10th European Open Pairs Championship: Warsaw, Poland, March 15-20, 1999

10th European Open Pairs Championship
Warsaw, Poland, March 15-20, 1999
Appeals
Appeal 1
Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller, (Denmark), Jean
Claude Beineix, (France), Herman De Wael, (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Qualifying session 1 Poland v Italy
Board 19 NORTH
East/West Vul. K8642
Dealer South QJ3
A842
A
WEST EAST
10 3 J97
A75 864
J6 10 7 5 3
K 10 8 6 5 2 J93
SOUTH
AQ5
K 10 9 2
KQ9
Q74
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

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

Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Qualifying session 1 Poland v Poland

Board 1 NORTH
None Vul. K95
Dealer North AJ5
Q
AKQJ53
WEST EAST
Q 10 8 3 2 AJ
Q 10 8 4 2 76
3 A K 10 9 6 5 4
74 10 6
SOUTH
764
K93
J872
982

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

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Germany v Italy
Board 19 NORTH
East/West Vul. AQJ43
Dealer South A743
4
J76
WEST EAST
K862 10 9 7 5
K98 QJ2
A K 10 7 6 952
4 AK5
SOUTH
-
10 6 5
QJ83
Q 10 9 8 3 2

Rinaldi Holowski Fulca Haas
- - - 2NT
Dble 4 Dble 5
Dble All Pass
Contract: Five Clubs doubled, played by North
Result: 9 tricks made, -300 to North-South
The Facts: The double over Four Clubs was not alerted on either side, but South asked for the
meaning and was told it was not for penalties. North received the same explanation.
The Director: established that the Double was indeed not for penalties.
Ruling: No misinformation, Result Stands
The Players: repeated their statements
The Appeal Committee: saw no reason to change anything to the Director's decision and
considered the Appeal to have no merit whatsoever.
Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -300 to both sides.
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 4
Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Jean-
Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Hungary v Poland
Board 27 NORTH
Both Vul. 10 9 7 4 2
Dealer South K Q 10
A 10 7
63
WEST EAST
Q J63
J96 A8752
QJ96543 K8
K7 A 10 8
SOUTH
AK85
43
2
QJ9542
Honti Kucharski Vikor Lutoslawski
- - - 1
3 Pass Pass Dble
Pass 3 All Pass
Contract: Three Spades, played by North
The Facts: The Pass by North was made out of tempo. It was established that there was a
pause of some 15 seconds, and that the tray had remained at the North-East side of the screen
for about 25 seconds.
The Director: established these facts and was told that the Double by South was automatic.
Ruling: The hesitation did not influence South's bidding. Result stands.
East-West appealed.
The Players: North agreed he had thought before passing. It could well have been something
like 15 seconds. South said that he had not noticed the delay and that he thought his action
was automatic. The Convention Card indicated that the double was "reopening". West
explained that at the table the players had not disagreed about a 30 second delay, and
considered that he did not find the reopening Double automatic on a weak hand with singleton
diamond.
The Appeal Committee: Reached their conclusion in three stages:
1) The hesitation is established at 25 seconds
2) The reopening Double is not considered automatic and Pass should clearly be considered a
logical alternative, so without screens a score adjustment should be in order
3) With screens however, it is not clear in this case if it is North or East who has broken
tempo, and there is therefor no Unauthorized Information.
Decision: Directorial Ruling changed to "no Unauthorized Information, Result Stands", +140
to both sides.
Relevant Laws: Law 16
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 5
Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Naki
Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Great Britain v Poland
Board 1 NORTH
None Vul. 10 7
Dealer North QJ9
A 10 7 3 2
10 7 2
WEST EAST
K83 QJ96
K 10 6 2 754
J5 K8
J954 AQ83
SOUTH
A542
A83
Q964
K6

HarasimowiczThomas Hocherer Goodman
- Pass 1 Dble
1 2 Pass 2
All Pass
Contract: Two Spades, played by South
The Facts: South understood the opening to be natural, and doubled for Take-Out. North
considered the One Club opening to be of the Polish variety, in which case South's Double
showed Hearts. This was the reason for the reaching of a poor contract.
The Director: found there had been misinformation and damage, but could not establish a
normal bridge result for North-South.
Ruling: Artificial Adjusted score of Average Plus to North-South, Average Minus to East-
West.
East-West appealed.
The Players: East-West presented their Convention Card which showed that the opening of
One Club could signify several types of hands: 11-15 balanced, 18-24 balanced or natural, no
5-card Major, and that in all these types there is a minimum of 2 cards in Clubs. That is not the
standard Polish Club system. West confirmed that the Convention Card was not at the table,
and that when asked, she explained the call as "2 cards, normal". East had explained the same
call as "may be strong, may be weak".
North and South explained that their system indeed had different features for different types
of One Club openings, and that they considered Polish Club to be like a strong Club. They
would have treated this variant as a strong club system.
The Appeal Committee: There is a strong obligation upon West to explain the system
correctly. There is also an obligation upon South to clearly inquire about opponent's systems,
especially when the meaning of your own call depends heavily on it. The Committee decided
that it was West who had most clearly not completely fulfilled her obligations, and thus
confirmed the Director's decision to award an adjusted score. The Committee also tried to find
an adjusted score but finally decided to go with the Director and award an artificial score.
Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, Average Plus to North-South, Average Minus to

