Appeal No. 1Finland v NetherlandsAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England) Ladies Pairs Qualifying 1st session |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Van Zwol | Bäckström | Hoogweg | Koistinen |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | Pass | Dble | Pass |
3![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() Contract: Three Clubs, played by West Lead:
Play:
Result: 8 tricks, NS +50 The Facts:
Before deciding what to do on the third round of Hearts, West consulted the Convention Card and read that the opening of 1 The Director: Found that there was no damage. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: North/South explained that with a 5332 in a Major they can open either 1NT or 1 of the Major, and they realize that this is not “unbalanced”. West explained that she realized North held all the remaining points, and that the only distribution that was possibly unbalanced in South was with singleton or void in clubs. That meant that the contract was doomed, and she discarded a spade to guard against trumps being 5-0. She had thought about this play for a long while and was quite surprised to find a 5332 distribution in South. She had not asked any further questions, solely relying on the mention UNBAL on the Convention Card. The Committee:
Confirmed that a 5332 distribution is not unbalanced. West had therefore been misinformed. However, West should have realized that the first ruff had been with the 8, which meant that North had made a very strange false
card if she had more than three clubs. If declarer
had realized this, she would have asked again and discovered that North/South did indeed consider a 5332 worthy of a 1 Furthermore if the clubs are 5-0 the contract will always go two down because North can lock declarer in dummy by a spade. If clubs are 4-1 she will always go one down, so West was not damaged. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. North/South receive the standard penalty of 10% of a top and are asked to correct their Convention Card. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 2France v EnglandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy) Ladies Pairs Qualifying 1st session |
Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Senior | Delacour | Penfold | Battin |
- | 1![]() | 1![]() | 4![]() |
4NT | 5![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Five Spades, played by South
Result: nine tricks, NS -200 The Facts: West had intended her bid of 4NT to show a choice of contracts, but East interpreted it as being Blackwood (RKCB in effect). East wanted to give this explanation in written form, but could find no paper. North claimed that she asked “Blackwood?” and had received a positive reply. The Director: Found that there were facts in dispute and applied Law 85B, deciding that North had made her call without waiting for an explanation. Since she did not receive an explanation, she could not claim misinformation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 85B North/South appealed. Present: All players The players:
West explained that she intended 4NT to indicate either both minors, or one minor and a 3-card Heart fit. That would be the correct system if East had opened the bidding, or if West had been able to bid 2NT. East
explained that she had interpreted it as Blackwood. East/West told the Committee that they had never encountered the sequence and had no way of proving the one or the other explanation to be correct.
North repeated that she had asked the question and had thought she got a positive reply. East denied having answered to any question.
North stated that she intended to disturb East/West’s Ace asking and would not have bid 5 The Committee: Agreed with the Director about the disputed facts. Most probably, North had mistakenly interpreted some gesture from East. However, she would have received the same information if she had waited for a written explanation. The Committee decided therefore to affect a ruling as if the answer had in fact been Blackwood. Since East/West had no way of providing evidence that this explanation was correct, the Appeal Committee must assume mistaken explanation. The Committee considered North’s choice of bid very poor. In fact, the overcall might be more appropriate over the explanation as given by West. The Committee felt that North had not been damaged by the explanation. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling modified, but original table result still stands. Relevant Laws: Law 40C Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 3Russia v ItalyAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England) Ladies Pairs Qualifying 2nd session |
Board 20 Both vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
D’Andrea | Volina | Canesi | Romanovska |
2![]() | Pass | 2![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 4![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Four Hearts, played by West Lead: King of Diamonds Result: 11 tricks, NS +650 The Facts: East intended her bid of Two Spades as being an asking relay, and she explained the “response” of Three Hearts as showing four clubs and minimum two spades. West had forgotten that part of the system and had simply intended Three Hearts as natural, and afraid of the void in spades. East/West could not produce evidence of this, and so the Director ruled misinformation. After the session, some sort of evidence was found but by now it was to late to change the ruling and so an appeal was necessary. The Director: Considered that there had been misinformation and applied Law 12C3. Ruling: North/South receive: 60% of the available Matchpoints East/West receive: 40% of the available Matchpoints Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. East/West appealed. Present: All players The players:
East produced a piece of paper, with a hand-written explanation of the bidding after the opening of 2 When asked why she used the asking bid of 2 The Committee: Considered that the Organization had asked the players to lodge their systems, but that only a minority had done so. Nevertheless, the Committee decided not to disallow the evidence and consider it on its merits. It was found that the paper was genuine and that this system was indeed played in Malta. However, without any intermediate discussion, it cannot be said that there was partnership understanding that this system still applied. The Committee therefor decided that North had indeed been misinformed. With a more correct explanation it is not clear what lead would be chosen, although it would quite unlikely be a high diamond. The Committee decided to weight the scores, according to Law 12C3. With a heart lead, the contract may well go down, while with any other lead (excluding high diamonds) and a heart return, 10 tricks are the normal result. The Committee's Decision:
Score adjusted to
Both sides receive:
50% of 4H-1 (NS +100) plus
50% of 4 Deposit: Returned Committee’s Note: The Committee wants to point out that the chosen weightings represent “true” expectations. Appeal No. 4Croatia v PolandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Ladies Pairs Final 1st session |
Board 23 Both vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Sendacka | Sver | Neronowicz | Pilipovic |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3NT |
All Pass |
Contract:
Three No-Trumps, played by North
Lead: Jack of Diamonds Play: North took the third round of diamonds, and then took the double club finesse from the table. Result: 8 tricks, NS -100 The Facts: West took the first trick and returned the seven of diamonds. After the play to trick three, declarer consulted the Convention Card and asked about the meaning of the seven followed by the three. The reply was “odd number”. Since North believed the odd number referred to the remaining number of cards, she thought diamonds were 4-4. Now she thought she could afford to finesse the clubs towards East. North explained to the Director that she would have made her contract by playing differently if she had known that diamonds were 5-3. The Director: Ruled that North had been misinformed and adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3NT making, NS +600 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: East/West explained that it was their system to return the seven from three cards to the Ace. The explanation “odd” refers to the original number and they could not imagine that anyone could misunderstand that explanation. North told the Committee that she had asked what the seven-three meant and that she had received a reply “odd number of cards”. The Committee: Understood that there was a problem of misunderstanding. In some countries it is common to show the number of cards originally held, while in others the remaining number is shown. An experienced declarer should realize that problem and should never arrive in this situation. She should always protect herself. One way of doing that is to write down “A73” and “Ax73” and to make her opponent circle the relevant order of play. The Committee felt that North had not done enough to protect herself. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 5Israel v AustriaAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 6 |
Board 20 Both vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
T Terraneo | Barel | Simon | Aviram |
1![]() | Dble | 2NT | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 4![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Four Hearts, played by West
Lead: Ace of Clubs Play: Ace of Diamonds, King of Clubs, intending to give partner a ruff thereafter Result: 10 tricks, NS -620 The Facts: East had explained the bid of Three Clubs as “Trial bid with at least 3 clubs”. North called the Director because he had based his plan on that explanation, intending to cash the first four tricks. With a different explanation, he would have played differently and defeated the contract. The Director: Discovered that East/West could not demonstrate that the explanation which North had received was the correct one and adjusted the score. The Directors believed the defence to be difficult and checked around the room, finding that 20 out of 27 declarers made Four Hearts. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive:
25% of 4H-1 by West (NS +100) plus
