44th European Team Championships

Appeals 1-13

Appeal No 1.

Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 1 Poland v Switzerland

Board 2 NORTH
N/S Game KJ8
Dealer East 5
K96542
10 9 7
WEST EAST
Q6 A9
Q 10 8 7 3 KJ642
Q83 A J 10 7
KJ2 54
SOUTH
10 7 6 4 3 2
A9
-
AQ863

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Yalcin Pszczola Duong Kwiecien
- - 1 2
4 Pass Pass Dble
Pass 4 Pass Pass
5 Dble All Pass
Contract: Five Hearts Doubled, played by East Lead: 7

Result: 10 tricks, -100 to East/West

The Facts: Two Hearts was Spades and another.

The Director was called by West when the tray came back after Four Hearts after
some delay. According to the Polish pair, the delay had been minimal, according to
the Swiss, it was at least half a minute.

The Director: Included the nature of North's hand in his establishment that there
had in fact been a hesitation, and decided there had been unauthorised information.

Ruling: Table result changed to Four Hearts making, +420 to East/West.

North/South appealed.

The players: North showed the Committee how he had written the explanation (5
and 5+C/D), which had apparently taken him 7 seconds. He stated he had passed
in tempo. East told the Committee that north had clearly hesitated and even touched
the Pass card for some time before taking it out of the Bidding Box. The Swiss
captain, who had sat behind East, stated the same. West stated that the tray had
remained on the other side for at least 30 seconds. South said he had not noticed
the hesitation. Two Hearts could have been made on very strong or on weak hands.
The Polish captain added that Four Hearts is not necessarily made.

The Committee: Agreed with the Director that north did indeed have a problem,
and chose to believe that there had been a hesitation. When East notices a delay,
South may well have noticed it as well.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld. +420 to East/West.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 2.

Misinformation, Equity

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 2 Portugal v France

 Board 17 NORTH
Love All QJ86
Dealer North J9
J984
832
WEST EAST
A953 -
10 4 AKQ8
AK73 Q 10 5 2
K 10 7 AQ964
SOUTH
K 10 7 4 2
76532
6
J5

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Sa Voldoire Barbosa Bitran
- Pass 1 1
Dble Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 3NT All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by East

Result: 13 tricks, +520 to East/West

The Facts: One Heart was a transfer to Spades, but North had not alerted this.
West had received an alert, but had not asked about the meaning, and intended his
double as negative, showing Spades.

The Director: Decided that after West had not inquired about the meaning of One
Heart, East/West were unlikely to get to a better contract.

Ruling: Result Stands, official warning to North/South for their failure to alert.

East/West appealed.

The players: West corrected the Director: it was not specifically true that he did not
know the meaning, it was more a case of 'I did not care at the time'. He did intend
his Double as showing 4 Spades and at least 5 points.

Under those circumstances, Two Diamonds is an ambiguous bid, not necessarily

showing values.

North freely admitted he had forgotten the system at the time, and had not alerted as
a consequence.

The French captain pointed out that under any circumstances the Pass over Three
No-Trumps is not clear.
The Committee: Decided that North committed a very grave infraction. It is clear
that this prevented East from making evident Spade cue-bids, and thus reaching a
more rewarding contract. West's error in not inquiring about the meaning of an
alerted call compounded the issue, but not enough in the opinion of the Committee.

Under normal circumstances, an adjustment to a grand slam, or some weighted

average of grand and small slams would have been in order. After West's mistake,
the adjustment to small slam seemed sufficient.

The Committee's Decision: Adjusted Score, Six Diamonds, making 13 tricks, +

940 to East/West. Official Warning to North/South upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C3

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 3.

Misinformation

Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman De Wael

(Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 2 Denmark v Poland

Board 20 NORTH
Game All A 10 7 6 4 2
Dealer West AJ752
-
A6
WEST EAST
J53 8
64 K8
KJ984 A752
954 KQJ872
SOUTH
KQ9
Q 10 9 3
Q 10 6 3
10 3
 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
Andersen Tuszynski ChristiansenJassem
Pass 1 2 2
3 3 Pass 4
Pass 5 Pass 6
Pass 6 All Pass

Contract: Six Hearts, played by North Lead: Ace of Diamonds

Result: 12 tricks, +1430 to North/South

The Facts: Before the lead, East had inquired about the meaning of Six Clubs. It
had been explained to him as a cue-bid, showing a control, and either showing a
diamond control or having sufficient values to know that partner has it. South stated
to the Director that he had intended the bid as 'pick a slam'.

