42nd Generali Europeans Bridge Championships

Vilamoura, Portugal

June 17th - July 1, 1995

Appeal # 3

Open Teams Round 5

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Barry Rigal, Great Britain
and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

(Please note: West/South & North/East are Screen-mates)

Board 13 NORTH
Game All J 10 7 2
Dealer North Q J 10 5 2
K83
WEST 2 EAST
K9 8653
K93 A4
AQ762 10 9
Q74 SOUTH KJ963
AQ4
876
J54
A 10 8 5

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- Pass Pass 1
1 dbl(1) 1NT Pass
2NT Pass 3 Pass
3NT All Pass

(1) alerted at both sides of the screen, and explained:

From North to East: "Both Majors".
From South to West: "Negative".

Facts: West called the TD after the board had been played, and complained about the explanation he had
received about the alerted double.

Result on the board: 7 tricks to E/W; N/S +200.

TD's ruling: Score stands.

Appellant: East/West.
The players: West complained that South had explained the double as negative. To him, a negative double
would only show point count values and no distributional values. After the alleged misexplanation, 3 was, to
him, a Cue-Bid asking for support in clubs.

He maintained that if he had known that the double meant at least 4-4 in the major suits, the meaning of the 3
bid from his partner would be "natural" and he would have Passed 3 .

South, on the other hand, thought that negative doubles were primarily meant to show distributional values in
the other suits, in this case, both majors.

The committee: The committee was of the opinion that West had been misled by his own interpretation of the
concept of "negative doubles".

The normal worldwide interpretation of a negative double is: When you open the bidding, LHO overcalls and
your partner doubles (according to partnership agreement, up to a certain level of overcall), that is a negative
double.

Normally, there is a partnership agreement as to how many HCPs are required. The most wide spread
agreement is that at the one level, only 6 HCPs is required, at the two level at least 8 HCPs, and at the three
level, more than that.

If you and the overcaller have bid a minor and a major, the double shows 4 cards in the other major. If you and
the overcaller have bid the two majors, the double shows the minors. If you and the overcaller have bid the two
minors, the double shows the majors.

Consequently, the committee strongly felt that South's description, "negative" was accurate, and in accordance
with the universal conception of this term.

Being well aware of the fact that negative doubles may have special meanings in some countries, the
committee still felt that in a European Championship one should apply the universally accepted meaning.

The logical consequence of this is that when such a negative double only shows point count values, and no
distributional values, there would be a need for a more specified explanation. In this specific case, West should
have known that the general idea of negative doubles in his country did not match the universally accepted
concept, and therefore, he could, and should have, asked South about a more specific meaning of the double.

The committee's decision: The committee unanimously upheld the TD's decision. The deposit was forfeited.

Appeal # 4

Open Teams Round 5

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Barry Rigal, Great Britain
and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

(Please note: West/South & North/East are Screen-mates)

Board 23 NORTH
Game All J832
Dealer South 10 4
A J 10
WEST A764 EAST
10 5 764
QJ9 AK732
Q98764 K32
K 10 SOUTH J3
AKQ9
865
5
Q9852

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1 (1)
Pass 2 (2) Pass 3
Pass 4 All Pass

(1) Canape
(2) 6-11 HCPs, balanced hand. There are other bids for weaker hands.

Facts: TD was called to the table by North as the bidding tray was half-way under the screen on it's way to
the other side after East's first Pass. One of North's cards, J, was located under the tray. He had put his cards
on the table, and only picked up 12 of them. North wanted to change his call, but was not allowed to do so by
the TD, and the bidding commenced.

Result on the board: 10 tricks to N/S; N/S +620.

TD's ruling: Score stands.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: East/West claimed that South had been influenced by North's calling the TD, West claiming that
he could hear what was going on at the other side of the screen. E/W could see no reason for South to bid
once more on his hand after the support to 2 . They argued that on a previous hand, a similar support bid had
been made with only three cards and with less values.

North claimed that he did not want to change his bid, but only wanted to know his rights when he called for
the TD.

South was not at all sure what was going on at the other side of the screen. He maintained that even with the
J in his hand, the 2 response was well within the range of their partnership agreement on this sequence (6-
11). According to the N/S system, 3 was 11-13 non-forcing Canape or a game try with a singleton. 2NT
would have shown 14-16 with a Canape in clubs (95 % of the time in clubs).