East-West. South is urged to protect himself more fully.
Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 6
Committee Members: Jens Auken, Chairman (Denmark), Steen Møller (Denmark), Herman
De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Qualifying session 3 Italy v Ireland
Board 12 NORTH
North/South Vul. A J 10 9 5
Dealer West J 10 6
A
A J 10 2
WEST EAST
43 Q862
- AK853
K J 10 9 7 2 Q63
Q8643 7
SOUTH
K7
Q9742
854
K95

Guariglia Hanlon Di Bello McGann
3 Dble 3 Dble
4 Dble 4 4
All Pass
Contract: Four Hearts, played by South
Lead: Four of Spades

The Facts: The jack of spades made the first trick, and declarer played the jack of hearts,
covered with the King. Diamond to the ace and spade from the table, on which East discarded
a diamond. The contract went one down, and several rounds later North-South realized that
West must have revoked in the fourth trick. They called the director, who told them to go to
their opponents. These immediately told West had discarded the three of spades in the second
trick. When questioned about this by the Director, East said he had immediately known that
was what he was going to ask because South had reacted surprised at the table at the time.
The Director: established these facts and chose to follow his opinion in that there had indeed
been a revoke. Although it was now too late to penalize the revoke, the Director should
restore the table result to normal. If West does not revoke, South should make his contract.
Ruling: Four Hearts just made, +620 to North-South
East-West appealed.
The Players: West repeated that he had thrown the three of spades on the second trick. He
had done so in order to show partner his distribution. North told the story about how he had
approached East and, without asking a question ("He did not even know if I wasn't just
offering to buy him a beer"), East had offered the explanation that West had thrown the spade
in trick two.
East told the Committee that North had told him enough for him to realize what the question
was about. This was a different explanation than the one he had given to the Tournament
Director. South explained the line he had taken. He had counted West to 1075, and so East
must have only 2 diamonds. That is why he ruffed just one diamond before endplaying East.
East-West stated the hand had been completely played out, so that the revoke should have
been discovered at the table.
North-South maintained that only 11 tricks had actually been fully played, before West
offered the rest to dummy.
The Appeal Committee: decided:
1) that they had uncovered a lot of new facts concerning the case, none of which proved nor
disproved the alleged revoke;
2) that in such a case the opinion of the Tournament Director, after he had investigated the
facts should be trusted;
3) that there had had in fact been a revoke;
4) that without a revoke, South is quite likely to make his contract.
Relevant Laws: Law 64C
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 7
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De
Wael (Belgium)
Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 France v Germany
Board 26 NORTH
Both Vul. KJ2
Dealer East AK93
10 4
8753
WEST EAST
965 Q
10 7 4 QJ2
KQ72 AJ63
A K 10 QJ942
SOUTH
A 10 8 7 4 3
865
985
6

Wladow Coupere Gromoller Prevoteau
- - 1 Pass
1 Pass 2 Pass
2 Pass 3 Pass
5 All Pass
Contract: Five Diamonds, played by East
Lead: ace of spades
Result: 10 tricks made, -100 to East-West
The Facts: On the ace, North hesitated for some time before contributing the jack. South
switched to hearts and the contract went one down.
The Director: established that the jack was an encouraging signal, and the hesitation might
have contributed the information that a switch was needed.
Ruling: Unauthorized Information, score adjusted to 12 tricks, +620 for East-West.
The Players: North, translating for his partner, explained that South knew declarer had only
one spade, and that the only way to defeat the contract was the heart switch. East explained
that in their system, Precision, the bid of Three Hearts could have been done on AQ
doubleton, in which case Souths deductions would have been wrong. South was surprised at
this. She had not realized East-West were playing Precision and had worked out East to have
1354 shape.
The Appeal Committee: realized that South had two reasons for the heart switch: her
deduction, although erroneous, from the bidding, which is Authorized Information, and the
hesitation which accompanied the jack, which is Unauthorized Information. When a player is
in the possession of Unauthorized Information, he should not choose the alternative that is
suggested by it, when there are logical alternatives present. The Appeal Committee felt that it
was not sufficiently proven that the spade continuation was no longer a logical alternative, and
therefor could do nothing but award the contract.
It was felt by all present, including East-West, that the award of 12 tricks was very generous,
and 11 tricks was a much more likely outcome.
Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed but slightly adjusted, -600 to both sides.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 8
Wael (Belgium)
Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Great Britain v Poland