The Director: Concluded that North's explanation had been correct according to a
logical elaboration of their system.

Ruling: No misinformation, Result Stands

East/West appealed.

The players: North/South explained that in their Polish Club style, a hand that is
not opened One Club, and yet tries for slam, has to be distributional. Thus the
meaning that South attributed to Six Clubs ('Pick a slam') has to be incorrect. Six
Clubs had to show Club and Diamond control. Five Diamonds would also have
shown a diamond control, but without certainty about slam. East explained his lead.
It could not be right to lead a club, with both hands showing control of the suit.

The Committee: Considered that when an explanation does not fit the bidder's
hand there needs to be strong evidence that the given explanation is systemically
correct. It was the Committee's unanimous decision that North/South had fallen
short in this requirement. Therefore, the ruling should be based upon misinformation.

The Committee was less certain that the misinformation caused the bad result, or
that East was (perhaps only partly) to blame for the bad result by his chosen lead. In
a majority decision, the Committee decided to award an adjusted score.

The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Six Hearts, down One, -100 to
North/South.

Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 4.

Hesitation
Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,
Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Jaap van der Neut (the
Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 4 Finland v Israel

Board 15 NORTH
N/S Game -
Dealer South 764
A K 10 9 6 5 2
K Q 10
WEST EAST
KQ952 10 8 7 6 3
A 10 J9832
73 84
8763 5
SOUTH
AJ4
KQ5
QJ
AJ942

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Yadlin Koistinen Yadlin Kiema
- - - 1
2 3 5 Dble
Pass 5 Pass 6
All Pass

Contract: Six Diamonds, played by North

Result: thirteen tricks, +1390 to North/South

The Facts: This hand also featured in Appeal no 6, and in several other calls for the
Director. One Club was Precision, Two Spades was weak, and Three Diamonds
was positive, eight points or more. Five Clubs was explained by East to North as
possibly fit-showing, and lead directing. It was not alerted by West to South, but the
problem was not there.

The Director was called by West after the bid of Six Diamonds. West said there had
been a pause of 2 to 3 minutes before the tray had come back with Five Diamonds.
All four players agreed upon this pause.

The Director: Asked South why he had bid Six Diamonds. He said that North
would normally pass the Double of Five Clubs, therefore Five Diamonds was a
strong bid and as he had good working points he found it obvious to bid the slam.
Uncertain about the case, the Director decided to rule against the possible
offenders.
Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Diamonds, making 13 tricks, +640 to North/South.

North/South appealed.

The players: South stated he had never promised any diamonds, but he had two
honours in the suit. He had doubled, wanting to defend, but when partner pressed
on, it had to be slam going under all circumstances. He stated it might even have
been a grand slam, but that this would have been impossible to find out. West
pointed out the obvious reasons not to allow the bid of Six Diamonds. He also
stated that he had not bid Six Spades, a good sacrifice, as he was afraid of being
accused of taking a double shot.

The Committee: First dealt with West's argument about the sacrifice. When at the
table, one should always assume that the opponents really have a hand that is
worth their bid opposite the hesitation. West could never have been accused of
trying to take a double shot in this situation.

Next the Committee tackled the real issue. The Committee read Law 16:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information ..., the partner
may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably
have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

When deciding about cases of this nature, three questions have to be answered:

1) Has there been unauthorised information?

2) Did the information suggest one alternative over another?
3) Could the other alternatives be considered logical?

There was no problem about deciding that there had in fact been unauthorised
information. It is clear that it was North who had been thinking.

The Committee took some more time in deciding if the hesitation did in fact suggest
bidding the slam.

The Committee considered two possible hands for North:

- a light hand, with no intention of going to slam;
- a heavy hand, invitational to slam;

Upon reflection, most members of the Committee concluded that the hesitation had
shown a strong hand. North may well have been considering going to slam himself.
One member was not certain that this was 'demonstrably' the case. North may have
been considering the auction whatever hand he actually held.

All members agreed that South's hand was strong enough to accept the invitation
on any strong hand.

Some members of the Committee were of the opinion that North could not hold a
weak hand, since North would then simply choose to accept partner's invitation to
defend. Not all members shared that opinion.