75% of 4 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: East/West explained that they had recently changed their system and that East’s explanation had been the correct one. West had bid as if there had been no double in North. However, they agreed that they could not produce any evidence to support this. East told the Committee that North had asked the same question twice and that the second time he had added that partner might well have forgotten the recent change in system. North/South explained that the defence actually taken at the table was consistent with the explanation that had been received. With an explanation that better corresponded to Declarer’s actual hand, finding a successful line of defence is not difficult. North /South believed they should get more benefit of the doubt than had been given to them. The Committee: Believed that the Director had made a correct decision when ruling that there had been misinformation and damage. The Director should however not only have followed the frequency of similar results around the room, but considered the deal on its merits. Given that this defender can picture declarer with singleton club, a successful line of defence is much more easily found than the awarded weight of 25% would suggest. The Committee decided the defence would be found more than half of the time and settled on 60%. The Committee's Decision:
Director’s ruling modified
Both sides receive:
60% of 4H-1 by West (NS +100) plus
40% of 4 Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 6Netherlands v SwitzerlandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 8 |
Board 1 None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Teylouni | Maas | Levy | Ramondt |
- | Pass | Pass | 1![]() |
Dble | Pass | 1![]() | Dble |
2![]() | 3![]() | 3![]() | 4![]() |
4![]() | 5![]() | Pass | Pass |
Dble | All Pass |
Contract:
Five Clubs doubled, played by North
Lead: Jack of Spades Play: Queen-King of Spades, six of Spades returned, small diamond to West’s King and another spade. Result: 10 tricks, NS -100 The Facts: This was the vu-graph match, open room. North had asked East about returns. North had written “Q752” and “Q7652” on a piece of paper and East had circled the 5 and 2 respectively. On this basis, North decided to ruff the fourth trick, instead of letting it run to the 8 and discarding a diamond. At the end of the play, North had asked a similar question of West. West circled the fourth highest from original holding. North called the Director. It turned out that East had not understood the question and thought North had been asking about the leads. The Director: Considered that North should have written not only the cards but also his question instead of speaking it. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players except South, and both Captains The players: North told the Committee that he had said “If you take and return”. After East had circled the appropriate cards, North had thought for several minutes and then asked the question again to make absolutely sure. East had now replied “same as leads”. East stated that North had asked “what do you play” but he admitted that North had indeed used the word “return”. East thought the question had been about leads in general, and had answered “same as leads” to indicate that subsequent leads are made in the same way as opening leads. North believed it was clear that he wanted information about returns in the relevant suit, spades, and not about subsequent leads in other suits. He believed that East should have realized that. When asked why he had written Q’s on his questions, rather than K’s, as had actually been played, North replied that they were both honours after all. The interesting cards were the small ones and he had been very specific to East about those. The Committee: Considered that North had done a lot to get the information that he wanted. He had used proper English words, and it was East who had misunderstood the word return. It should have been clear to East that North was only interested in the Spade situation. East/West’s actual agreement was as West had explained it after the hand, and corresponded to the real holding. On North’s very careful questions, East should have actively explained their methods to North, in accordance with the principle of full disclosure. East had not done so, and the Committee concluded that North had been misinformed. The Committee also believed there was resulting damage. However, it was not certain that North would always discard. The Committee decided that, if North had received the correct answer to the question he had asked, -as his alternative to make the contract by a different play was against the odds- North would discard two times out of three, and subsequently make his contract. The Committee decided to adjust the score on that basis. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 66.7% of 5CX making by North (NS +550) plus 33.3% of 5CX-1 by North (NS -100) Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 7Croatia v LuxembourgAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 9 |
Board 4 Both vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Renno | Lamza | Helling | Tomic |
Pass | 1![]() | 3![]() | 4![]() |
4![]() | Pass | Pass | Dble |
Pass | Pass | 5![]() | 5![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
Three Clubs was explained by West to South as showing Spades and Diamonds
Contract: Five Hearts, played by North Result: 10 tricks, NS -100 The Facts:
North initially put a bid of 1NT on the tray, but changed this to his intended 1 The Director:
Investigated the Convention Card and complementary sheets and discovered that 3 Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40A North/South appealed. Present: All players except South, and both Captains The players:
North/South found that both players were deprived of their normal bids. North has a clear Double over 4 East explained his mistake. He had thought some time of bidding 3 The Committee: Agreed with the Director that North had not been damaged, and found that the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 8Poland v IsraelAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark) Senior Teams Round 2 |
Board 6 E/W vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Shachaz | Klapper | Pezi | Russyan |
- | - | Pass | Pass |
2![]() | Pass | 2![]() | 3![]() |
4![]() | Pass | Pass | 5![]() |
Pass | Pass | Dble | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() ![]() Contract: Five Diamonds doubled, played by South Result: nine tricks, NS -300 The Facts:
West had noticed a hesitation during the passes after 4 The Director: Ruled on Unauthorized Information. He decided that passing was a logical alternative for South, and that the hesitation had suggested bidding on. Ruling: Score adjusted to Four Spades by East, 11 tricks, NS -650 Relevant Laws: Law 16A2 North/South appealed. Present: All players, both Captains and a Polish translator. The players: North/South told the Committee that East had not even put a pass-card on the tray, and that East had pushed the tray through (contrary to regulations). East/West denied both these allegations. North stated he had thought for maximum 10 seconds, and that the tray had stayed on his side for a total of 15 seconds. East said the delay had lasted at least 30 seconds, maybe a full minute. West said the tray had stayed away for a very long time. She remembered that they had 12 minutes for the last two boards, but after this one, there remained only 2 minutes for the last board. She thought the tray had come back after approximately 1 minute. South explained that he did not open the bidding to see what would happen. West has maximum 15 HCP (Precision), and East is a passed hand, so partner North must have some points. At this favourable vulnerability he considered the save obvious. The Committee: Saw no reason not to go with the Director on his decision that there had been a break of tempo. South´s bid of Five Diamonds is certainly helped by the hesitation, which could only have been from his partner. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 9Latvia v FinlandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Open Teams Round 12 |
Board 13 Both vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Juuri-Oja | Eliasson | Utter | Magnusson |
- | 1![]() | 2![]() | 2![]() |
3![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() ![]() Contract: Three clubs, played by West Result: three tricks, NS +600 The Facts:
South had alerted 2 The Director:
Could not find any evidence on East/West’s Convention Card to indicate that there was indeed a double meaning for 3 The Director also insisted that if East is aware that this difference in meaning is so important to them, he should have protected himself better and ask for the range of the 2 Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: South, East and the Captain of Finland The players: South explained that North had indeed forgotten to alert, because he had simply thought it was natural. East told the Committee that if 2 The Committee:
Chose to believe the explanation of East/West about the difference of meaning for 3 The Committee read the relevant part of the alert regulations, which say “Any call … whose partnership meaning may not be understood by the opponents, is an alertable call …” The Committee then had to decide who had made the more grave error: North for not alerting or East for not protecting himself. Since an alert is there after all to awaken the opponent, East has some excuse for staying asleep without the alert. The Committee decided to award an adjustment. It was felt that the most likely end contract was Three Spades by North/South. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to 3S+1 by North, NS +170 Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 10Iceland v ScotlandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Open Teams Round 11 |
Board 12 N/S vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Whittaker | Baldursson | Steel | Sigurhjartarsson |
1![]() | 3![]() | Pass | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 4![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
3![]() Contract: Four Spades, played by North Result: 8 tricks, NS -200 The Facts:
South had forgotten that 3 The Director:
Ruled that it was too late to change the bid of Three Hearts and asked to play on. At the end of the board, the Director checked the Convention Card, which confirmed that 3 Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
East/West stated that they did understand the legal considerations of the case. West was entitled to a correct information about the system, but not to the knowledge that South had forgotten this. West explained that if he
knows the clubs are supposed to be with South, his hand has more defensive potential than if the clubs are in North.