Board 13 NORTH
Both Vul. 10 7 4
Dealer North K742
J96
742
WEST EAST
AJ63 Q952
A 10 8 Q9653
K52 Q7
AQ8 J5
SOUTH
K8
J
A 10 8 4 3
K 10 9 6 3

Kubicki Rowlands Czeczotko Lee
- Pass Pass 1
1NT Pass 2 Pass
3 Pass 3 Pass
3NT All Pass
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West
Lead: six of diamonds
The Facts: East-West were not certain of their system. According to East, Two Diamonds
was a transfer to hearts, while according to West, it was asking for a stopper. That, and the
resulting misinformation, was not the main complaint though. The problem was with South,
who had asked West about Three Diamonds and had received a shrug in return, with a
hesitant "control". When West later confidently bid Three No-Trumps, South concluded that
he had a strong stopper, and did not return the suit, which might have defeated the contract.
The Director: found no reason to believe that the misinformation caused damage, if there was
damage in the first place, because Three No-Trumps could well be made even after the
diamond continuation.
Ruling: Score Stands
The Players: South recounted the story from his side of the screen. From all West's actions, he
had received the impression that there was a stronger stop. He played his partner for the
doubleton six and five of diamonds. East-West were not present at the hearing.
The Appeal Committee: was quite clear in finding there was an infraction concerning the
incomplete explanation of the bid of Three Diamonds. The Committee was equally certain of
damage, since this has to be seen in favor of the non-offending side, and Three No-Trumps is
far more likely to fail with a diamond continuation than without it. The Committee was less
certain that the infraction actually caused the damage, but in the absence of East- West, was
unable to see deep enough into the matter and decided to rule in favor of North-South.
Decision: Directorial Ruling reversed, Three No-Trumps making eight, -100 to both sides.
Deposit: Forfeited
Comments: You should always appear before the Committee, even if the Director originally
ruled in your favor. This decision was sufficiently close for it to have easily swung the other
way if a more complete picture had been painted.
Appeal 9
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Jean-
Claude Beineix (France), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 1 Turkey v Italy
Board 30 NORTH
None Vul. 98
Dealer East A 10 5 2
96
A K J 10 3
WEST EAST
AK54 10 6 3 2
Q8 K9743
QJ 5
97542 Q86
SOUTH
QJ7
J6
A K 10 8 7 4 3 2
-

Lanutti Gitmek Baldestein Sevket
- - Pass Pass
1 Dble 1 2
Pass Pass 2 5
Pass Pass Dble All Pass
Contract: Five Diamonds Doubled, played by South

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

Board 15 NORTH
North/South Vul. J5
Dealer South J72
10 9 8 7 4 3
76
WEST EAST
AKQ82 10 9 7 4 3
A9 K84
AJ6 -
Q95 A 10 4 3 2
SOUTH
6
Q 10 6 5 3
KQ52
KJ8

Romanski Matula Kowalski Brede
- - - 1
Dble 2 3 Pass
4 Pass 4 All Pass
Contract: Four Spades, played by East
Lead: king of clubs
The Facts: The bid of Two Clubs, which showed diamonds, was misexplained by South to
West. West found that this prevented him from better describing his hand with a cue-bid of
Four Diamonds.
The Director: found confirmation for these facts, but could not tell for certain that East-West
would reach the slam.
Ruling: Artificial Adjusted score : Average plus to East-West, Average minus to North-South.
The Players: North explained that South had taught him this convention just prior to the
Championships, and then it is South who forgets it.
North thought that East should have bid on after Four Hearts. West explained that he had no
other call: Four Clubs would show club control, Four Diamonds would show a natural suit
and strong. So Four Hearts was his normal call.
East explained that he feared Four Hearts, showing control, was based on a singleton, in
which case his King is worthless.
The Appeal Committee: Felt that the Director had acted correctly in not awarding East-West
the full benefit of the misexplanation. The Committee also felt that North-South should not
have appealed.
Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, Average plus to East-West, Average minus to North-
South.
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 11
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland), Naki
Bruni (Italy)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 1 Sweden v France
Board 31 NORTH
North/South Vul. 94
Dealer South 95
93
K J 10 8 7 5 4
WEST EAST
K9862 A J 10
J84 A732
K74 A62
96 Q32
SOUTH
753
K Q 10 6
Q J 10 8 5
A