The Chairman expressed the view that when confronted with unauthorised
information, a player should really lean back and not to use the information.

All members of the Committee fully agreed with that view, but some expressed the
opinion that in every situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, over which
a player's action is clear enough to allow him to take the suggested action even
after unauthorised information. It would not be correct to place that line too far, since
that would effectively punish thinking.

Since the Committee could not reach a unanimous decision, the case was decided
on a vote. The result of the vote was 3-2 in favour of allowing the bid of Six
Diamonds. The Chairman, who was in the minority, had announced before the vote
that he would not exercise any authority he might have of overruling a majority.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result

restored. +1390 to North/South.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A

Deposit: Returned

Committee's note: The Committee wishes to stress that this is a borderline case. A
player should really make certain that in cases of unauthorised information, he does
not select a suggested action unless he is certain there are no logical alternatives to
it.

It is far better to blame partner for transmitting the information in the first place, than
to take your chances with Director and Committee. The Committee also states that
they agree with the Director's decision to rule in favour of the non-offending side.

Appeal No 5.

Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Jaap van der Neut (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 6 Portugal v Turkey

 Board 17 NORTH
Love All J87
Dealer North Q98642
A3
J8
WEST EAST
AQ5 10
K J 10 7 A
K75 J 10 9 4 2
975 A K Q 10 3 2
SOUTH
K96432
53
Q86
64

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Sa Kubac Barbosa Kilercioglu
- 2 4 Pass
5 Pass 6 All Pass

Contract: Six Clubs, played by East

Result: twelve tricks, +920 to East/West

The Facts: Over a weak Two Hearts, four Clubs showed a minor two-suiter. The
tray took some two minutes before returning with Five Clubs, after which East raised
to Six.

The Director: Considered passing to be a Logical Alternative.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Clubs, making with an overtrick, +420 to East/West.

East/West appealed.

The players: East/West explained that over a weak two in Hearts, Four Clubs
showed the minors, not forcing, while Four Hearts would be forcing with both
Minors. West explained that at first he thought Four Clubs showed the black suits,
which is indeed how they defend against a Multi Two Diamonds. He had even
considered bidding Four Spades, when he remembered the correct system. He had
then considered his next bid for some two minutes more. He stated that he had lost
some time in considering whether to bid Five Clubs or Five Diamonds.

East explained that he chose the non-forcing alternative because he did not know
there would be a fit, but when partner then raised the Clubs, he considered that
partner must have at least the Ace of Spades and a high Diamond honour. If that is
the Ace, he is playing at 75%, if it would only be the King of Diamonds, the slam is
still at 50%.

East/West were not able to produce written notes about their defensive methods,
but thought the explanations were self-evident.

The Committee: Considered the hesitation proven, including the fact that it must
have been a hesitation by West. The Committee considered the Director' ruling to be
correct and did not think the case should have been brought to appeal.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Forfeited

Appeal No 6.

Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Jaap van der Neut (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 4 Great Britain v Poland

Board 15 NORTH
N/S Game -
Dealer South 764
A K 10 9 6 5 2
K Q 10
WEST EAST
KQ952 10 8 7 6 3
A 10 J9832
73 84
8763 5
SOUTH
AJ4
KQ5
QJ
AJ942

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Jassem G Tuszynski STredinnick
Tredinnick
- - - 1
2 3 6 Dble
Pass 7 Pass Pass
Dble All Pass

Contract: Seven Diamonds doubled, played by North. Lead: Club

Result: Thirteen tricks, +2330 to North/South

The Facts: This hand also featured in Appeal no 4, and in several other calls for the
Director. One Club was strong, and when the tray came back with a jump to the Six
level, South took some time before doubling. East called the Director after the bid of
Seven Diamonds.

The Director: Established that there had been a break in tempo, and considered a
Pass by North to be a Logical Alternative.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Six Spades doubled, four down, -800 to East/West.

North/South appealed.

The players: East stated that he had told the Director at the table that the tray had
taken at least 30 seconds to come back, and that no-one protested at the time. South
admitted that he had paused for some 20 seconds. He stated that since the
opponents basically told him that a slam was on, he had a problem.

The British captain had three arguments:

Firstly he called the break in tempo a 'pause', not a 'hesitation', which in his opinion
carried no information.

