay bids, showing 0-8 HCP, any 5 card major with 5-7 HCP, 5 hearts and 4+ diamonds.

3NT showed 2-5-4-2 distribution, correctly explained by West to South, but mistakenly explained by East to North as 1-5-4-3.

Thereafter West denied aces but admitted to the red or black kings.

As a consequence of the explanation of West's distribution North lead the club ace rather than a spade, and the contract easily made. The TD was called and asked to return later, since the table was very late.

TD's Ruling: North claimed that he would have led a spade with the correct explanation and the TD found that this indeed was a case of misinformation, and that North-South were damaged. Since West had two ways of handling the contract after a spade lead, i.e. ace-king-heart ruff or diamond to hand and a heart finesse, and East-West was the offending side, the TD cancelled the board and gave an adjusted score of 60% (+3 imps) to NS and 40% (-3 imps) to EW.

EW appealed and claimed that the contract makes even on a spade lead. Playing for the hearts to be 3-3 or Q 10 bare would be about 39%, while the heart finesse with diamonds 2-2 would be about 26%.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee noted that the misinformation was evident and also the damage.

When damage is caused by misinformation it is practise to judge in favour of the non-offending side. If for example the finesse of the heart Jack would have been by far better than to play for the 3-3 break, declare would have had to take that view and go two down. The calculations of the percentages in this case can be disputed, but the Committee judged that none of the alternate plans were obviously superior to the other. The declarer also was under time pressure, which might well influence his choice of plan.

The Committee's Ruling: The Committee gave the declarer a 50% chance of making his contract by ruffing out the hearts and 50% chance of going two down by taking the heart finesse. That would give either minus 10 imps or plus 11 imps to NS, averaged to +1 imp for NS and -1 imp for EW.

Appeal 16

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Guido Ferraro (Italy), Krysztof Martens (Poland)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Multon	Kannavos	Mouiel	Militsopoulos
1NT	Pass	2	Pass
2	Pass	4NT	Pass
5	Pass	6	All Pass

1NT 15+-18-
2 transfer
2 only possibility to break the transfer is 3 with 4 card support and maximum
4NT quantitative, shows 5-3-3-2

Result: just made, EW +980

TD's Ruling: North called the TD after the bid of 6, because the tray had stayed for a long time on the other side of the screen. The pause was agreed upon.

The TD changed the result to Five Hearts, making six, EW +480.

EW appealed.

EW: East-West explained the bid of Five Hearts as being forcing. The only negative call over 4NT would have been 'Pass'.After all,West cannot have four hearts, or he would have bid Three Hearts (unless 4-3-3-3, in which case 4 NT is also a better contract). Five Hearts asks him to choose between Six Hearts and Six NoTrump.

The Appeals' Committee asked EW for the meaning of the alternative auctions:

- 4NT - 5 or 5 would show a five-card suit, and two hearts, and ask for six in the minor or 6NT.

- 4NT - 5NT would be forcing and asking for a four-card minor They also asked what West was thinking about, and he answered that he considered bidding Six NoTrump and Six Hearts himself.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee found it difficult to believe that the Five Heart bid was forcing. The bid of Five NoTrump as "choose a slam" would be more natural.Also, the Five Heart bid had not been alerted, on either side of the screen, and the players did not inform the director at the time that this was the meaning. Neither by convention card, nor by any system notes was this meaning proven.

That being the case, the Committee had to decide if "Pass" was a logical alternative to the actual Six Hearts. The Committee felt that although many players of the level of the French pair would probably have made the correct decision as well, a substantial number of players at these Championships would have passed on the East hand.

Law 16A applies:
When a player makes available to his partner extraneous information, ..., the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

The Committee ruled that 'Pass' should be considered a logical alternative, in which case Law 12c2 states: When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, ..., for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

The Committee therefore had no choice but to award a table score of +480.

The Committee's Ruling: Original Ruling stands, EW +480. Deposit returned.

Appeal 17

Subject: Possible misinformation

Appeals Committee: Tjolpe Flodqvist (Chairman), Peter Lund (Denmark), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), and Naki Bruni (Italy).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Torres	Karpov	Frances	Laanamae
3	Dble	3	Dble
Pass	4	Pass	4
Pass	Pass	5	All Pass

Result: Down 1, NS +100

East called the TD at the end of the play and said that North had alerted South's double of 3 and explained it as 7-10 HCP with the majors, and that South hadn't alerted his own double. South said that he forgot to alert what he considered to be a normal T/O double.