East/West were asked to explain the style of their doubles over a natural 3 The Committee:
Started by restating the legal position. When West is told that 3 The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 11Austria v BelgiumAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Naki Bruni (Italy) Open Teams Round 12 |
Board 20 Both vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Kaplan | Gloyer | Polet | Schifko |
Pass | Pass | 1![]() | Pass |
1NT(1) | Pass | 3![]() | Pass |
4![]() | Pass | 4![]() | Dble |
Pass(4) | Pass | Redble(5) | Pass |
4![]() | Pass | 4NT | Pass |
5![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
(1) Forcing
(2) Game-forcing
(3) Cue-bid
(4) no 1st or 2nd control
(5) 1st control
Contract: Five Clubs, played by East Lead: Three of Hearts Result: 11 tricks, NS -600 The Facts: The Director was called to the table before the opening lead. South drew attention to the ‘long’ delay in returning the tray after the 4NT bid. West disputed this. South also complained that he had failed to obtain a clear explanation of the 5 Clubs bid, West had taken time to make this bid and stated that he was unsure what was the agreed trump suit. After the play was completed the Director was recalled and North/South protested the failure to show the King of Clubs, the 4NT being RKCB, or to bid 6 Clubs. The Director: Could not establish how long had been the delay in returning the tray after the 4NT bid, and made a Law 85B ruling, advising the NS players of their right to appeal. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16 Law 85B North/South appealed. Present: All players, both Captains, and the Austrian scorer. The players:
North/South wished to stress that they suggested no ethical fault on the part of their opponents but they felt that the failure to admit possession of the King of Clubs could have been influenced by the long delay in passing
the tray and should be considered a use of unauthorized information. There was in their opinion illicit information and their opponents had gained from it.
East/West confirmed to the Committee that 4 The Committee: The Committee held that the circumstance in which 4NT was bid following a long and complicated auction was one where East had some entitlement to consider his bid whatever the nature of his problems. It is not the case that West can tell from a delayed return of the tray in such a position what East has needed to think about. The Code of Practice states: “Attention is drawn to the distinction to be made in the tempo expected when players encounter highly unusual situations. Directors and Appeals Committees should be sympathetic.” Furthermore the Committee was of a mind that the delay was not anywhere near one-and-a-half minutes. The Committee's Decision: There was no unauthorized information. Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 12Czech Republic v BelgiumAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Carlo Mosca (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Open Teams Round 14 |
Board 10 Both vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Labaere | Zadrazil | Carcassonne | Vozabal |
- | - | 2![]() | 2![]() |
3![]() | Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by East Result: 5 tricks, NS +400 The Facts:
Appeals 12 and 15 are from the same match, but from different tables.
The Director was called during the auction, between North’s Pass and East’s 3NT bid. East complained that she had not received a clear
explanation of South’s 2 The Director: Considered there had been an infraction but that the damage was not consequent. Ruling: Result stands. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2. East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: East stated that in the absence of an alert from North she thought herself entitled to treat South’s bid as natural. Opposite a forcing 3NT her hand was so good that she believed she must bid 3NT. North said he had not alerted but, in answer to her question, had told East that the actual situation had not been discussed but that it would be either take-out with majors or natural. The Committee: Decided that there had been misinformation by North to East, and that East was entitled to some protection. The Committee did not consider East’s 3NT bid was the best judged bid available. Various possible alternative auctions (with good information) were examined. A contract of Four Diamonds was selected from these as most nearly fitting what was appropriate for both sides under Law 12C2. This being adjudged equitable there was no reason to have recourse to Law 12C3. The Committee's Decision:
Score adjusted to 4 Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 13Sweden v HungaryAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Eric Kokish (Canada) Open Teams Round 14 |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Honti | Andersson | Szilagyi | Gullberg |
- | 1![]() | 2![]() | Pass |
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3![]() |
Dble | Pass | Pass | 3![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() ![]() Contract: Three Spades, played by South Result: 9 tricks, NS +140 The Facts: South had not been certain about the meaning of the bid of 2NT. He had explained it as “minors, but could also be strong NT”. On the next round, the tray had apparently come back to South-West (with the two passes), after some delay. West called the Director, claiming that South had used the unauthorized information that was present in the delay, to run from Diamonds to Spades. The Director: Established that the delay had been slight, around 15 seconds The Director consulted with players, who would all have taken out to Spades, and ruled that passing was not a logical alternative. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A East/West appealed. Present: All players except East, and both Captains The players: West corrected a few things from the Director’s statement. South had told him 2NT showed a minor two-suiter, only later adding that he was not certain about this. The delay had been, according to West, longer than 15 seconds, and he had not corrected the Director earlier because the Director had established, at the table, that there had been a break in tempo. North told the Committee he had taken only a few seconds to take in the bidding and decide to pass, and had then answered a question posed to him by East. He thought the tray had gone back within a delay of some 15 seconds. North/South were not certain about their actual methods. If the overcall is of 1 West finally pointed out to the Committee that if the agreement really was minors, there would have been no need for any delay, and the tray would have come back immediately, especially since North/South are notoriously fast bidders. In his opinion there had been unauthorized information. The Committee: Agreed with the Director on his ruling that there had been slight misinformation, and on his judgment that there passing was not a logical alternative. The Committee added a third consideration in finding that there was no reason to adjust the score: even if there is unauthorized information, it is not clear what that information suggests. South does not know that North has the same doubts that he has, and he has no way of telling what North is thinking about, or even that it was North thinking and not simply East or North asking for explanations. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 14Czech Republic v FranceAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Eric Kokish (Canada), Ladies Teams Round 6 |
Board 17 None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Lustin | Erdeova | Avon | Hnatova |
- | Pass | Pass | Pass |
1![]() | Pass | Pass | 1NT |
2![]() | Dble | All Pass |
Contract:
Two Spades Doubled, played by West
Lead: small Club Play: Club to South’s King, low Heart returned, on which West played the King. Result: 7 tricks, NS +100 The Facts: North’s Double had been alerted, by North to East, and explained as Take-Out. South had not alerted the Double, but West had asked anyway, and South had said it was Penalty. After the end of play, West called the Director and stated she would have played low to the Heart, and made her contract, if she had known the Double was for take-out. South is already known to have Ace-King of Clubs, and if the double is for take-out, the King of Spades had to be in South and the two red aces in North, to account for the three passes at the start of the auction. The Director: Found nothing on the Convention Card to substantiate either explanation of the Double, so had to rule that West had been misinformed. The Director accepted West’s explanation and ruled that West had been damaged by this misinformation. Ruling: Score adjusted to 2SX making, NS -470 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players, both Captains and a Czech translator. The players: North/South explained that West should have been able to tell that South held the King of Spades. South had overcalled 1NT after all, and in North/South’s opinion, this can only be done with a Spade stopper. West restated her opinion that North could not have made a penalty double without the King of Spades. In her opinion, there was no objection to compete with 1NT without a Spade stopper. The Committee: Felt that both sides were expecting their opponents to have the same idea of the bid of 1NT as was common in their own country. When basing your line of play on such information, West could have done more to protect herself by asking about the style of the 1NT overcall and the Double. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 15Belgium v Czech RepublicAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Carlo Mosca (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 14 |
Board 4 Both vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Kurka | Kaplan | Mraz | Polet |
1![]() | Pass | 1![]() | 2![]() |
3![]() | 3![]() | Dble | 3![]() |
Pass | Pass | Dble | All Pass |
Contract:
Three Spades Doubled, played by South
Lead: Jack of Diamonds Result: 9 tricks, NS +730 The Facts: Appeals 12 and 15 are from the same match, but from different tables. The Director was called at the end of the play. West claimed that he had been misinformed and that if he had correct information he would lead the King of Spades. The information he had been given suggested that North/South had fits in both majors and in this circumstance the King of Spades did not seem a useful lead. The Director: Consulted expert players, all of whom led the Spade (although one said he would like to know who were his opponents), and established that North was correct in explaining that South’s bid was natural by agreement. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3SX-1, NS -200 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains. The players: informed the Committee that, to West, South had explained North’s bid as a cue bid with a fit in both majors. North had not been surprised by the number of Diamonds in the pack because in his judgement East could have a three-card suit. He had correctly explained his partnership agreement to East. The East player stated that his bid would always show at least four Diamonds. The Committee: Agreed with the Director that West had received misinformation and had been damaged in consequence. The Committee found that the King of Spades would be the likely lead if West had not been misinformed. Serious consideration was given to retention of the deposit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 16Spain v FinlandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 15 |
Board 1 None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Juuri-Oja | Knap | Utter | Wasik |
- | Pass | 1NT | Pass |
2![]() | Pass | 2![]() | Pass |
3NT | All Pass |
Comments:
1NT=13-17, 5-card major possible, 2D= no 4-card major, minimum hand
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by East Lead: Three of Hearts Play: 1) Heart to the Ten; 2) Club to the Jack; 3) Heart to the Ace; 4) Queen of Clubs, taken by the King (spade discarded); 5) Four of Diamonds for the six, nine and Jack. Result: 9 tricks, NS +400 The Facts:
North had thought for a considerable time before playing the The Director: Established that East did not dispute the pause, and had not said “sorry” or anything of that sort, and that South had been misled as a result. However, it was not certain that South would always play the King, and the Director did not want to give South a free safety play by adjusting the score completely. South has drawn inference from a mannerism of an opponent and the Laws state that this has to be done at his own risk. East had no reason to hesitate however, and although the Director did not believe East had any intention of deceiving, he “could have known” that the pause would benefit his side and should not keep the full benefit that had resulted. After due consulting, the Director decided to award a split score. Ruling: Score adjusted to North/South receive: 33.3% of 3NT-1 by East (NS +50) plus 66.7% of 3NT made by East (NS -400) which translates to -3 for the team of North/South (other table result NS -120) East/West receive: 66.7% of 3NT-1 by East (NS +50) plus 33.3% of 3NT made by East (NS -400) which translates to -1 for the team of East/West Relevant Laws: Law 73D1, 73F2 Law 16A2 Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: North, South, and both Captains The players:
North explained why he had needed to think before switching to Diamonds. He pictured East with 3325, because he knew partner held four spades. North had tried to cut East/West’s communications in Diamonds.