The team captain put forth to the committee that the N/S pair was a very aggressive partnership.

The committee: A majority of the committee felt that South may have been influenced by the retrieving of the
tray the the calling of and conversation with the TD. According to the normal procedure in cases of this kind,
if South had a "reasonable alternative" to the action which might have been suggested by the "incident", it
would be his duty to apply that alternative.
Consequently, the committee majority was of the opinion that "Pass" would be such a logical alternative in this
case, as South held a bare minimum in HCPs, even though his hand was distributionally slightly better than a
minimum hand.

The committee's decision: The score was reverted to 2 by South = +170 for N/S. The deposit was
refunded.

Appeal # 5

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark

Open Teams Round 5
Appeals Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Barry Rigal, Great Britain
and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

(Please note: West/South & North/East are Screen-mates)

Board 23 NORTH
Game All 32
Dealer South 10 9 6 5
K763
WEST AK8 EAST
K 10 6 QJ85
AQJ4 873
Q 10 2 98
Q53 SOUTH 10 9 6 4
A974
K2
AJ54
J72

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1NT(1)
Dbl Pass(2) 2 (3) Pass
2 dbl 2 dbl
All Pass

1) 13-15
2) Alerted on both sides of the screen and explained as asking for a redouble, weak or strong.
3) Alerted by West and explained as "Stayman". Not alerted by East.

Facts: TD was called by N/S after the hand was played.

2 was led by South to the king. North put down the K and the A and played another club, expecting his
partner to ruff it. West won with the Q, and played K, which South took with the Ace.

Result on the board: 8 tricks to E/W; N/S -670.

TD's ruling: The TD ruled that there had been misinformation and damage and changed the score to N/S +
200.
Appellant: East/West.

The players: North believed East to hold 5 cards in clubs and 4 spades, since the 2 bid had not been alerted
on his side. South would lead the 10 from Tx, but a small from xx. The lead would never have been from Jxx
or Txx if South had known that Declarer had a club suit. In that case, South would almost surely have led a
heart or a spade, and the contract would easily go 500 down.

South, on the other hand, believed that North had a 2-6-2-3 hand, and wrongly took the trump Ace early, in
order to give his partner a diamond ruff, which was disastrous for the defense.

West admitted to having alerted and incorrectly explaining 2 .

2 was not Stayman according to the E/W system.

The committee: The committee found the defense to be inferior, but nevertheless, logical down the line. There
had been misinformation, and the defense had been damaged by the misinformation.

The committee's decision: The committee unanimously upheld the TD's decision. The committee took into
account the relative inexperience of the E/W pair at senior international level, and the deposit was refunded.

Appeal # 6

Open Teams Round 6

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Steen Moeller, Denmark (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Barry Rigal, Great Britain
and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

(Please note: West/South & North/East are Screen-mates)

Board 18 NORTH
N/S Vul. KJ9763
Dealer E --
Q2
WEST Q J 10 7 6 EAST
A 10 2 Q854
A982 KQJ
AJ8 9643
854 SOUTH A9
--
10 7 6 5 4 3
K 10 7 5
K32

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - 1 (1) Pass
1 (2) 2 (3) Pass 3 (4)
dbl 3 4 All Pass

1) Alerted on both sides. Could be a weak hand with 4 spades. Denies 4 hearts.
2) Alerted on both sides. Could be 2 or 3 cards in hearts.
3) Alerted on both sides. North explained to East, "Strong 2-suiter without hearts". South explained to West,
"I don't know! Probably hearts or another suit."
4) Not alerted by South. Alerted by North and explained as "strong".

Facts: According to the convention card, the explanation given from North to East on the 2 bid is correct.

Result on the board: 8 tricks to E/W; N/S +100.

TD's ruling: Score stands.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: North said that he was not at all sure what the 3 bid meant and that he bid 3 just to see what
would happen. South did not know what 2 meant.

East maintained that 3 was alerted and explained as "I don't know, maybe it is forcing", and since West
showed a heart suit through his double, East bid 4 . West doubled the 3 bid to warn East that he would be
willing to double the opponents in all contracts.

The committee: There may have been misinformation in the explanation of the 2 bid, but the committee did
not regard this as substantial enough to do anything about Easts 4 bid. The misinformation was on the S/W
side of the screen and did not contribute to Easts final action. When East decided to bid 4 , it was at his own
risk, as he could have Passed over 3 and awaited action from his partner.