East stated that if he had known South's double to be for penalties, he would have passed over 4 hoping that his partner had a singleton diamond and three trumps.

TD's Ruling: Since South's hand was in accordance with North's explanation, the TD didn't find any damage, and let the result stand.

EW maintained that East after his lead directing bid of 3 had to make a decision to sacrifice in 5 or defend against 4. If South's double was for penalties, the chances to find a singleton diamond in West's hand seemed probable. If the double was for take out the sacrifice in 5 was more attractive. For East a double in this situation would be a penalty double, and the fact that South didn't alert his double should indicate that the double was for penalties. Thus East thought that North had given the wrong explanation.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
Since South actually had exactly what North had told him, 5-7 HCP with the majors, the Committee failed to see how the explanation had damaged East. South also said that a double of, for example 1 / Dble or 1 / Dble would have shown four hearts.

The Committee found no evidence that indicated that North had given the wrong explanation, the diamond KJ32 in the South hand being a pure coincidence.

The Committee's Ruling: The Committee upheld the TD's decision. Since the Committee found no grounds for an appeal in this case the Deposit was forfeited.

Appeal 18

Subject: Insufficient explanation

Appeals Committee: Tjolpe Flodqvist (Chairman), Peter Lund (Denmark), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jean-Claude Beineix (France) and Naki Bruni (Italy).

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Wasik	Ambroz	Knap	Klemencic
-	Pass	Pass	1
1	Pass	1	Pass
1NT	Pass	2NT	Pass
3NT	Dble	All Pass

Lead: Small spade.

Result: One down, +100 to NS.

North explained to East that the double of 3NT asked for a spade lead. South just told West that it was a penalty double. TheTD was called byWest at the end of the play, andWest claimed that if he had got the same information as his partner, he would have escaped to 4.

TD's Ruling: The TD decided to let the score stand.

West claimed that if he had known the double to specifically ask for a spade lead, he would have escaped to 4.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
South explained that if he had had KQJ10 in hearts instead he would not have doubled 3NT. Thus it was quite clear that he intended his double in the way his partner interpreted it, which he should have told West.

So this was a case of misinformation and with damage to the non-offending side.

The Committee's Ruling: The Committee allowed EW to escape to 4, making four for 130. Deposit: returned.

Appeal 19

Reported by Daniel Auby (scribe)

Subject: Improper handling of tray and alerts

Appeals Committee: Tjolpe Flodqvist (Chairman) (Sweden), Guido Ferraro (Italy), Krzysztof Martens (Poland)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Diklic	Passarinho	Miladin	Oliveira
-	-	-	Pass
1	Pass	1	Pass
2	Pass	3	All Pass

Result: making three, EW +110

East alerted his 2 bid to North explaining it as a relay. Whether West alerted it to South is disputed.

TD's Ruling: South called the TD when the tray came back with the 3 bid.

NS: If South had known 1 was conventional he would have doubled it for penalties.

EW: West did alert 1. This relay response was already used twice in the match. They had played 8 boards so far in the match.

The TD allowed the score to stand.

NS appealed.

South: When the tray came over with the 1 bid, South did not notice any alert by West. Then West bid 2 and alerted it. South asked about it. West moved the tray to the other side and answered "five clubs and at least four hearts". The tray then came back with 3 and South asked about the 1 bid. He never got a chance to make this question when the tray was at their side the time before, because West moved it over so fast, while they were still discussing the 2 bid. NS have no special agreements about playing against relay systems. They do have the basic agreement that a double of a relay is a penalty double. It was always West who moved the tray.When alerting West used the method of pointing at the alertable bid. West: He did alert his bid. He made this alert just as he had made the alerts on the previous boards in the match: by felling his underarm forward with his pointing finger stretched, sometimes touching the bidding card with this finger but sometimes just pointing with it straight forward. Sometimes he moved the tray himself, sometimes he and South moved the tray together. He agrees of having moved the tray at the same time as he explained the 2 bid. He knows it is NS's responsibility to move the tray.