Beaumier Lindqvist Jeanneteau Fredin
- - - 1
1 Pass 2 Pass
2 3 3 Pass
3NT All Pass
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West
Lead: small Club
The Facts: Two Diamonds and Three Diamonds were alerted by East to North, but on the
other side, South did notice the alert on Two Diamonds, but not the one on Three Diamonds.
West had alerted by pointing to his alert card. After winning the first trick with the ace of
clubs, South returned the king of hearts.
The Director: found that West had failed to follow the rules and regulations page 9, but that
there was no damage.
Ruling: Score Stands.
The Players: South said that he could not have doubled Two Diamonds for the lead as this
double would only promise a strong hand, not necessarily a good diamond suit. He told that
he had waited for an alert from West of Three Diamonds and had looked some time at him
while he waited, but that there was no alert. He therefore assumed that the bid was natural and
did under these circumstances not want to make a lead directing double. He explained that his
opening bid could have been made with four small diamonds and that it therefor was natural
for his partner not to lead a diamond, when there had been no lead directing Double over
Three Diamonds. He claimed that Three No-Trumps would have been defeated after a
diamond lead. After winning the first trick and seeing the dummy he could have played a
diamond in stead of the king of hearts. This would have made it less easy for West to make the
contract, but he said that the play of the heart was by far the best and would be chosen by all
experts as it would only be wrong with the actual distribution of that suit.
West said that he had alerted Three Diamonds by tapping on the table with a finger, which
was how by far the most players in these championships made alerts.
The Appeal Committee: It was clear to the Committee that West had committed an infraction
by not alerting in the proper way. South could have asked for the meaning of Three
Diamonds. It is very unusual in any system to be able first to make a cue-bid in the opponent's
suit and then in the next round bid it naturally The Committee found that West had himself to
blame if he felt damaged and that he done absolutely nothing to protect himself.
Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 85A
Deposit: Returned
Comments: East/West was warned for not alerting in the proper way. The Committee takes
this opportunity to remind players that if an alert is made in an improper way the tournament
directors will treat it as an infraction if the opponent claims that he has not noticed it.
Appeal 12
Committee Members: Bill Pencharz, Chairman (Great Britain), Jean-Claude Beineix (France),
Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Denmark v Poland

Board 8 NORTH
None Vul. J973
Dealer West QJ
K853
A94
WEST EAST
A K 10 4 8652
10 9 6 K876
A962 J4
Q7 10 6 3
SOUTH
Q
A532
Q 10 7
KJ852

Gardynik Graversen Przybora Clemmensen
1 Pass 1 Pass
1 Pass 2 Dble
Rdble 3 All Pass
Contract: Three Diamonds, played by North
The Facts: One Club was Polish, One Diamond weak relay, and One Spade showed either
11-14 with Spades or 11-18 with Spades and Clubs. The Redouble now promised the higher
end of the second alternative, and East told North that the three bids in combination showed
Clubs and Spades and strength.
The Director: Since there had been no explanation on the other side of the screen, the
Director took the hand as an indication that there had been misinformation.
Ruling: Result changed to Three Clubs, making, +110 to North-South
Both sides appealed. North-South wanted the score to be changed to Two Spades Redoubled,
going several down. East-West wanted to have the table result reinstated.
The Players: North stated he would have passed if he had known West to be weak and
balanced. South added he would also have passed, for penalties.
South also stated he would be able to make ten tricks in clubs. East was not at the meeting, but
together with an interpreter, West explained that the explanation had been correct. The One
Spade bid still allowed for two of the original three possible meanings of the Polish One Club:
either weak and balanced (11-14 with 4 spades), or natural with both black suits (11-18 with
5 clubs and 4 spades). While the meaning of the Redouble could not be proven on paper, it is
logical that this would mean 16- 18 with clubs and spades.
West stated he had made a deliberate psyche.

The Appeal Committee: accepted the explanation of the system. It is not completely clear
whether West did in fact make a psyche, or simply a misbid, but the explanation from East
must be considered correct. Therefor there is no infraction, and no score adjustment is needed
Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, table result restored, -50 to both sides. East-West are
asked to add one word (OR) on their Convention Card.
Deposit: Both deposits were returned.
Appeal 13
Bruni (Italy)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 2 Iceland v France
Board 3 NORTH
East/West Vul. A K 10 7 5
Dealer South K95
A 10 2
Q4
WEST EAST
Q42 J9
832 KQJ764
Q43 87
A832 K 10 9
SOUTH
863
A
KJ965
J765

Voldoire Snorri Bitran Aron
- - - Pass
Pass 1 2 2
3 Pass Pass Dble
All Pass
Contract: Three Hearts Doubled, played by East
The Facts: North's Pass was after a hesitation.
The Director: concluded that it was clear enough that it was North who had hesitated, so there
was Unauthorized Information to South. Passing is a logical Alternative.
Ruling: Score corrected to Three Hearts, not doubled, one down, +100 to North-South.
The Players: North said that he had paused for about 15 seconds thinking of bidding 3
Spades. The tray had stayed on his side of the screen for about 20 seconds. South admitted
that the tray had been a long time on the other side but said that he could not know for sure
that it was due to a hesitation by his partner. He also said that his hand certainly was worth
one more bid.
East and West both agreed to the explanations concerning the time spent by North and on the
North/East side of the screen.
The Appeal Committee: It was not absolutely clear to South that North had used almost all of
the time the screen stayed on the North/East side. But even if this had been clear, South's hand
was of such a good quality that he should not have bent backwards because of partners
hesitation. The Committee was sure that only very few of the players in these championships
would have passed Three Hearts and found that Pass was not a logical alternative to any
action South might chose.
Decision: Original Table Result restored, +200 to North-South
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 14
Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 2 Israel v France