The South stated that he too had pictured East with 3325, specifically since East had discarded a spade in dummy. When East “hesitated”, South found this showed the Diamond Queen, and the nine (or the seven) would be the right card to play. North/South believed it was unethical to hesitate with a small doubleton and not apologize at the table. East, who did not attend the meeting, had asked his captain to convey his apologies to North/South. He was tired, it was hot, and he did not do it on purpose, but had fallen asleep. The Committee: Thought the Director had made a perfect ruling. The Committee felt that since the ruling may seem strange to players, and is not very common, North/South were entitled to have the Committee review the ruling and their deposit was returned for that reason only. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 17Italy v RussiaAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Jan Kamras (Sweden, Scribe), Jean-Claude Beineix (France) Open Teams Round 15 |
Board 12 N/S vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Kholomeev | Lauria | Zlotov | Versace |
3![]() | Pass | Pass | Dble |
Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
Comments:
3![]() Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by North Result: 7 tricks, NS -200 The Facts:
North called the Director claiming that there had been no alert on his side about the 3 The Director:
Ruled that there was no specific regulation requiring an alert for such openings. The general alerting policy applies, which state that one must alert things that are unexpected for opponents. Wild and random
pre-empts are quite common at this level of competition. Besides, East/West’s style of pre-empting was clearly indicated on the front page of their Convention Card. This meant there had been no
misinformation. Furthermore, North made no attempt to inquire as to the meaning of 3 Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A EBL and WBF alerting policy North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
South said that, having been alerted to the 3 The Committee: Found that the Director judged the situation correctly based on the undisputed facts. Since the appellants presented no further evidence in support of their case, the Committee found the appeal to be without merit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 18Italy v SpainAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Ladies Teams Round 8 |
Board 6 E/W vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Santos | Manara | Matut | Ferlazzo |
- | - | 1![]() | 1![]() |
2![]() | 4![]() | 5![]() | Pass |
6![]() | Pass | Pass | 6![]() |
Dble | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Six Spades Doubled, played by South Result: 8 tricks, NS -800 The Facts:
The tray had come back with the two passes after some delay. West said it had taken a minute, while South agreed it was more than 30 seconds. West called the Director after the bid of 6 The Director: Decided that the break in tempo had been established and that this constituted unauthorized information to South. After consultation of his colleagues and some players, he considered passing a logical alternative for South. There are 12 tricks available to East/West. Ruling:
Score adjusted to 6 Relevant Laws: Law 16A, 12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players, both Captains, and a Spanish translator The players:
North/South’s captain explained that he had given his players the instruction to always sacrifice on big boards. South explained she had decided to bid 6 The Committee: Stressed that when a player is in the possession of unauthorized information, she should bend over backwards not to take advantage of it. It was suggested in Committee, that North might have been thinking about doubling, in which case the sacrifice was less suggested than the pass. For this reason the appeal was not judged to be without merit, although this was a close call. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 19Germany v IrelandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Senior Teams Round 9 |
Board 6 E/W vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Barry | Chmelik | MacKenzie | Hoeger |
- | - | Pass | Pass |
1![]() | 2![]() | 2![]() | Pass |
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3NT | Pass | Pass |
Dble | All Pass |
Contract:
Three No-Trumps Doubled, played by North
Lead: Two of Hearts Result: 11 tricks, NS +750 The Facts: South had explained to West that 2NT showed Clubs and Diamonds. West called the Director after the hand, claiming he would not have doubled if he had known that 2NT was merely natural, which is how North had explained it to East. The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation. The Director asked if the double had any lead-directing meaning, which it turned out not to have. The Director ruled that the damage was not connected to the misinformation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players, the Captain of Germany and a German translator The players: West stated he had thought they were “overboard”. He claimed he would not have doubled if he had been told that North held a good hand with only clubs. If North indeed has ten cards in the minors, the stops in the majors would be slight, and he thought his side were going to score three heart tricks, two diamonds and perhaps a spade. West stated that East had not shown any points, the Heart support could have been given even on a Yarborough. South explained that he and North were not regular partners and they were having some misunderstandings. South thought the double was “out of this world”. The Committee: Found that the double was chancy, and not related to the misinformation. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 20Appeal Committee Special Meeting No. 1 HUM system of Luxembourg Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Steen Møller (Denmark) Grattan Endicott assisted in the meeting as a witness. Open Teams The Facts: One pair from the team of Luxembourg was playing a HUM system during the tournament. At the start of the 20th match, which was against the Netherlands, the pair from Luxembourg informed their opponents of the fact that they had made one small change to their system. The Dutch pair called the Tournament Director to protest against this. The Director: Ruled that a pair was not allowed to change their system without prior notification in the correct form. He ordered the Luxembourg pair to play the system as originally lodged and informed the Tournament Appeal Committee. The Chairman of the Appeal Committee decided that the pair was not allowed to play in the next match and had to appear before a special Committee meeting. The players:
Explained the change of their system, which only applied to their openings at the two level when they were not vulnerable. All hands with 0-7 HCP are opened at the two-level. Originally, 2 They had lodged the original system according to the regulations. They had brought the new system with them to the championship and lodged the full system, and the new Convention Card, with the systems desk. A special page with the change, was also handed in. They informed the systems desk of the small changes and were told that they could play the new system without problem. At the start of each match, they informed the opponents of the change and there had been no comments by opponents until now (round 20). The responsible for the Systems desk confirmed that he had received the documents mentioned, as they were in his files. He had labelled and stored them, but he had not gone through them, and he did not recall that the team had told him about changes. He had not approved the change of system, in the manner in which this was always done, including a mention of the round during which the changes could first be played and he had not distributed the change to the other captains, something that is also part of the standard procedure. The Luxembourg captain told the Committee that he had attended the Captain’s meeting, during which it was stated once more that no changes would be accepted to Brown Sticker conventions. He did know his players had made a small change, but thought the rule did not apply to changes before the tournament and he was not even aware that it concerned changes to a Brown Sticker convention. The Committee: Read the relevant parts of the Systems regulations: “1.2 Submission of Systems Each team captain is responsible for sending the convention cards … before 10 May, 2001…” “1.6 Changes to Cards … no later than 25 May, 2001…” “1.7 Special Responsibility for HUM, RED and BROWN STICKER … there is a special responsibility for users to explain their methods in sufficient detail, the first time that Cards are submitted … no pair will be permitted to claim ignorance of this special responsibility” also relevant is a part of Appendix A - systems policy: “5 Convention Cards … After the closing date for submission of systems, the following will be the policy governing