The committee's decision: The committee unanimously upheld the TD's decision. N/S were instructed to
clarify their agreements when facing situations of this kind.

When deciding upon the deposit, reference was made to the relative inexperience of N/S in such matters, and
the deposit was refunded.

Appeal # 7

Open Teams Round 6

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz, Great Britain (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Barry Rigal, Great
Britain, Nils Jensen, Sweden and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

(please note, West/South & North/East are Screenmates)

Board 7 NORTH
Game All 87
Dealer S K732
K974
WEST J63 EAST
10 3 AQJ642
QJ8654 10
10 6 5 AQJ3
98 SOUTH 54
K95
A9
82
A K Q 10 7 2

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1 (1)
Pass 1 1 3NT(2)
Pass Pass 4 Pass
Pass Dbl All Pass

(1) A kind of Polish Club, showing at least 2 cards in clubs.

(2) Alerted by South and explained as: "Good club suit". Not alerted by North.

Facts: This was the first board of the set played. East called the TD at the end of the round. North had already
left. East had asked about the meaning of South's bid of 3NT, and North shrugged his shoulders. Asked again
whether the bid showed a long strong minor, North shrugged again, and said that "2NT would show a
balanced hand with about 20 HCPs."

Result on the board: 7 tricks to E/W; N/S +800.

TD's ruling: Being in doubt, TD ruled in favor of the non-offending side. Contract: 4 doubled play by East,
N/S + 500.

The players were told to use the pads and write any conversation.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: North maintained, that after his second round of questioning North about the meaning of 3NT,
East had said, "Then it it clubs?" East denies that.

As to the double shrug, North pointed out that his partner often bid 3NT, in many different positions, as the
contract he simply wanted to play, and therefore, North couldn't possibly know what South held at all times.

South also held the opinion that this sequence, 1x and then returning with 3NT at the first opportunity, would
normally show a long running bid suit. That would only be common sense and quite obvious for a player at
international level.

East claimed that if he was sure that his partner knew that South would have a long club suit (he, of course
knew from his own hand), he would have bid 4 showing 6-4 in spades and diamonds. Now, he did not dare
to bid 4 out of fear of being Passed out by his partner. If he could show a 6-4 by bidding 4 , he would end
up in 4 , which is only down 2.
West pointed out, "if North expects his opponents to know that South held clubs, he should at least have
known it himself!"

The committee: If North/South had been playing standard methods, South's 3NT rebid would show a long,
strong club suit. The fact that they were playing a type of Polish Club made some difference, but not enough
to persuade the majority of the committee that East/West had been damaged by North's unhelpful answers to
Easts questions. Thus, East made his 4 call at his own risk, and stayed in the contract when doubled, also at
his own risk.

The committee's decision: The committee majority overruled the TD's decision by a 4-1 vote. The score was
restored to what was obtained at the table, N/S + 800. The deposit was refunded.

Chairman's note: The English of the East/West pair is a lot stronger than North/South's. Language difficulties
often result in disputes which end up before the Appeals Committee. Therefore, it is normally best that
questions and answers are made in writing.

Appeal # 9

Open Teams Round 10

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz, Great Britain (Chairman), Nils Jensen, Sweden, Ron Andersen, USA,
Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

Dealer N NORTH
A
6
AJ8542
WEST AK743 EAST
K J 10 6 5 98743
A842 KJ
K96 Q
Q SOUTH J 10 9 5 2
Q2
Q 10 9 7 5 3
10 7 3
86

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 2 (1) Pass 2 (2)
Pass 3 (3) Pass 3
Pass 4 Pass Pass(4)
Pass

(1) Alerted on both sides and explained as "3-suiter 17-20 or minors 15-17"
(2) Alerted from North to East and explained: "To play if 4-4-4-1 with spades". Not alerted from South to
West.
(3) 5-5 in the minors.
(4) Considerable break in tempo before the Pass.
Facts: TD was called to the table after the opening lead was faced and dummy was spread. The screen was
down, and West complained that a) the 2 bid had not been alerted and b) there had been a hesitation from
South before the Pass over 4 .

West did not inquire about the 2 bid, but asked about the call when South made his preference to 3 , and
received the (2) explanation.

Result on the board: 10 tricks to N/S; N/S +130.