Secondly he was of the opinion that the break in tempo should rather suggest
passing, not bidding on.

And lastly, he stressed that the bad result was due to East's unfortunate lead, rather
than their bidding. He explained in great detail how East should have worked out
that a heart lead would defeat the contract. East countered that last argument by
stating that in his opinion the club and heart leads were equal, but that the club lead
would also beat Six Diamonds, and that he wanted to win the board in that case.

The Committee: Found that the situation in this case should not pose any problems
for experienced players. They should simply accept that they are outbid and double
in tempo. As it is, the hesitation can only suggest some tolerance for diamonds.

The Committee considered the club lead to be insufficiently bad to break the link
between the infraction and the damage.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld. -800 to East/West.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 7.

Card Played
Appeals Committee: Anton Maas (Chairman, the Netherlands), Peter Lund (Scribe,
Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy).

Open Teams Round 3 San Marino v France

Board 19 NORTH
E/W Game AJ85
Dealer South A9874
62
J2
WEST EAST
K97 10 4
KQ32 10 5
A 10 9 QJ8743
K 10 8 963
SOUTH
Q632
J6
K5
AQ754

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Bitran Pizza Voldoire Filippi
- - - 2
Pass 2 Pass 2
Pass 4 All Pass
Contract: Four Spades, played by South Lead: king of hearts

Result: nine tricks, -50 to North/South

The Facts: The first trick was taken by the ace, and a heart was played from the
table, for the ten, jack, and either the three or the queen. West stated he had wanted
to play the queen, but that the three had dropped out of his hand.

The Director: Asked the player to show what had happened. He chose to believe
West had indeed dropped the three on the table.

Ruling: The played card is the queen of hearts, and the three becomes a minor
penalty card.

North/South appealed.

The players: Repeated their statements in Committee, and re-enacted the

happenings.

The Committee: Decided that the Director was best placed to make the
determination of facts, and found nothing to suggest he had made a mistake.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 50B, Law 45A

Deposit: Returned, but only just.

Appeal No 8.

Unauthorised Information

Appeals Committee: Anton Maas (Chairman, the Netherlands), Peter Lund (Scribe,
Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy).

Open Teams Round 6 Romania v Slovenia

 Board 12 NORTH
N/S Game AJ
Dealer West J432
10 8 5 4 2
J7
WEST EAST
Q K 10 9 8 7 5
A 10 9 7 5 -
J63 Q7
K982 AQ653
SOUTH
6432
KQ86
AK9
10 4

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Marina Šenk Taciuc Ambrož
Pass Pass 1 Pass
1NT Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 2 Pass
3 Pass 4 Pass
5 All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs, played by East. Lead: ace of diamonds

Result: 10 tricks, -50 to East/West.

The Facts: South was also scoring the Table. After the first trick was turned over,
he asked his partner if it had been the five that had been contributed, to which north
agreed. East called the Director to point out this irregularity, and the director did in
fact warn North/South that this should not be done. After the play, East called the
Director again, claiming that South had continued the suit because he now knew
from the Director's call, that East did in fact have a second diamond.

The Director: Established that the five (middle of five) had not conveyed any
interesting information (High encouraging, High-Low even), but that South did in
fact know which card it was (since he had merely asked for a confirmation) and that
it was in fact Declarer who had given opponent extra information.

Ruling: Result Stands

East/West appealed.

The players: Confirmed their statements made to the Director.

The Committee: Agreed with the Director.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 66C, Law 16B

Deposit: Returned, but only just

Appeals No 9 and 10. Alert Procedure, Misinformation

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands),
Jaap van der Neut (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 6 Israel v France

Board 10 NORTH
Game All KJ94
Dealer East 5
10 9 3
Q8632
WEST EAST
Q6 A 10 8 7 2
Q 10 7 6 2
A642 KQ75
A J 10 754
SOUTH
53
AKJ9843
J8
K9

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

de Sainte
Greenberg Bompis Zohar
Marie
- - Pass 4
Pass 4 Pass Pass
Dble Pass 4 All Pass

Contract: Four Spades, played by East.

Result: nine tricks, -100 to East/West.

The Facts: East summoned the Director at the end of the hand, complaining he had
not received an alert on Four Clubs. Four Clubs was Namyats. It had been correctly
alerted and explained by South to West. North stated that he had alerted, but East
had not seen. East/West play that a direct double over Four Clubs is take-out over
Hearts, whereas the delayed Double would be for penalties. East took the Double
to be take-out, which is why he bid Four Spades.