any changes to the Convention Card and Supplementary Sheets: … c) Neither the replacement of a Brown Sticker convention with another Brown Sticker conventions, nor the introduction of a new Brown Sticker convention will be permitted” The Committee considered the opening of 2 The Committee concluded that the change of system had not been approved by the Chairman of the Appeal Committee in his duty as Chairman in situ of the Systems Committee, or by his appointed substitute. Nor was the change in any way or manner possible after 25 May, 2001. It is very important that the players who use HUM systems and Brown Sticker conventions adhere in full to the regulations that are in force. The Committee's Decision: 1) The Luxembourg pair has to revert to the system as originally submitted; 2) This system had been, and still was available to all captains so the coming opponents do not need to be informed at this specific time; 3) The pair is allowed to play from the next match on; 4) The pair has to make absolutely certain, before every match, that the opponents have the correct version of their system; 5) The pair receives an official warning: no change to their system, however small, will be allowed. If they do make changes, they shall have to play the WBF world standard system from then on to the end of the tournament. Committee’s note: No mention is made in the regulations that no change is allowed to any part of a HUM system. Such a change in a HUM is however clearly not allowed. The change that was in discussion in this instance involved a Brown Sticker convention, so the appropriate regulations applied. Appeal No. 21England v CroatiaAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Grattan Endicott (England) sat in on the meeting in order to act as Scribe. Senior Teams Round 12 |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Perasic | Jones | Caric | Collings |
- | Pass | Pass | 1![]() |
Dble | Pass | 1NT | 2![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Two Spades, played by South
Lead: Ace of Diamonds Play:
Result: 7 tricks, NS -50 The Facts:
The Director was called at the end of the play of the hand. Declarer complained that he had been misinformed about the meaning of East´s 1NT bid. It had been explained to him as natural, 5-9 with a
stopper. He had based his line of play on this information. Opponents told the Director that they have a negative 2 The Director: Ruled that there was no misinformation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: North/South expressed their view that the explanation of the 1NT was incomplete. Given the possibilities not covered by Two Clubs or Two of another Suit, it was evident that there were a whole raft of hands for which the 1NT bid would be used. They considered that South was entitled to be told this, and that some of them might not include a stop in Spades. East/West said that they had given correct information to their opponents. They had played together for some thirty years and this situation had never arisen previously as far as they recalled. The Committee: The Committee found that East/West had explained their methods correctly. There is little merit in appealing when South´s choice of play does not succeed. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 22Israel v WalesAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Ladies Teams Round 10 |
Board 18 N/S vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Harris | Naveh | Clench | Melech |
- | - | Pass | Pass |
Pass | 1NT | Dble(1) | Pass |
2![]() | Dble | 2![]() | Dble |
All Pass |
Comments:
(1) Majors or Minors or Diamonds
(2) Preference for Diamonds
(3) Majors
Contract: Two Hearts doubled, played by East Result: 7 tricks, NS +100 The Facts: The Director was called during the auction and North complained that a convention had been used by East/West that was not on the Convention Card. The Director required the players to complete the hand. Called again after the play of the board was completed, the Director was told that North/South felt damaged. They believed they would have found their 3NT contract if they had been able to prepare a defence to the convention beforehand, instead of playing “blind” against it. The Director: Applied a penalty of 0.5 VP to East/West for a deficient Convention Card. Ruled that North/South had not been damaged by the use of the convention. Ruling: Result Stands East/West receive a penalty of 0.5 VP Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law 40B, 40E1 North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: North/South repeated to the Committee their belief that, with time to prepare a defence to the convention, they would have found their 3NT contract. South said she had intended her double to show points. She could not redouble on the previous round because this would be an SOS asking for rescue. The Committee: Agreed that for sure East/West were at fault. As for North/South they should be aware that a double of 1NT by a passed hand would not be for penalties, whoever were the opponents. This is only common sense. Accordingly they should be expected to have prepared principles by which to counter two-suited doubles, in particular, in this situation. Moreover it is not unusual that a double following a penalty double can now be a take-out double in a situation like this. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 23Denmark v FinlandAppeals Committe: Grattan Endicott (Chairman and Scribe, England), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Ladies Teams Round 11 |
Board 12 N/S vul. Dealer West |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Koistinen | Kirstan | Bäckström | Krefeld |
Pass | 1![]() | 2![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Dble | 3![]() | Dble |
All Pass |
Contract:
Three Diamonds Doubled, played by East
Play: immaterial, but the following end position is reached, East having made three tricks so far, and in hand:
Result: 5 tricks, NS +800 The Facts: The Director was called after the play on the following board. East wished to withdraw her concession of three tricks in the above position. According to East, both the King of Hearts and the Ace of Hearts had been played, but South asserted that she had not in fact played the Ace, having it in her hand but not having put it in the played position. The Director investigated how the card had been held and reached a conclusion that it had been played. The Director: allowed the withdrawal of concession in respect of one trick. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3DX-3, NS +500 Relevant Laws: Law 45C1, 70A, 70B, 71C North/South appealed. Present: All players and the Captain of Denmark The players: South repeated to the Committee that she did not consider her card played. She had demonstrated to the Director the position of her card as it was after East had conceded the tricks. She agreed that if she had ducked the trick declarer’s play next of a diamond would lead to the same position. East said she had made no statement concerning her action in the latter case since in fact the Ace had been played so that she could see it. The Committee: In the presence of the players, the Committee discussed with the Director his investigation of the alleged play of the Ace. In their deliberations the Committee upheld the ruling of the Director that the Ace had been played. It was also noted that even if the Ace had not been played to the trick there can be no doubt at this level of play that Declarer would then play a Diamond, and this must be deemed the only normal play in that position. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 24Italy v SwedenAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England) Ladies Teams Round 9 |
Board 2 N/S vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Karlsson- | Oliveiri | Evelius- | Arrigoni |
Uisk | Nohrén | ||
- | - | - | 1![]() |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | Pass | 2NT |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 3NT |
Pass | 4![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
Pass | 4![]() | Pass | 5![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 3 Contract: Five Hearts, played by North Lead: Jack of Clubs Play: Declarer North played two rounds of Hearts, East taking the second, while West played the six and eight in that order. East now switched to the Queen of Diamonds. Result: 11 tricks, NS +650 The Facts:
East/West called the Director to protest about the explanation that South had given to West, saying that 4 The Director: Found that the explanation “first round control” had been the correct one, so West had not been misinformed. The Director also found that the switch to Diamonds would always be made, so he ruled there had been no damage. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
North explained that, when she bid 4 East explained that she had asked quite clearly if 4 West explained her reasons for not showing the Spade Ace: knowing that North was void in Spades, she did not want to help declarer.