TD's ruling: Score stands.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: West maintained that South had made two breaks in tempo; first when he corrected 3 to 3
and a significant break before he Passed the 4 invitation. To him, the 2 bid, without any alert, meant
"natural and forcing". He did not want to ask at this stage, since his only suit was spades, and a question at this
stage could possibly warn South that there might be a problem with the spade suit.

He suggested that if 2 had been alerted, West would have doubled, which would eventually have brought
E/W to the lay-down 4 . He failed to see South's difficulty both over 3 and over 4 .

South claimed that West had a long look at N/S's convention card after his 2 . Thus West could clearly see
that 2 would be the only forcing relay after 2 . Thus, 2 would not be forcing. Moreover, if West didn't
want to enter the bidding at this stage, he could have done so when South explained the meaning of North's 3C
and his own 2 .

The committee: The committee is of the opinion that West's reaction to South's unintentional break(s) of
tempo backfired, as you may draw inferences from such tempo breaks only at your own risk.

South's bid of 2 is clearly alertable. Therefore there had been an infraction by N/S. The question is whether
E/W had been damaged?

Even with a proper explanation, it would be normal for West to Pass over 2 . By the next round, West had
received a proper explanation of the 2 bid and chose to Pass when he had the options of double (to show
both majors) and 3 . The committee was satisfied that there had been no damage to E/W.

The committee's decision: TD's decision was unanimously upheld. As South had committed an infraction,
the deposit was returned.

Appeal # 11

Open Teams Round 6.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Jose Damiani (Chairman), Helgi Johannsson, Iceland, Marian Frenkiel, Poland and Steen
Moller, Denmark.
Board 21 NORTH
N/S Vul. AQ95
Dealer N 2
AQJ8
WEST AJ73 EAST
10 3 J742
A 10 9 6 J873
K9652 43
65 SOUTH KQ9
K86
KQ54
10 7
10 8 4 2

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 1 Pass 1
Pass 1 Pass 1NT
Pass 3NT All Pass

Facts: South called the TD at the end of the hand complaining about an undue hesitation.

West led the 2 to the 10, and South played another Diamond to the Jack in dummy. Now, the 3, and after
some hesitation, East played the K. East switched to a heart, which went to the King and the Ace, West
continued with another heart. The declarer won with the Queen, followed by three round of spades from the
top, ending up with South on lead, who played the 10. East won, cashed his good spade and his heart tricks;
declarer discarded the A from dummy allowing the 9 to take the last trick.

Result on the board: 6 tricks to N/S; N/S -300.

TD's ruling: TD ruled damage owing to the hesitation. Score adjusted to 3 NT down 1; N/S -100.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: South claimed that at trick three, it took East at least one minute to play the K. E/W contested
this, and maintained that East had only paused for 5-10 seconds. South then stated that the hesitation may not
have been a full minute, and East added, that it might well have been at least 10 seconds.

South claimed that the hesitation made him believe that East had a serious problem with e.g. Kx, and East
said he was very surprised at the lead of a small club from dummy and that he had to consider playing the 9
in order to avoid a later end play in the suit.

The committee: The committee established, that since East had at least two main possibilities in his defense
(he could play one of the honors or the 9), he would also have every right to think for as long as he pleased.
However, when he decided to play an honor, he should have known that by choosing the "abnormal"
alternative, he would (inadvertently) violate the ethic code, as this play was bound to mislead South. In
situations of this kind, East should always play the "natural" card, the Queen, which gives the declarer a real
choice instead of an imaginative misleading one.

The committee's decision: The committee supported the TD's decision. The deposit was returned.

Committee's note: The committee was confident that it was not East's intention to coffee-house South. The
EBL wants the highest possible standard of ethical conduct to be followed in these championships. Therefore,
after a hesitation, players are advised to do the "normal" thing rather than the "abnormal", whenever there is a
choice between the two.

As an example, consider this situation:

C Tx
C xxx C KQx
C AJ98x

South plays a NT contract, and is known to have a weak hand. There are ample entries in North. The 10 is
led from dummy. Now East has to consider the possibilities of splitting his honors now, or ducking completely
to block the suit.

If East, after a hesitation, decides to split, he should use the Queen, and not the King.

Relating this to the current appeal: by playing the Queen, East guides his partner as to who has the King, but
on the other hand, he really does not help the declarer through his honesty. Declarer will still be facing the
same problem after the hesitation.