Board 5 NORTH
None Vul. K974
Dealer North J 10 3
J4
AQ87
WEST EAST
J85 Q632
964 AK85
K 10 7 6 3 Q92
96 J3
SOUTH
A 10
Q72
A85
K 10 5 4 2

Allouche Wax Zuker Wax
- Pass 1 Pass
3 All Pass
Contract: Three Diamonds, played by East
The Facts: Three Diamonds was explained by West as pre-emptive, by East as fit and normal.
East had not alerted the bid.
North said he would have doubled if he had known it was weak.
The Director: ruled that the Pass was normal, even with correct information.
Ruling: Result stands
The Players: North did not know if he would have doubled. He estimated his chances of
doubling at 35%. But he did not get the chance, because of the misexplanation.
West explained they played the inverted minors, usually showing some 5-8 points. It was not
her habit to have such a weak hand for the bid.
The Appeal Committee: found the chance of North entering the bidding insufficiently large to
merit a score correction.
Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 15
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Krzysztof Martens (Poland),

Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Italy v Ukraine
Board 8 NORTH
None Vul. J973
Dealer West QJ
K853
A94
WEST EAST
A K 10 4 8652
10 9 6 K874
A962 J4
Q7 10 6 3
SOUTH
Q
A532
Q 10 7
KJ852

Motuzko De Falco Karlikow Ferraro
1NT Pass 2 Dble
2 Pass Pass Dble
Pass 2NT All Pass
Contract: Two No-Trumps, played by North
The Facts: West called the director because he claimed South had doubled the second time
because he had heard commotion coming from the other side of the screen.
The Director: established that there had indeed been some noises made at the North/West
side, mainly because of language problems, director calls and such.
There had been, among others, a dispute about whether Two Clubs had been alerted or not.
Ruling: No Unauthorized Information, Score stands.
East-West appealed.
The Players: West said that South had claimed his second Double had been "automatic", but
that it took him 30 seconds to bid it. South replied that when he said "automatic", he had
meant that all players would make the call, but that did not mean he could not think about it.
North explained what had happened at the other side of the screen. He had not asked about
One No-Trump, but he had asked about Two Clubs, since that call had been alerted, even
though it was (weak) Stayman. When he had inquired about Two Spades, he had first to
explain that South's first Double meant clubs, and when he then wanted to know if Two
Spades showed or denied a club stopper, it took him quite some time, and Directorial help, to
get a satisfactory reply.
The Appeal Committee: Decided that no further evidence had been brought before the
Committee that would suggest that the Director had made the wrong decision.
Deposit: Returned, but only because of the language difficulties.
Appeal 16
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 2 Poland v Spain
The Facts: The appealing side chose not to come to the hearing, which would take place after
the third session.
The Director: was able to tell the opponents about this, and told the Committee there would
be no hearing
The Appeal Committee: decided not to hear the case and keep the deposit.
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 17
Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "A" - session 3 France v Poland

Board 6 NORTH
East/West Vul. KJ753
Dealer East J9765
2
65
WEST EAST
Q984 A
KQ3 A 10 2
A96 J 10 8 7 5 4
AK8 Q92
SOUTH
10 6 2
84
KQ3
J 10 7 4 3

Gawrys Samy Lesniewski Samy
- - Pass Pass
1 2 Dble 2
3NT Pass 4 Pass
4NT All Pass
Contract: Four No-Trumps, played by West
Lead: heart
The Facts: The convention card showed that the bid of Two Diamonds was a Major two-
suiter with 5 or 6 losers. Based upon that information West cashed the ace of diamonds in trick
two and went down as a result.
The Director: accepted West's reasoning and considered the description on the convention
card to be erroneous.
Ruling: Score changed to Four No-Trumps, making twelve tricks, -690 to North-South.
The Players: North explained she had been playing for only four years and now she was in
the semi final of the European Championships. They had had a few bad boards and she
wanted to do something. She would not normally consider overcalling on this weak a hand.
South pointed out that he had freely bid Two Spades and so it would be impossible, from
declarer's view, for North to actually have the strength she was showing.
The Appeal Committee: For North to have five or six losers missing two top honours in
spades and three in hearts, she needed to have a really wild distribution (like six - six), making
the double finesse very attractive. Furthermore East had failed to execute a discovery play by
cashing two clubs before deciding how to play the diamonds.
The Committee accepted that North had made a non-systemic bid.
Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, Original Table result restated, +100 to both sides.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 18
Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Italy
Board 15 NORTH
North/South Vul. AJ
Dealer South 97
AQ982
A732
WEST EAST
32 K Q 10 8 7 4
K 10 6 3 2 J84
KJ76 5
K9 10 6 5
SOUTH
965
AQ5
10 4 3
QJ84