East then explained her reasoning: if her partner had been given the same information than she had, she would certainly have shown the Ace of Spades. That meant that North must have the The Committee: Found that South’s explanation was consistent with bridge logic. North had shown the same control twice, so the second time it had to be a first round control. West had received the correct information, and she should not expect redress for her decision to deny the Ace of Spades as a result. On the other hand, East had not received the correct information, and as a consequence she had no way of expecting her partner to falsecard in such a sensitive position. With a correct explanation, East will “know” that North either has a void or the Ace in Spades. If it is the Ace, then the switch to Diamonds is still imperative if the contract shall fail. If it is a void, then the Diamond switch could probably only cost an overtrick. The Committee concluded that with correct information, East would probably also switch to the The Committee's Decision:
Score adjusted to
Both sides receive:
75% of 5 Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 25Ukraine v FinlandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Open Teams Round 22 |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Stubb | Nemtsev | Pesonen | Mikhailenko |
- | - | - | Pass |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | Pass | 2![]() | Dble |
3![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Three Spades, played by East
Lead: King of Clubs Play:
first trick for the Result: 8 tricks, NS +50 The Facts: East called the Director at the end of the play, claiming misinformation. He had not received, from North, an alert on South’s double. South had alerted it and explained it as shortness in spades. East claimed he would not have played spades to be 2-2, but would have finessed, had he received the explanation that South had given. The Director: Ruled that North, by not alerting, had explained the double as Take-Out, and that South had actually given the same information by other words, adding more than he needed by explaining his hand rather than his agreement. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: South explained that he had said Take-Out and written “short” to explain. East stated that it was explained as Take-Out to him by the non-alert. East/West stated they did not ask for full restitution, but that with South’s explanation, East had more chance of finding the correct line. The Committee: Saw no reason to amend the Director’s ruling in any way. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 26Sweden v FranceAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Eric Kokish (Canada) Ladies Teams Round 11 |
Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Lustin | Midskog | Avon | Göthe |
- | - | 1![]() | Dble |
3NT | All Pass |
Contract:
Three No-Trumps, played by West
Lead: Nine of Hearts Result: 6 tricks, NS +150 The Facts: South had thought for some time before making the final pass. West called the Director, claiming that this hesitation had influenced North in her selection of lead. West stated the pause had been one minute long. South confirmed the hesitation and did not disagree about its length. North stated that she had not noticed the delay. East said she had. The Director: Considered the hesitation established, but did not believe the hesitation carried any information affecting the choice between Hearts and Spades. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: South explained that she was usually a fast bidder but she was fixed. North stated that she believed the final contract had been reached, and she asked questions about the nature of the 3NT bid and started considering her lead. Sometimes the tray stays on the other side, even when the final pass has been made. She explained the choice of a Heart. It was clear to lead a major and she knew partner had certainly at least four Hearts. If partner had five or more in any suit, it was more likely to be Hearts. East/West considered that a fast pass would tell partner to choose, whereas a slow pass would indicate that the shortest suit should be led. The Committee: Considered the hesitation proven. While it is true that the hesitation carries no information regarding Hearts or Spades, it does carry the information that there is some interesting lead to be found, and this inclines to suggest North’s shorter major. When in possession of unauthorized information, a player should not take the action that is demonstrably suggested by it, when there are logical alternatives available to that action. In this case, the action that has been suggested is to lead the shorter suit, and since a Spade lead is certainly an alternative, North should not have led a Heart. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to 3NT by West, made, NS -400 Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 27England v PolandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 23 |
Board 10 Both vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Zmudzinski | Liggins | Balicki | Fawcett |
- | - | Pass | 1![]() |
Pass | 1![]() | Pass | 1![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Dble | Pass | 3![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 4![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() 1 2 Contract: Four Spades, played by West Result: 8 tricks, NS +200 The Facts:
South had alerted his bid of 1 After the play, East/West had called the Director to complain about the failure to alert 1 The Director:
Took into consideration that the opening of 1 Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A East/West appealed. Present: All players and the Captain of Poland The players:
East explained that this was almost like a Polish Club. He never expected that North needed to reply 1NT with any of the balanced meanings, and when 1 West explained that they play a special defence over conventional clubs. The Pass shows either no overcall or a 16+ hand. East/West had clearly agreed to treat this 1 North stated he never alerts this 1 North/South pointed out that when East was going to bid clubs, a suit bid by his opponents, he might have been more careful in checking with his opponents how many clubs had been promised. North/South further pointed out that their line of defence had allowed West to make his contract. North had led his singleton club, but South could not read this, as he would also lead the 4 from 10-4. South
had played the Queen of Hearts, which West had ducked, and on which North had given suit preference. Now South gave his partner the club ruff. North pointed out that West, who did know the full club position,
should have taken the West replied that to play three rounds of trumps that way would have been against the odds. When South did not play clubs to the second trick, West was hoping he would not do so in the third either. The Committee: Found that East had been careless in not checking his opponents’ systems more completely. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 28Lebanon v IcelandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 23 |
Board 7 Both vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Thorvaldsson | Eidi | Jonsson | Harfouche |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
2![]() | 2![]() | 4![]() | Pass(1) |
Pass | 4![]() | Pass | 4NT(2) |
Pass | 5![]() | Pass | 6![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
(1) forcing
(2) RKCB
Contract: Six Spades, played by South Result: 12 tricks, NS +1430 The Facts:
West called the Director, claiming that the tray had stayed on the North/East side for some time before returning with 5 The Director: Ruled that according to the Code of Practice, a delay of 15 seconds in the return of the tray does not carry any unauthorized information. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
East/West stated that while it is not always easy to bid in proper tempo, it should be possible to give the answer to a Blackwood question in less than 15 seconds. The hesitation shows something extra, and this makes
bidding 6 North agreed that he had paused, thinking about showing his void in clubs and deciding against it without a true Ace. West told the Committee that at the table, everybody had agreed about the hesitation. The Director had written “agreed hesitation” before leaving the table to consider the case. He thought there should be no more discussion about that part of the ruling. South stated that he already knew partner had the void in Clubs. After all, the opponents are World Champions and they have bid 2 The Committee: Read the relevant part of the Code of Practice: “The WBF considers it desirable that players should vary the tempo randomly when returning the tray under the screen. Where North and South are the players with next turn to call when the tray is received, these are the players who are responsible for the movement of the tray. It is considered there can be no implications if a tray returns after 15 seconds or less. This period may be extended in the later stages of a complicated or competitive auction without necessarily creating implications.” The Committee found that the Director had been correct, in accordance with the Code of Practice, in ruling there had been no misinformation. On a lighter note, the Committee also considered the bidding, finding that South had been correct in assuming that partner had a void in clubs. Opponents’ bidding suggested they had 9 clubs (or even 10) and added to his 4, this did not leave many for partner. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 29England v LatviaAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 25 |
Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Gonca | Hallberg | Alfejeva | Simpson |
- | 1![]() | 1![]() | Dble |
2![]() | Pass | 2![]() | Pass |
Pass | 2NT | All Pass |
Comments:
The 1![]() ![]() Contract: Two No-Trumps , played by North Result: 4 tricks, NS -400 The Facts:
East had alerted and correctly explained his 1 The Director: Found that South had failed to protect himself by asking a question orally and not insisting on a written reply. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws:
Regulation North/South appealed. Present: All players and the Captain of England The players:
South explained he had received a reply “is opening bid”. He had interpreted this as meaning a natural hand with diamonds and 13HCP. It was unlikely he would affect a Take-Out double over any other explanation.
North stated that he had bid 2NT, rather than 3 The Committee: Considered that South had been rather lazy, and agreed with the Director that South had failed to protect himself. However, West had also failed to provide enough accurate information. Even in written form “as opening bid” is not an accurate description when the bid shows not just one, but two unknown suits. The Committee decided to apportion the blame 2/1 - 2 parts to West, 1 part to South. The Committee ruled that with correct information, a contract of Two Spades is a likely end-spot, and that seven tricks are available. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 66.7% of 2S-1 by East (NS +50) plus 33.3% of 2NT-4 by North (NS -400) Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 30Denmark v IsraelAppeals Committe: Grattan Endicott (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Teams Round 27 |
Board 1 None vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
I Herbst | DSchaltz | O Herbst | P Schaltz |
- | 2![]() | 3![]() | 4![]() |
Dble | Pass | 4NT | 5![]() |
5![]() | Pass | Pass | 5![]() |
Pass | Pass | 6![]() | Pass |
Pass | 6![]() | Dble | All Pass |
Contract:
Six Spades Doubled, played by North
Result: 11 tricks, NS -100 The Facts:
Two Spades was weak. There had been a pause of about two minutes before the Double over 4 North/South called the Director at the end of the hand to complain about the bid of 4NT. The Director: Established that there was no disagreement over the pause before the Double, and consulted the Convention Card, which did not contain any useful indication as to the meaning of the Double, except that support doubles are in use, without mentioning until what level they are used. The Director found that it was normal to play this Double as not being for penalties, and that there had therefore been no useful unauthorized information conveyed in the break of tempo. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: North/South started by saying that a pause of this length certainly contains unauthorized information. When the tray comes back quickly, a void in trumps and a side Ace-King make it a good idea to pass for penalties. When it takes a lot longer, it is easy to alert and say it is not for penalties before removing. North/South then added that when the Convention Card does not support the supposed meaning of a bid, one should believe the player who made it, and who, in this case, had not alerted it.
West explained he had not alerted his Double, because he believed “general values” to be the natural meaning. East/West explained that they would not Double 4 East/West could not remember having used such doubles before in the tournament.