During the hearing it turned out West was under the impression that, though the tray had not yet been moved to the other side, South was not allowed to replace his 1 bid after West bid 2.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
1. When alerting a bid you should use your alert card and make sure your opponent observes your alert. It is the alerter's absolute responsibility to ensure that the opponent gets the message, for example by waiving the blue card and search eye contact.

2. NS are responsible for moving the tray. EW have their possibility to influence this procedure by withholding their bid until they are satisfied.

Since the start of the match West had been violating both of these two regulations. By not asking West to conform to them or by calling for the TD, South had accepted West's behaviour. Because of this South and West shares the responsibility for any damage that stems from these violations.

Whether an alert was made or not is difficult to examine. The burden of proof lies on the alerter, but in this case, where South had accepted West's incorrect way of alerting, South also must take some blame for what happened. Furthermore, if West and South had handled the tray according to the regulations, South might have asked about the 1 bid before moving the tray to the other side. From the testimonies given this is quite possible and if so South could then, according to the law, have substituted his pass for a double. NS would then have been on their way to a spade contract.

Since South shares the responsibility for what happened, his side keeps their score of -110.

Since West also shares the responsibility his side should be given an adjusted score. NS never claimed that they would have bid and made 4. The Committee is of the opinion that a double by South could have been made on KJ10xx in spades and nothing more. The Committee concluded that the outcome of a spade contract by NS would be nine or ten tricks, normally depending on how many diamonds NS lost.

The Committee's Ruling: For NS: 3 by West making, NS -110. For EW: 3 by North making, EW -140. Deposit returned.

Appeal 20

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Undisclosed system

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), David Burn (Great Britain)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Podgor	Lambrinos	Kalish	Filios
-	-	-	Pass
1	2NT	3	5
6	All Pass

1 strong
2NT minors
3 either 5-8, majors OR 8+, majors

Result: one down, EW -100

TD's Ruling: East called the TD after the 2NT bid, because this bid was not mentioned on the system card. The system card mentions the bidding 1C-1NT for the minors, but not 1C-2NT.

2NT is alerted and explained as minors on both sides of the screen.

East-West claim they have not discussed their further bidding after the 2NT overcall.

The TD ruled that the score would stand.

EW appealed.

EW: East-West explained their agreements over 1C-1NT: 2 would show 8+, unbalanced; 3 would show 5-8, both majors. That is why East misunderstood West s bidding. They claim this to be the reason for their reaching the slam that fails.

NS: North explained that whereas 1C-1NT would show minors, 4-4 or 5-4, he bid 2NT to show extra distribution. He supposed his partner would understand this. South explained that he thought this meaning to be "natural", or at least "common".

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee considered that East-West could indeed be considered damaged.

However, they did not believe the pair had never encountered the bidding of 1C-2NT for the minors.

The Laws of Bridge do give to the opponents the right to full understanding of the bidding, but not necessarily to a full prior disclosure of the system.

In addition, the regulations demand full prior disclosure of brown-sticker conventions, but not of "common" methods. East-West received a full and correct explanation of the meaning of the bid of 2NT. They tried to cope with it at the table and failed. That is normal bridge.

North-South were given a penalty for incomplete information on their system card.

The Committee's Ruling: Result stands, EW - 100. Deposit returned. Greece fined 1/2 VP for incomplete system card.

Appeal 21

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), David Burn (Great Britain), Kryzstof Martens (Poland).

Board 17 Love All Dealer North WEST	NORTH   A 10 5 3 2   J 10 5 4 3   Q 10   J	EAST
K Q 9 8 6   K   J 8 7   Q 10 7 4	SOUTH	- -   9 7   K 9 5 4 2   A K 9 6 5 2
	J 7 4   A Q 8 6 2   A 6 3   8 3

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Lauria	Jansen	Versace	Westerhof
-	2	Pass	2NT
Pass	3	3NT	4
Pass	Pass	Dble	Pass
5	Dble	All Pass

2 strong or weak with both majors
2NT inquiring
3 majors, either 5-5 with minimal values or 5-4 maximal
3NT minors

Lead: Ace of Spades

Result: contract made, EW +550

TD's Ruling: This was the vu-graph match, Open room. South called the director after the lead, but he arrived only halfway through the play.