Alpini Quaglia Sconocchia Petronio
- - - Pass
Pass 1 1 Pass
2 Pass 2 All Pass
Contract: Two Spades, played by East
Result: 8 tricks made, +110 to East-West
The Facts: When the tray came back with Two Spades - Pass - Pass, North called the
Director claiming he had received the information concerning Two Diamonds a bit too late.
The Director asked to continue the bidding and North Passed. After the hand, North said he
would have bid Three Clubs over Two Diamonds if he had known it was conventional.
The Director: established that One Diamond was Precision, and Two Diamonds was Cue. It
was not alerted by East, but he considered it normal that this bid could be asked for.
Ruling: Score stands.
The Players: The Director pointed out that he did not know who East-West were at the time,
but that in all probability it was also an Italian pair, since this had been in the first round. This
turned out to be true, and Naki Bruni, regular Appeal Committee member who was present as
interpreter, confirmed that the opponents were a little known pair from central Sicily. After
that, Naki Bruni was readmitted as a full member of the Committee. North said that they play
Two Diamonds as natural.
The Appeal Committee: found it really awkward that two pairs from the same country could
play two boards without discovering that they spoke the same language ("well, sort of", says
Naki) and ruled that North had really not done enough to protect himself.
Relevant Laws: Law 40B
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 19
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium),

Patrick Jourdain (Great Britain)
Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Poland

Board 1 NORTH
None Vul. J84
Dealer North A 10 3
10 8 4
10 9 5 4
WEST EAST
A K Q 10 7 3 9
7 K95
A63 Q52
K87 AQJ632
SOUTH
652
QJ8642
KJ97
-

Wisniewski Moritsch Laskowski Guerra
- Pass 2 2
3 Pass 3NT Pass
4 Pass 5 Pass
6 All Pass
Contract: Six Clubs, played by East
The Facts: Two Clubs was Precision, and North asked East about the meaning of Three
Spades. He was told it was non-forcing. North called the Director at the end of the play,
stating that if he had known it was in fact forcing, he could have bid Four Hearts, perhaps
resulting in East-West failing to find the correct slam but settle for Six Spades in stead, which
fails on the obvious club ruff.
The Director: decided that West had learnt nothing after the actual bidding, so the possible
infraction did not result in damage to North-South.
Ruling: Score stands
The Players: North repeated that he did not get the chance to bid Four Hearts. East did not
attend the meeting, but West explained that they had failed to have a prior agreement about
this situation. West was quite certain that his interpretation (strong and forcing) was the correct
one and he accepted the ruling based on misinformation by his partner.
West gave a possible continuation after a Four Heart bid by North, the bidding might go:
- Pass 2 2
3 4 Pass Pass
4NT Pass 5 Pass
5 Pass 5NT Pass
6 All Pass
with East showing one Key-card and the queen of clubs.
The Appeal Committee: Accepted the arguments by East-West.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 20
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Naki
Seniors Pairs - Final - session 1 Poland v France
Board 6 NORTH
East/West Vul. 10 8 7
Dealer East J962
Q 10 5
10 6 4
WEST EAST
AK643 QJ5
- A K 10 4 3
J942 AK6
AJ95 K8
SOUTH
92
Q875
873
Q732

Jezioro Szwarc Klukowski Damiani
- - 1 Pass
1 Pass 2 Pass
2NT Pass 3NT Pass
4NT Pass 5 Pass
5NT Pass 6NT All Pass
Contract: Six No-Trumps, played by West
The Facts: One Club was a standard Polish club, One Spades shows 7+ with 4+ spades, Two
Hearts is 18-21 with five or more hearts, Three No-Trumps is balanced, Four No-Trumps
invitational. Five Spades is explained by East as a good hand, but by West as two aces and a
king. Five No-Trumps came after a hesitation.
The Director: adjusted the score because of Unauthorized Information.
Ruling: Five No-Trumps making seven, +710 to East-West.
East-West appealed.
The Players: East confirmed that he had noticed the hesitation but that he was accepting the
slam invitation of Four No-Trumps by bidding on. He was trying to show the support in
Spades that he had not yet given, and West was wrong in thinking they gave their Aces when
accepting. That would have meant bidding Five Hearts (2 aces and 0 or 3 kings). East said he
did not bid Six Spades because he knew Five to be forcing, and he wanted West to make the
final choice. He admitted that he had overlooked the possibility of bidding Six Spades in
stead of Five, in order to avoid the problems that now arose. West told the Committee he
thought partner showed two aces and one king, in which case on a sub-minimum, he wanted
to allow East to pass Five No-Trumps.
The Appeal Committee: was unanimous in believing that East, on a hand so far better than
the minimum of what he had shown, would always bid on and therefor Passing was no longer
a Logical Alternative. Then even despite the Unauthorized Information, bidding the slam is
allowed.
Decision: Directorial Ruling overturned, Original Table result restored, +1470 to East-West.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 21
Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Consolation - session 1 France v Great Britain