East/West offered as further evidence that the double had not been for penalties by pointing out that they went to 6 The Committee:
Found that the Double had certainly been unusual and not for penalties. East had not used unauthorized information when taking the Double out. It was felt however, that in later rounds, East could have realized the kind of
difficulties that West had been in before doubling. It was felt therefore that the bid of 6 The Committee felt East/West should not be rewarded for their actions after 5 The Committee thought about applying some sort of special score adjustment for North/South, but felt in the end that they had contributed too much to their own result. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to North/South receive: The table result (NS -100) East/West receive: 5S= by North (NS +450) Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 31Italy v the NetherlandsAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Senior Teams Round 19 |
Board 3 E/W vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Englander | Baroni | Bomhof | Ricciarelli |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
1![]() | 1![]() | 2![]() | Dble |
Redble | Pass | Pass | 2![]() |
3![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Three Hearts, played by West
Result: 10 tricks, NS -170 The Facts:
South explained his Double to West as support, three cards in spades. North explained the Double to East as maximum values, near 16HCP. North/South were playing Blue Club. East called the Director at the end of play, claiming
that with correct information, he would have bid 4 The Director:
Asked North/South to explain their methods and established that South had given the correct explanation of the bid. The Director then ruled misinformation, but found that East would not bid 4 Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive:
30% of 3 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North stated that he recognized that he had misinformed his opponent. After the sequence 1D-1H-pass-2H, a double would be a maximum, and after 1D-pass-1S-2H a double shows 3-card support. It is the second sequence that applies here.
North/South told the Committee that, in their opinion, East/West had enough information to bid 4 East stated that he had also wanted to appeal the Director's decision. He was certain that with correct information he would be bidding 4 The Committee: Felt that East/West had presented a very good case. The Director had ruled correctly, and there was no merit in the appeal. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 32Sweden v FranceAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Senior Teams Round 22 |
Board 5 N/S vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Roudinesco | Hallén | Delmouly | Bäckström |
- | 2![]() | Pass | 2NT |
3![]() | 3NT | Pass | 4![]() |
Pass | 4![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Four Hearts, played by North Result: 10 tricks, NS +620 The Facts:
North had alerted his bid of 3NT and explained is as showing a maximum weak two in either major. North had also alerted 4 The Director: Found that West had been misinformed and damaged and adjusted the score. Ruling:
Score adjusted to 4 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players The players:
North/South explained their systems. 2 Subsequently 4 North stated they had not discussed the sequence after an intervention. North had indeed intended his 3NT bid to indicate a maximum weak two, in which case 4 North complained about the use of the word transfer for the bid of 4 South stated that he had not counted his hand until after the bid of 4 West explained that 3NT had not been alerted to him, and so he interpreted 4 North/South offered a different sequence, in that after the double, North could let South play the hand by passing. The Committee: Was of the opinion that North was inventing system at the table. There was in actual fact no partnership agreement. South would have been obliged, if asked, to explain the various possibilities concerning the bid of 3NT. But the mere fact that there is more to tell about some calls does not make them alertable, and so the non-alert did not constitute misinformation. West knew about the actual hand and he was hoping for a misunderstanding. He should not have asked for a misexplanation as well. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 33France v RussiaAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Jaap van der Neut (Netherlands) Open Teams Round 29 |
Board 18 N/S vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Petrunin | Multon | Gromov | Quantin |
- | - | Pass | Pass |
1![]() | 2![]() | Pass | 2![]() |
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 3![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() Contract: Three Spades, played by South Lead: Jack of Hearts Result: 7 tricks, NS -200 The Facts:
This was the vu-graph match, open room. It was the last board of the match.
North called the Director at the end of the hand, because he had not received any alert on the
bid of 1 The Director: Considered that the Convention Card had been very accurate, and that North could have protected himself better, by asking or consulting the Convention Card. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
The Director started by clarifying something which had only surfaced just before the appeal hearing. At the table, East had told that he alerted both times his partner had opened 1 North/South stated that they did not believe there had been an alert on board 18, or they would not have been in Committee. North/South stated that over short diamond openings, they play a first cue-bid as conventional, and a second one as natural. Here, 3 When asked whether they prepared against opponent’s system, they asked they did not, because they were quite confident in their defensive methods, and they relied solely on the alert to know what defence to use. Specifically when the opponents use two different systems, they should really alert. East stated that he had been wrong in not alerting in the correct fashion, but it was the way he had been alerting in all the matches, and in this one, and none of the opponents had protested. He always made large movements with
his arms, and made eye contact with his screen-mate to see if he acknowledged an alert. Apart from three opening bids, first or second in hand, all his bids were alertable, so he really could not forget an alert. He stated
quite firmly that he had also alerted the 1 The Committee:
Found that when the players accept to continue with an irregularity, the Director or Appeal Committee should not step in with technicalities. In all likelihood, East had in fact alerted and when the bidding came to North
after 3 The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 34Belgium v TurkeyAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jaap van der Neut (Netherlands) Open Teams Round 29 |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Zorlu | Kaplan | Assael | Polet |
- | 4![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
4NT | 5![]() | Dble | 5![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
4![]() Contract: Five Hearts, played by South Lead: Ace of Clubs Result: 11 tricks, NS +450 The Facts:
5 The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation, but that the Spade lead would not have been found all the time. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 25% of 5H= by South (NS +450) plus 75% of 5H-1 by South (NS -50) Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: North drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that East had first doubled and only then had asked the meaning of his bid. East stated that he knew from his holding, since West held at least 5/5 in the minors, that the North bid was shortness. The Committee:
The Committee was somewhat concerned over a possibility that East might have doubled initially to show his fit in Diamonds. However, this would not in any way affect the meaning of his bid for West according to his
partnership agreements. An alert by South would have been appropriate, although normal bridge reasoning would lead any player to think that North should not be expected to have bid a Diamond suit, as such,
after West had shown length in both minors. In making his choice of lead it was crucial for West that he should know the meaning of North’s 4 The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 35Russia v SpainAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Jaap van der Neut (Netherlands) Ladies Teams Round 18 |
Board 7 Both vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Sanchiz | Gromova | Babot | Khonicheva |
- | - | - | Pass |
Pass | 1NT | Dble | 2![]() |
Pass | 2![]() | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
Pass | 4![]() | Dble | 5![]() |
All Pass |
Contract:
Five Clubs, played by South
Result: 8 tricks, NS -300 The Facts:
The Double over 1NT was alerted and South asked for an explanation. West wrote “C or The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation. He understood that the misinformation caused the derailment of North/South’s bidding and adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3C-1 by South (NS -100) Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C,12C2 Conditions of Contest 3.1 East/West appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
North/South explained that their methods depended on the meaning of the Double. If the Double is for penalties, South’s responses are natural, and 2 North/South had consulted opponent’s Convention Card, which stated “Cappelletti”, to which had been added, in pencil “mod”. North/South know this convention, but in their country that always implies Penalty doubles. East/West explain their system. Over 1NT, a Double shows one Minor, 2 West explained that she thought she had explained correctly, and she was a bit baffled by the question. She though the word “should” meant “could” and she never intended to say that she “must” absolutely pass. East/West believed that if North/South’s methods depended so heavily on the meaning of the Double, they should not have asked questions that could possibly be misunderstood. The Committee: Consulted the “Guide to completion of the Convention Card”, in which the convention known as Cappelletti is described. Among the explanations is no mention of a Double showing anything specific, thus making the Double for penalties the standard meaning. The mention Cappelletti on East/West’s Convention Card was in error, and the addition “mod” insufficient. Apart from the fact that the Convention Card ought to have been changed in the prescribed way, an additional note describing in detail the full set of conventional overcalls should have been added. The Committee felt however, that this misrepresentation on the Convention Card in itself did no damage to North/South. The conventional overcalls, as truly played, should not have posed problems for a pair who have standard defences against these types of conventions. North/South may have been surprised to find out that their opponents were using doubles to show one-suiters, but they certainly had the methods to deal with them. As to the explanation given, the Committee felt that the description as written on paper was remarkably precise and correct. South should have realized from this explanation that this was not the sort of Double on which West “must” always pass. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Director asked to investigate the Convention Card Deposit: Returned Committee’s Note: The Committee asked the Director to investigate further into the Convention Card of East/West, and apply a penalty if necessary. The Director later told the Committee that the change in pencil had been made during the tournament, that no extra sheets were made available and that the change had not been lodged at the systems desk. The Director applied the standard penalty of 0.5 VP. Appeal No. 36Germany v NetherlandsAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark) Senior Teams Round 23 |
Board 2 N/S vul. Dealer East |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Rebattu | Schneider | Van Oppen | Gromoeller |
- | - | - | 1![]() |
2![]() | Dble | 2![]() | 2![]() |
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3![]() |
Pass | 3NT | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by North Lead: small Heart Play: Heart to King and Ace, Diamond to the King, Club to the Ace, Heart, Diamond. Result: 9 tricks, NS +600 The Facts:
South had alerted and explained his bid of 2 The Director: Ruled that although there had been two different explanations, the difference was not substantial enough to affect the choice of suit to lead. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players The players:
East stated he had asked about the meaning of the Double, to which he had received an answer saying it had not been discussed. The meaning of the bid of 2 North stated he did not remember they had asked about the Double. They do not have an agreement about the meaning of 2 North said he thought his partner had found the common-sense bid at the table. North/South did not see why it should be clear cut to lead spades. West said he had asked about 2 The Committee: Found that the Director had ruled perfectly and the case ought not to have been brought before them. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 37Hungary v IrelandAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Steen Møller (Denmark) Open Teams Round 33 |
Board 15 N/S vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
McGann | Hegedus | Hanlon | Szilagyi |
- | - | - | Pass |
1![]() | Pass | 2![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 3![]() | Pass |
5![]() | Pass | 5![]() | Pass |
6![]() | All Pass |
Comments:
1![]() ![]() ![]() Contract: Six Hearts, played by East Lead: Spade Play:
Spade to the Queen, Spade to the Jack, Result: 12 tricks, NS -1430 The Facts:
5 After the play, North called the Director to complain about the wrong explanation that he had received. If 5 The Director:
Established that in East/West’s methods, 5 The Director found however that North would not double the bid with that information anyway, as South might have a natural Spade lead. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players and the Captain of Ireland The players:
North claimed that, because of his holding of A932 in Hearts, the Club lead is needed to shorten dummy’s ruffing power.