Appeal # 13

Open Teams Round 14.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman), Helgi Johannsson, Iceland, Steen Moller, Denmark, Ron
Andersen, USA and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 21 NORTH
N/S Vul A 10 5 2
Dealer N 10 9 7 4
-
WEST 10 5 4 3 2 EAST
J73 KQ964
AQ8 53
J98 743
K876 SOUTH AQJ
8
KJ62
A K Q 10 6 5 2
9

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- Pass 1 Dbl
Pass(1) 2 Pass 4
Dbl All Pass

(1) Alerted by West and explained: "Weak or with points" Not alerted by East.

Facts: TD was called to the table, by North, at the end of the play. The complaint was the lack of an alert by
East.
On the convention card of N/S was written, under the section "Over opponents' takeout double", "Pass = 0-5
HCPs or 9-11 HCPs. Redouble = 12+ HCPs. Jump in new suit = NF (not forcing). (The committee was told
that 1NT would be the bid with 6-8 HCPs.)

East led the Q to the Ace. 4 led towards the K and the Ace; next the K held the trick. J was ruffed
by South, with the 2. Now followed A, K, Q and 10. West ruffed with the 8 and was over ruffed
with the 9. 4 to the Queen and 6. 6 from South (West discarded 7), ruffed with H10 in hand, and
5 to the Ace and ruffed with J in dummy:

NORTH
--
7
--
WEST 10 EAST
-- K
Q 5
-- --
8 SOUTH --
--
--
52
--

Now came 5 from dummy. West discarded his club, and so did North and East ruffed with his 5.

Result on the board: 9 tricks to N/S; N/S -200.

TD's ruling: Misinformation, but no damage. Score stands.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: North knew that his trump holding was not good enough to win the contract. However, since
West incorrectly ruffed with his 8, he was given a chance of winning the contract "en Passant", if he could
only figure out where the remaining trumps were located.

He complained that if he had known that West could have that many points (11), he could have ruffed the 5
with the 7. West had a Passed hand over 1 - Dbl, and had shown Jxx and 9 HCPs already. He could not
believe that the Q would be with West, and since he had already seen a defensive error from West (putting in
his 8), he assumed that West could have made another error in not playing his 5 to the 5, which would
have made the contract go down for sure if East had the Q.

East simply forgot to alert the Pass over 1 - Dbl, however, he felt that he should have been asked anyway
after his double of 4 . West admitted to having failed when ruffing the 10 with his 8.

The committee: The committee unanimously ruled that the Pass should have been alerted.

The committee's decision: TD's decision upheld. Deposit returned.

Chairman's note: Players should inform their screen-mate of their partnership agreement; not what they hold
in their hand.
Appeal # 14

Open Teams Round 16.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman), Barry Rigal, Great Britain, Steen Moller, Denmark and
Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 8 NORTH
Love All J93
Dealer W KQ9763
87
WEST A9 EAST
AK62 Q874
AJ 10 2
A642 KQJ953
Q85 SOUTH 7
10 5
854
10
K J 10 6 4 3 2

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

1 1 Dbl(1) 1NT(2)
4 All Pass

(1) 4 spades.
(2) Alerted From South to West as transfer to clubs. Not alerted from North to East.

Facts: After the round had finished, the E/W NPC approached the TD and claimed damage due to the lack of
an alert from North.

Result on the board: 12 tricks to E/W; N/S -480.

TD's ruling: Score stands.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: East maintained that the fact that 1NT was a transfer to clubs, rather than natural, changed the
meaning of West's 4 bid.

If 1NT was natural, 4 was based on distributional values; with a strong balanced hand, he would have
doubled. If 1NT was a transfer to clubs, 4 was a very strong balanced hand.

If he had been given the correct explanation, he would have had the chance to bid on - particularly as it was
probable that West did not have many wasted values in clubs.

This was the second to the last board of the session and there was a friendly atmosphere. Through the session,
North and East had alerted for each other somewhat casually and relaxed and North claimed that he had also
alerted South's 1NT in the same manner. East did not notice any alert.

Furthermore, North felt that it would not be safe for E/W to go to the 5 level.
The committee: The committee recognized the contested alert as a non-alert, as it is the duty of the alerter to
ensure that his alert has been seen by his screen-mate. Therefore, there was misinformation from North to East.

As to the question of damage, the committee was of the opinion that the East hand would not be worth a
further move even if he had received the right explanation.