Board 14 NORTH
None Vul. 32
Dealer East K 10
AJ8754
K 10 9
WEST EAST
KJ6 8754
AQ95 J6
Q2 9
Q764 AJ8532
SOUTH
A Q 10 9
87432
K 10 6 3
-

Senior Romanski Martin Kaplan
- - Pass Pass
1NT Pass Pass 2
Dble Pass 3 All Pass
Contract: Three Clubs, played by East
The Facts: There was some confusion on the North/East side concerning the meaning of the
Double. East assumed it was Take-Out, but did not alert it. He stated he did not know this.
North assumed it was for penalties, but he asked the second time around, got the response it
was for Take-Out, told his screen-mate that this should have been alerted, and passed. At the
end of the hand he called the Director, claiming he would have bid Three Diamonds.
The Director: ruled that at three times North could have called the Director, the last time just
before pushing the final pass under the screen, and he would have been allowed to change his
call. Since he did not call the Director, he could not claim an adjustment now, under Law 11A.
Ruling: Result Stands.
The Players: There was some confusion about the real order of things: according to North, he
had received the information before passing, according to East, he was already holding a Pass
card while asking for the information.
West informed the Committee that in his opinion this type of Double was always for
penalties, and East agreed to this and admitted that he had gotten that wrong.
When asked why North did not take action sooner, he told the Committee that in his system,
an overcall of Two Diamonds showed four diamonds and five in a Major. He had passed on
the Double because he had wanted to play the contract. South had not shown spades, since
they do play Two Clubs for Majors in that position. In typical fashion, West drew the
Committee's attention to North's hand: "anybody with red blood in their veins would bid with
that hand".
The Appeal Committee: established that the explanation by East was incorrect. In that case it
did no longer matter in what order the pass and question came, and the Committee ruled that
the Director had gotten it wrong when applying Law 11A. The Committee then needed to
make a ruling from scratch. It was felt that North should have an easy bid of Three Diamonds,
if the explanation Take-Out is heard. North- South have a heart fit (South usually has better
hearts than that), and East-West have club and spade fits (South usually has worse spades than
that). Three diamonds cannot be wrong.
If the explanation would have been "penalties", then our heart fit is not as good, but our
diamond fit should be better. Three diamonds is again a normal bid, only slightly more easy
than in the first case. All in all, the Committee felt the damage was too small to justify
rectification of a bad call. As one member put it, "this is the Appeal Committee, not the
Rescue Committee".
Decision: Directorial Ruling changed to "no damage", score stands, -110 to both sides.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 22
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain),
Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 1 Israel v Poland
Board 6 NORTH
East/West Vul. Q7654
Dealer East 7432
K 10 8 2
-
WEST EAST
3 J 10 9
AK95 Q J 10 6
9765 A43
KQJ9 A62
SOUTH
AK82
8
QJ
10 8 7 5 4 3
Herbst Choniawko Gelbard Jeleniewsky
- - 1 1NT
Dble Pass Pass 2
Dble Rdble Pass 2
3 4 Pass Pass
6 Pass Pass Dble
All Pass
Contract: Six Clubs Doubled, played by West
The Facts: There were no problems whatsoever on the North/East side of the screen. The
overcall of One No- Trump by South, which showed five or more clubs and four spades, was
not alerted by South to West. South later explained Two Clubs as natural and the Redouble as
SOS. East's pass over Four Spades was forcing, and West chose what he thought to be the
correct contract for them.
The Director: West explained that he thought One No-Trump and Two Clubs were psychic
bids, but did not furnish any alternative bids except Double or Pass to his choice of Six Clubs.
Ruling: No Damage, Score stands. 10% procedural penalty to North-South for their failure to
alert.
East-West appealed.
The Players: South explained that he had pointed to his convention card rather than alert.
West did not see this. South said he had explained Two Clubs as "at least five cards". West
only remembered "natural", but it may well have been that South had said "five" as well. The
convention card has this overcall on the left side, but not on the right one under "special bids
that may require defense".
West explained his reasons for the strange looking call of Six Clubs:
-When One No-Trump is not alerted, he assumed it to be 15-17. As he can count to 25