The Director: Went all the way to the vugraph theatre (this was the open Room of
the Rama match) to ask if North had alerted. Some spectators could affirm that
North had made a "soft" alert. He had taken the card out of the bidding box, held it in
the air and replaced it.

The director also established in the same manner that East had only looked at
opponent's Convention Card at the end of play.

The Director checked the Convention Card of North/South. The meaning of Four
Clubs was mentioned among "General Approach and Style", but not among
"Special bids that may require Defence", and not among the opening bids in the
inside of the Card.

The Director judged both pairs to be at fault and applied Law 12C1 (no normal
result possible) and cancelled the board.

Ruling: Board Cancelled.

Both sides appealed.

The players: East/West explained their methods and produced a page from their
system notes in the Committee. Although these notes were in Hebrew, they asked
the Committee to believe that they in fact played as stated: direct Double is Take-
Out, delayed Double would be penalty.

East stated he had looked at inside of the Convention Card immediately after the
call of Four Clubs. North stated that although he had not alerted in the correct
fashion, he had been certain that East had noticed it.

The Committee: Decided on two separate cases:

The Appeal from North/South: North/South committed two severe infractions: their
Convention Card had not been properly filled out and was seriously misleading;
and the alert had not been given in the prescribed manner. The Committee reminds
the players of Regulation C2:

The "alert procedure" is as follows: A player who makes a "conventional call" alerts
his screen-mate by placing the alert card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his
segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the
the alert card to his opponent.

Given these two infractions, North/South should not benefit from anything that
subsequently happens at the table.

The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Four Hearts doubled, three down, -
800 to North/South. The pair in question is not allowed to play in the next match, and
must correct their Convention Card, and give a copy of this to all other teams.
Before any match they play afterwards, they shall make certain that their opponents
have the corrected version of their card.

Relevant Laws: Law 40B, Regulation C2

Deposit: Forfeited
The Appeal from East/West: In the opinion of some members, East/West did not do
enough to protect their own interests. East might well have suspected that an
auction of 4C-Pass-4H indicated Namyats, and it was not certain that he did check
the Convention Card. However in the end, it was decided that the infractions that
were committed by North/South were too severe not to give East/West the benefit of
the doubt.

The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Four Hearts doubled, three down, -
800 to North/South.

Relevant Laws: Law 40B, Regulation C2

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 11.

Hesitation

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe,

Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Peter Lund (Denmark), Anton Maas (the Netherlands).

Open Teams Round 8 Portugal v Russia

Board 4 NORTH
Game All Q62
Dealer West KQJ43
QJ7
62
WEST EAST
J54 AK7
8 A62
A852 K9
AJ973 KQ854
SOUTH
10 9 8 3
10 9 7 5
10 6 4 3
10

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Silva SantosGromov Santos Petrunin
Pass 1 Dble 3
Dble Pass 4 Pass
5 Pass 6 All Pass

Contract: Six Clubs, played by West.

Result: twelve tricks, +1370 to East/West

The Facts: West had taken a very long time in bidding Five Clubs. All players
agreed to this.

The Director: Established that the tray had come back to North/West after several
minutes. He decided that a Pass by East was a Logical Alternative and that Six
Clubs was suggested by the break in tempo.

Ruling: Score adjusted to Five Clubs, making 12 tricks, +620 to East/West.

East/West appealed.

The players: West told the Committee that he had a problem and needed to think it
over. He was wondering if East did not have five spades and was asking to play
Game in that denomination. East explained his actions. From the pre-empt
(according to opponents always promising a 5-4 Heart fit) he knew his partner held
a singleton Heart. From the responsive Double, he knew partner would be at least
4-4 in the minors, so Six Clubs was definitely on. By bidding Four Hearts, he
committed himself to the slam, because he would also bid Six Clubs if partner had
bid Five Diamonds. He was still searching for the grand.

North stated he thought the hesitation helped in bidding the slam. He pointed out
East had not asked any questions so he could not be a certain as he said about the
9-card heart fit. He admitted that the Three Hearts bidder would have a four-card suit
in 99% of the cases.