The committee's decision: The committee upheld the TD's decision. The deposit was returned.

Chairman's note: This board was bid to 6 four times out of the 54 times played; 2 times in the Open Series
and 2 times in the Ladies' Series.

Appeal # 16

Ladies Teams Round 9.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA, Steen Moller, Denmark and Tommy
Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 3 NORTH
E/W Vul AJ52
Dealer S KQJ3
KJ5
WEST KJ EAST
- 9876
9865 72
AQ2 8763
Q98542 SOUTH 10 7 3
K Q 10 4 3
A 10 4
10 9 4
A6

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1
Pass 4NT Pass 5
Pass 5 (1) Pass 6
All Pass

(1) Hesitation.

Facts: TD was at the table during the auction.

Result on the board: 12 tricks to N/S; N/S +980.

TD's ruling: TD ruled that South's 6 had been influenced by North's break in tempo before bidding 5
(suggesting that 2 Aces were not missing). The contract was adjusted to 5 by South with 12 tricks; N/S +
480.

Appellant: North/South.
The players: North meant her 4NT as 5-Ace Blackwood, and believed spades to be the agreed upon trump
suit. South, on the other hand, answered 5 , which meant only two aces (normal Blackwood) because she did
not believe that there was any agreement as to the trump suit.

The correct reply on N/S's methods showing 3 Aces in 5-Ace Blackwood would have been 5 . When North
then bid 5 , South knew that her answer had been to the wrong question, and that North had meant spades to
be the trump. N/S also maintained that it was a partnership agreement that they did not bid 4NT without
holding at least one Ace. This, however, could not be supported by anything on their convention card.

The committee: The committee was of the unanimous opinion that South had an automatic bid of 6 , despite
any hesitation by North. There is no hand North could hold, looking for a spade slam, that was missing four
aces and the King, Queen of spades.

The committee's decision: The committee overruled the TD's decision, and restored the contract to 6 N/S +
980. The deposit was returned.

Appeal # 22

Open Teams Round 25.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Steen Moller, Denmark (Chairman), Helgi Johannsson, Iceland, Nils Jensen, Sweden,
Barry Rigal, Great Britain and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 10 NORTH
Game All AJ962
Dealer East KQJ974
10
WEST J EAST
KQ 10 7 5 3
52 A8
Q83 AK7652
A K 10 9 8 7 SOUTH 2
84
10 6 3
J94
Q6543

West North East South

- - 1 (1) Pass
1 (1) 1 Pass Pass
Dbl(1) Pass 2 Pass
2 (1) Pass 3 Pass
3NT All Pass

(1) Alerted on both sides of the screen.

Facts: TD was called to the table at the end of the play by North, who complained that the explanation of the
double had differed on the two sides of the screen. 1 could be on a three-card suit (in principle natural); 1
was a relay. The double was explained:
From West to South: "Strong Takeout".

North asked East if the double showed hearts, and the answer was either: "Shows four " or "Could have
four ".

After the bidding tray had been moved to the other side of the screen, East changed his explanation: "Could
have hearts or a strong hand without 4-card major." There were no written statements.

Result on the board: 9 tricks to E/W; N/S -600.

TD's ruling: Result stands.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: North felt damaged because the first explanation, which in his opinion was: "shows four ",
prevented him from bidding his hearts, and thus reach a heart contract. If he had had the changed explanation
before the tray was moved, he would have bid 2 (showing 5-5) or 3 (showing 5-6).

East/West did not appear before the Appeals Committee as they had mixed up the time of appearance.

The committee: The committee found that there had been misinformation as North did not receive the full
explanation before the tray was moved. Thus, N/S were possibly damaged.

4 would have gone one off, but on the other hand, the bidding of 4 could have taken E/W to at least 5
which was bound to score 600 to E/W. Against 5 North might have sacrificed in 5 . Since the outcome of
the bidding would be so unsure, the committee decided to declare the board cancelled.

The committee's decision: The committee took the board out of the match, which in fact meant 3 imps to N/S,
as North at the other table played 5 x with two down = 500 for E/W. The deposit was returned.

Furthermore, It was the opinion of the committee that since E/W were playing a very unusual system, they
should present their opponents with a full declaration of responses over 1 and 1 .