All players agreed that the tray had stayed away for a long time after 4 -- Pass. In fact the recording showed that the 4 bid had taken 88 seconds, the Pass 214, a total of 5 minutes and 2 seconds.

East declared that he had doubled to show extra values, including the spade ruff. His bid of 3NT had only showed distribution.

The TD ruled that the score would stand.

NS appealed.

EW: East explained that he doubled for a combination of reasons. He wanted to show his extra values (AK, K and spade ruff), and if partner decided to leave it in, he hoped partner would interpret it as asking for a spade lead.

NS: did not notice any alerts on the double over Four Hearts.

East and West repeated they had alerted.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
Several members of the Appeal's Committee had witnessed, or in fact commentated upon, the deal in the vugraph theatre. They remember the alerts being made.

The Committee had to answer two questions:

1) Was there unauthorised information? The Committee decided that since it took 5 minutes, and South had the easier auction of the two, that East could safely assume that it was his partner who had hesitated. That constitutes unauthorised information.

2) Did East have a logical alternative to doubling? The Committee felt that Pass was a logical alternative. They thought East's double was very likely the best decision, but not to the degree of obviousness that it takes after unauthorised information.

When in the position of having unauthorised information, a player must lean a little backwards. Sometimes you are not allowed to play the best bridge.

The Committee therefore decided to disallow the double and return the score to Four Hearts, one down, for East-West. The Committee then turned its attention towards the lead of the Ace of Spades, which gave the contract.

It was felt that the lead came pretty quickly, and that North failed to ask for the meaning of the double, which was after all alerted. If he had asked, East would probably have told him about the lead directing aspects of his double. North might then have steered away from the disastrous lead. North-South have thereby contributed to their own bad result.

The Committee's Ruling: The result is set at
For East-West: Four Hearts, not doubled, one down, -50 (-12 IMP's)
For North-South: Five Clubs, doubled, made, -550 (0 IMP's) Deposit returned.

Appeal 22

Reported by Herman De Wael (scribe)

Subject: Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Steen Møller (Chairman), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), David Burn (Great Britain), Kryzstof Martens (Poland)

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

WEST	NORTH	EAST	SOUTH
Diklic	Dogan	Miladin	Gezginer
1	1	Dble	2
Pass	Pass	3	Pass
3NT	Pass	4NT	Pass
5	Pass	6	All Pass

1 strong club, canap'
2 intended as natural (see below)
Dble negative
2 see below

Result: one down, NS +100

TD's Ruling: After several minutes (The TD was at the table for a total of 16 minutes), it was established that South had seen a bid of 1NT from partner and bid and explained accordingly.

1 was therefore explained as Four Spades and a longer minor, and Two Clubs as 'Pass or correct'.

The TD ruled after a long consideration that the score would stand.

EW appealed.

EW: East-West explained that they only appealed because they were not able to have a complete explanation of the difficult reason why the TD had ruled against them. This was the same director as for Appeal 21 and he had a lot of work. They wanted a review of the Ruling.

NS: Again stated their mistake and apologised for it.

The Committee asked for an explanation of East-West's system:

East's double was negative, Two Diamonds would have been non-forcing.

If Two Clubs would have been explained as natural a double from East would be take-out. Over Two Clubs explained as it was, double would have been general penalty, in particular also promising a penalty on diamonds.

The Committee reasons for the ruling
The Committee believed South when he said he had seen a 1NT bid and that he bid and explained accordingly. This does not excuse him from explaining to West the meaning of the bidding as it was according to their system, so that West should have been told that both One Spade and Two Clubs were natural.

According to the statements of West, he would have passed over the correct explanation as well. Thereafter, he had no choice but to answer his partner's bidding: 3 'Have you a Stopper?' - 3NT 'Yes' - 4NT 'Aces?' - 5 'Two'.

At the other side of the screen, East had received a complete explanation of the correct meanings. Since the same contract would then be reached, the director had correctly ruled that there was no damage. Most of the time, when your opponents make a mistake like this, you will get a good result. When it turns against you, the Rules or the Appeals' Committee will not give you redress.

The Committee's Ruling: Result stands.