The Committee: Accepted that East, through his bid of Four Hearts, where he
could risk a response of Five Diamonds, had proved that he would always be going
to at least a small slam, no matter what West would bid.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision overturned, original table result

restored. +1370 to East/West

Relevant Laws: Law 16A

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No 12.

Unauthorised Information during Play

Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Jean-Claude Beineix

(France), Peter Lund (Denmark). Herman De Wael joined the Meeting after the start
and acted as Scribe.

Open Teams Round 12 Switzerland v the Netherlands

 Board 15 NORTH
N/S Game K86
Dealer South Q 10
QJ94
A J 10 9
WEST EAST
10 7 4 3 J952
AJ74 K52
A876 10 2
2 K843
SOUTH
AQ
9863
K53
Q765

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Zivkovic de Boer Levy Muller
- - - Pass
Pass 1 Pass 1
Pass 1NT Pass 2
Pass 2 Pass 2NT
Pass 3NT All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by North Lead: two of spades

Play:

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

4 Sx 2 Q
2 9 Cx Q
3 J K Cx
Sx Sx 5 A
Dx A Cx Cx
A J Dx Dx
Hx

Result: eight tricks, -100 to North/South

The Facts: Two diamonds denied three cards in hearts. North called the Director
after the end of play. East had returned the spade to trick four after a considerable
delay. North claimed West had known from the pause not to play spades in trick
seven, but rather hearts.

The Director: Established that East had indeed taken some 20 seconds before
leading to trick four, and asked about the signalling. The 2 was fourth best, and
the 4 and 3 showed count. The Director ruled that there had been Unauthorised
Information, which suggested the heart return, and that the spade return was a
Logical Alternative.
Ruling: Score adjusted to Three No-Trumps, making nine tricks, +600 to North/
South.

East/West appealed.

The players: West explained his play. He knew from the bidding that North had 2
hearts, and this is why he had returned the suit. North/South, by way of their captain,
told the Committee that in his opinion the hesitation made it a lot easier for West to
return hearts.

The Committee: First of all confirmed that Law 16 applies to plays as well as to
calls. The Committee established that there had been Unauthorised Information, and
that the hesitation was very likely to indicate that East did not have the king of
spades, and thus suggest the heart return in trick seven. The Committee then made
an analysis of the play so far, which showed that a spade return was still a Logical
Alternative. Just exchange K and Q for J and K. The bidding and play would
have been the same, but t right.

Since the West player was in the possession of Unauthorised Information that
suggested a heart return, he should have returned a spade in stead.

The Committee's Decision: Director's decision upheld.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2

Deposit: Returned

Committee's note: The Committee wishes to remind the players that Law 16,
Unauthorised Information, also applies to plays. Players should be prudent when
hesitating during play.

Very frequently during the play, information is exchanged, quite unintentionally, but
nevertheless unauthorised. Quite often, the same information is available from
authorised sources, and the suggested action can be taken without penalty.

In this case, no such authorised information was available to West, and he must
suffer the consequences.

It must be noted that West could have played the ace of hearts at trick seven, on
which East could have given a positive signal, thus giving the same information in
an authorised manner. In that case, a heart continuation would have been allowed.

Appeal Committee Special Meeting No 1.

Procedural Penalty

Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, Great Britain), Herman De Wael

(Scribe, Belgium), Jens Auken (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Anton Maas (the
Netherlands), Krzysztof Martens (Poland).
Open Teams Round 16 France v Slovenia

The Facts: Around half-time in the match, the Director noticed that there was no-
one scoring in the Closed Room of this match. He told the French player in North to
score, but the player refused at first. Being told to score by the Chief Tournament
Director, he started to do so, but only the boards 10-20 from the match were scored.

The Director: Referred the matter to the Appeals Committee.

The players: The French captain explained that he had asked the reception at both
hotels (this match was played in the Rooms at the San Gorg hotel, normally used by
the Ladies and Senior Teams), as well as the Chief Tournament Director, to provide
a scorer. He then came back to the Radisson hotel to watch the vugraph.

He realised that it was his responsibility, but he never scores himself, because the
players do not like that the captain is at the table.

The Committee: Decided that the French team was at fault. Since the conditions of
contest did not prescribe a particular penalty, a list of other penalties was reviewed.
In the end, the Committee decided upon a penalty of One Victory Point.

The Committee's Decision: 1VP penalty to France.

Relevant Laws: Regulation B.3.9, G.2.3