Although North suspected that 5 North stated that if there was a void in Clubs with West, then he needed to ask partner to lead the suit that would shorten dummy, which would establish his second trump trick. At this moment the Director added that North had not stated this at the table. There North had simply stated that if 5 East stated that over 5 The Committee: Found that the Director’s ruling was correct and that the appeal lacked merit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 38Spain v EnglandAppeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy) Senior Teams Round 25 |
Board 7 Both vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Harper | Diaz Revenga | Hackett | Alcarez |
- | - | - | 1NT |
2![]() | 2NT | 3![]() | Pass |
Pass | Dble | Pass | Pass |
4![]() | Dble | All Pass |
Comments:
2![]() Contract: Four Clubs Doubled, played by West Result: 9 tricks, NS +200 The Facts:
3 The Director: Found that North had received correct information about East/West’s methods and should have known from his hand that East/West were in a less than optimal contract. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A North/South appealed. Present: All players except South, and both Captains The players:
North stated that he felt that he was prevented from finding his normal contract of 4 East explained their system. West had shown a one-suiter, and every bid after that was “pass or correct”. The system had not been confirmed after an intervention such as a Lebensohl 2NT and East thought that was the
reason for West’s pass. West explained that he had panicked. His 2 North found it was strange that East/West had never discussed the sequence with a Lebensohl intervention, since this was not an uncommon system.
East explained his choice of bidding 3 The Committee: Felt that North/South had not suffered damage from any misinformation, but rather from North’s unfortunate choice of bid. North knows East/West cannot have long Hearts and he should just have passed to collect +600. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 39Greece v LuxembourgAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Steen Møller (Denmark), Jaap van der Neut (Netherlands) Open Teams Round 33 |
Board 19 E/W vul. Dealer South |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Renno | Zotos | Helling | Skoularikis |
- | - | - | Pass |
1![]() | Pass | 2![]() | Pass |
3![]() | Pass | 3NT | Pass |
4![]() | Pass | 5![]() | Pass |
6![]() | All Pass |
Contract:
Six Spades, played by West
Result: 12 tricks, NS -1430 The Facts: Appeals 39 and 40 are from the same match, but different tables. East had thought for a very long time before bidding 3NT. That was undisputed, and periods like 2 minutes were mentioned. South and West had both noticed and acknowledged the delay. South called the Director after the end of play, to complain about West’s bidding on after the unauthorized information. The Director: Consulted 6 Directors and 5 players, none of who would have passed with the West hand over partner’s 3NT. On that basis, the Director found that passing on the West hand was not a logical alternative. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 16A North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players: North thought that West has a clear pass. East explained why he had thought. In a previous version of their system, 3 The Committee: Agreed that passing had not been a logical alternative, and believed that North should not have appealed the Director’s decision. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited Appeal No. 40Luxembourg v GreeceAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Steen Møller (Denmark), Jaap van der Neut (Netherlands) Open Teams Round 33 |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Liarakos | Kloppenburg | Kagayammides | Schaaper |
- | 1![]() | 3![]() | 4![]() |
Pass | 5![]() | Pass | 6![]() |
All Pass |
Comments:
North/South play a HUM system. 1![]() Contract: Six Diamonds, played by North Lead: Five of Hearts Result: 12 tricks, NS +920 The Facts:
Appeals 39 and 40 are from the same match, but different tables.
South had explained his bid of 4 The Director:
Investigated the system and could not find evidence for the meaning of 4 Ruling: Score adjusted to 6D-1 by North, NS -50 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2 North/South appealed. Present: All players and both Captains The players:
East explained that when 4 North explained their system. The actual situation is not directly covered in the system notes, but they employ the principle that similar situations are treated in a similar way, and
he pointed to two such similar situations, which he proved by the system notes which were available to the Committee. Over an opponent’s 3 North stated that he had explained 4 The Committee:
Found that North had gone sufficiently far to try and explain their agreements. There was no clear agreement, and yet he had tried to explain all the clues that were available to him. South
had in fact indicated a void in spades by choosing the strongest bid in his arsenal, and then by raising 5 The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeal No. 41Iceland v NorwayAppeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England) Open Teams Round 35 |
Board 9 E/W vul. Dealer North |
NORTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
WEST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
EAST![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
SOUTH![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH |
Brogeland | Ingimarsson | Sælensminde | Magnusson |
- | 1![]() | Pass | 2NT |
Pass | 3![]() | Pass | 4![]() |
All Pass |
Contract:
Four Spades, played by North
Lead: King of Diamonds Play:
At this point, the remaining cards are
at which point North claimed Result: 9 or 10 tricks The Facts: North claimed, saying “I take your last trump”. The Director: Ruled that North may well have forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. The Director found that North would execute a play that leads to 10 tricks 2 times in 3. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 66.7% of 4S= by North (NS +420) plus 33.3% of 4S-1 by North (NS -50) Relevant Laws: Law 70A, 70C3 Law12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players except East, and the Captain of Iceland The players: North/South spoke through their Captain, who was also the scorer at the table, and he had witnessed the facts. North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break,
and had already finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely North would have cashed the When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had not pronounced a number at the table. West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the The Committee: Began by stating that the Director’s ruling was wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law 12C3 cannot be applied. The Committee judged that North had, quite probably, forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. In that case, Law 70C3 says that claimer shall lose any trick that can be lost by normal play. The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will take whichever card is returned, including a diamond,
which can be ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the With that principle in mind, there is no order of play of the cards that will not lead to 10 tricks. West will (to North’s surprise) ruff one of the tricks that North believes is his, but declarer or dummy has a trump left to ruff the diamond return. The Committee's Decision:
Director’s ruling changed.
Score adjusted to 4 Deposit: Returned |