Appeal # 18

Open Teams Round 22.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Steen Moller, Denmark (Chairman), Ron Andersen, USA and Tommy Sandsmark,
Norway.
Board 6 NORTH
E/W Vul AQ3
Dealer East Q2
K74
WEST Q 10 7 4 3 EAST
J9 765
J 10 9 6 543
Q 10 8 6 3 J
J8 SOUTH AK9652
K 10 8 4 2
AK87
A952
-

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - - 1
Pass 2NT Pass 4
Pass 4 Pass 4
Pass 4NT Pass 5
Pass 5 Pass 5
Pass 6 All Pass

Facts: The TD was called to the table after the hand was played. The lead from West was J and dummy
won with the Queen. South then led a small club from dummy at trick two.

East then paused, for at least two minutes, before he played his A. Through the bidding, South had shown
short clubs (singleton or a void).

Result on the board: 10 tricks to N/S; N/S -100.

TD's ruling: Result stands.

Appellant: East/West.

The players: South pointed to the fact that the Appeals Committee had ruled earlier, in a similar case, that
when hesitating, you must put in the "normal" rather than the "abnormal" card.

He claimed damage because the Ace made him misplay the clubs. He maintained that if East had played the
K, South would have had a chance of playing the Q from dummy and he would have won his contract. (He
would have played the A,K of spades and the Q which he would let run. By ruffing the 3rd heart with
dummy's last trump, he had ample diamond connections to cross back and forth and make the contract.)

South did admitt that he was not sure whether he would have made this play, but at least, with the "normal"
play, he would have had a chance of doing so. South pointed out to the committee that he had paused for more
than a minute, after the first trick, before he led a club from dummy.

E/W did not appear in front of the committee, nor had they written anything on the appeal form.

The committee: The committee found that East, however involuntary, violated the ethic code when he paused
and then played the Ace of clubs from A,K. The committee tried to estimate at what percentage South would
actually make his contract if the normal card is played from East and found that in approximately 50% of the
times, South would win 980 and in 50% he would go down two = -100. Since the difference in the score is
880, the committee gave N/S 50% of this score.

The committee's decision: The committee overruled the TD's decision. Score for N/S = +440 on the board.
The deposit was returned.

Appeal # 21

Open Teams Round 25.

Reported by Steen Moller.
Appeals Committee: Steen Moller, Denmark (Chairman), Helgi Johannsson, Iceland, Barry Rigal, Great
Britain and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 13 NORTH
Game All Q 10 9 7 6
Dealer North QJ74
732
WEST 6 EAST
K3 AJ
A65 10 9 8
KQJ954 6
74 SOUTH A K Q 10 5 3 2
8542
K32
A 10 8
J98

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- Pass 1 Pass
1 Pass 3NT Pass
6NT All Pass

Facts: TD was called to the table during the bidding of the following board. The players were asked to finish
this, after which South claimed misinformation on the previous deal.

The bid of 1 had, on both sides of the screen, been explained as: "could be three cards", while 3NT was
explained by East (to North) as: "solid seven-card suit", and by West (to South) as "basically long clubs". It
was established that the conversation between all four players was in French.

There were no written statements and the convention card did not mention anything about the bid of 3NT.

Result on the board: 12 tricks to E/W; N/S -1440.

TD's ruling: Result stands.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: South felt damaged because the explanation of 3NT fits the way the bid is used in his country,
i.e. 20-21 HCPs with a good club suit and a misfit in diamonds. He felt that he should have been told that the
bid could be made with as little as 14 HCPs, plus a solid seven card suit, which, in his opinion, made it
necessary to make an aggressive heart lead instead of his actual (Passive) lead, 5.

He chose the spade lead, believing that if East held a 6-3-3-1 distribution, there would be time enough and a
potential heart trick would not disappear.

West explained, that 3NT did not necessarily promise a solid club suit, but could be made with for example
AKJxxx or KQJTxx - "a field of clubs" as he had told South in French.

East agreed with his partner's explanation, but admitted that he (to North) had said "an established suit" (in
French) only because that was what he saw in his own hand.

The committee: The committee found that there had been different explanations, but believed E/W, as their
statement corresponds with the normal, universally accepted concept of this bidding sequence.

South should have asked for a further explanation and should not expect other players to use exactly the same
methods as those in his own country. The committee found that South was given the right information and
could therefore claim no damage.

The committee's decision: The committee upheld the TD's decision. The deposit was returned.

Appeal # 23

Senior Teams Round 15

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz, Great Britain (Chairman), Steen Moller, Denmark and Tommy
Sandsmark, Norway.

Board 29 NORTH
All Vul Q865
Dealer North KQ32
A 10 9
WEST J7 EAST
10 9 3 2 J74
A976 10 8 5
K53 Q764
92 SOUTH 854
AK
J4
J82
A K Q 10 6 3

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- 1NT Pass 2
Pass 2 Pass 2
Pass 2NT(1) Pass 3 (2)
Pass 3 (3) Pass 3 (4)
Pass 4 (5) Pass 4 (6)
Pass 4NT(7) Pass 6
All Pass
(1) Both majors.
(2) Relay.
(3) 4-4-3-2.
(4) Roman Key Card Blackwood.
(5) One Key Card.
(6) Asking for the Q and further kings.
(7) Explained differently:
From South to West: " Q and the K".
From North to East: " Q and the K".

Facts: TD was called to the table after the hand was played, West claimed damage due to an incorrect
explanation. The explanation of South to West was " Q and K". The correct explanation was " Q and
K".

West led the 2.

Result on the board: 12 tricks to N/S; N/S +1370.

TD's ruling: TD ruled that there had been an incorrect explanation and damage had occurred. Score: 6 down
one; N/S -100.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: West claimed he would have led a diamond if he had had the correct information. Since he had
had the information that North held the Q and the K and he was able to see the latter in his own hand, he
was quite puzzled.

This led him to think that North might have shown Q as a king and that leading a diamond would probably
give declarer his 12th trick.

If he had known that North held the K (a sure trick as West held the A), he would have known that the
aggressive lead of a diamond was necessary.

N/S admitted that there had been misinformation from South to West, as the explanation given from North to
East, was the correct one. However, South maintained that the misinformation would only help the defense,
for with the correct information, West would expect the HK in North and the DA in South. In that case, South
thought it would be much more difficult to lead a diamond.

The committee: The committee found that with the correct information, West would have had an excellent
shot at finding an aggressive diamond lead instead of the Passive one in clubs.

The committee's decision: TD's decision upheld. The deposit was returned.

Appeal # 26

Open Teams Round 30.

Reported by Tommy Sandsmark.
Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz, Great Britain (Chairman), Jean-Claude Beneix, France, Steen Moeller,
Denmark and Tommy Sandsmark, Norway.
Board 22 NORTH
E/W Vul 83
Dealer East AJ872
AJ72
WEST 42 EAST
9 AKJ764
Q 10 9 4 K65
KQ63 4
A 10 8 6 SOUTH KQJ
Q 10 5 2
3
10 9 8 5
9753

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

- - 1 Pass
2 Pass 4 (1) Pass
5 All Pass

(1) Splinter

Facts: The TD was called to the table after the hand was played, West complained about body language,
conveying information, from South to North in the play.

North led the A, switched to the A and then played another heart, which was ruffed by South.

Result on the board: 10 tricks to E/W; N/S +100.

TD's ruling: TD ruled damage due to improper transmission of information. Score: 5 made; N/S -600.

Appellant: North/South.

The players: South admitted to having made "certain movements" when North switched to the A after the
first trick. He had expected another heart in trick two and fumbled because he had almost ruffed the A.
However, he did not agree that his body reaction was what had made his partner change back to hearts again in
trick three.

Since there was a singleton diamond in dummy, the partnership agreement of N/S was that they played suit
preference signals in such situations. A high card would then indicate spades, a low card hearts, and a middle
card would be a come-on signal for the suit played ( ).

Since this was the agreed methods, South was of the opinion that the cards played and not the body language
was what caused North to switch back to hearts again, as South had played the 5 to the Ace and North could
see all the low cards since West had played the 3.

Furthermore, South did not believe that declarer would make his contract, with another continuation at trick
three than a diamond.

West was very sure that South's body language had conveyed the message to North, that he did not like the
diamond shift at all. West agreed that it would be difficult to win 5 , but that he could have found a way to do
it.
The committee: The committee found that the TD's finding of improper information was correct. Although
also a spade lead in trick three would have enabled the declarer to make, it was the opinion of the committee
that 5 would be made in less than 50% of the time.

The committee's decision: TD's decision adjusted. New score: N/S -200. The N/S team was awarded 1 VP in
procedural penalty. The deposit was returned.