himself, he was thinking that South has psyched.
-When South next escapes to Two Clubs, rather than stay in the doubled contract, this
reinforced him in that conviction. As it might well be a double psych, he was not worried
about the club suit. Opponents must have a spade fit, and the psych is probably based on a
long spade suit.
-When the Redouble is explained as SOS, and not as would be more correct "play in your
major", this again reinforces his belief that his partner has clubs and South long spades.
The Appeal Committee: West was correct in his reasoning after the non-alerted One No-
Trump. He was definitely damaged and should receive an adjustment. As it is impossible to
determine a normal bridge result, an artificial adjusted score shall be given.
Decision: Directorial Ruling changed, Average Plus to East-West, Average Minus to North-
South, additional penalty of 10% from director maintained (resulting in 30% to North-South)
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 23
Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Naki Bruni (Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 1 Poland v Netherlands
Board 22 NORTH
East/West Vul. A97
Dealer East 965
A K 10
KQ72
WEST EAST
J2 8643
K Q 10 8 4 J32
76 984
AJ85 10 4 3
SOUTH
K Q 10 5
A7
QJ532
96

Walczak Paulissen Kaczanowski Ramer
- - Pass 1
1 1 Pass 1NT
Pass 2 Pass 2NT
Pass 3NT All Pass
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by South
Lead: Queen of Hearts
The Facts: There was a lot of confusion concerning the first card from East. According to
East-West, it was the two, according to South, the three.
The card had come after some hesitation. South had waited to make his plan, and when he
called low from dummy, this was not heard. After North put the card in the played position,
East took some more time in contributing the low heart. He claims this is because he was not
certain that South had actually called the card.
The Director: decided that the hesitation may have contributed to the heart continuation and
ruled Unauthorized Information.
Ruling: 11 tricks, +460 to North-South
East-West appealed.
The Players: The convention card mentions the lead of the King from all king-queen
combination except KQJ. East stated that he had led the Queen because this asks to unblock,
except when there is enough communication. East said that on the Queen, West had given
count with the three (upside down count). South stated that he had asked East, in Polish, why
he had continued the hearts and what the two had meant, and that he had gotten the reply
"small encouraging".
The Appeal Committee: decided that there had been a hesitation, that it was unclear what the
signalling really meant and that therefor it is not impossible that the continuation was
suggested in an unauthorized manner.
Relevant Laws: Law 16A, 12C2
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 24
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium),

Sergei Litvak (Russia), Hans Christian Graversen (Denmark)
Open Pairs - Consolation - session 2 Italy v Poland

Board 8 NORTH
None Vul. J5
Dealer West AQ2
J93
QJ964
WEST EAST
AK Q 10 6 4 3 2
10 9 8 7 3 J54
Q 10 6 5 4 -
5 A873
SOUTH
987
K6
AK872
K 10 2

Kandybowitz Forlano Kowalczyk Frattura
2 Pass 2 Pass
Pass 3 Pass Pass
3 Pass Pass 4
All Pass
Contract: Four Clubs, played by North
The Facts: Two Diamonds showed five diamonds and five of another suit, 7 to 11 points.
Two Hearts was explained by West as "asking, weak", but by East as "indefinite". North
stated he would have Doubled Three Hearts if he had gotten a better explanation.
The Director: Asked East to write the explanation of the Two Heart bid and received "MAX
12". He ruled there had been no misinformation.
Ruling: score stands
The Players: North told that he had asked "How Points" and had received the reply
"indefinite".
The Appeal Committee: agreed with the director that North could very easily have asked for a
good explanation of what was after all a very natural kind of bidding sequence. North should
have written "2H?" on a piece of paper, and would have received a good description. He
should not have appealed, something a few people had told him as well.
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 25
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Naki Bruni (Italy), Sergei Litvak
(Russia)
Seniors Pairs - Final - session 2 Poland/Belgium v Germany
Board 11 NORTH
None Vul. -
Dealer South J94
A J 10 6 4
Q 10 7 4 3
WEST EAST
K 10 5 987643
K 10 6 3 Q75
K87 9
A65 K82
SOUTH
AQJ2
A82
Q532
J9

Jamka Jauniaux Jamka Wala
- - - 1
Pass 1 Pass 1
Pass 2 Pass Pass
Dble Pass 2 3
3NT 4 Pass Pass
Dble All Pass
Contract: Four Diamonds, Doubled, played by North
The Facts: One Club is Polish, One Diamond can be negative, strong 16+, or 7-9 with
diamonds. West called the Director and said he had not received enough information about the
meaning of One Diamond. North had simply said "standard Polish".
The Director: ruled misinformation, but could not ascertain a reasonable alternative contract.
Ruling: Artificial adjusted score, Average Plus to East-West, Average Minus to North-South.
The Players: South stated that he had been speaking Polish with opponents. Although they
appear for Germany, he remembered their faces. When he answered "standard Polish", in
Polish, he assumed his opponent knew that system. West did not ask any other question
during the rest of the auction.
The Appeal Committee: Sergei Litvak confirmed that the meaning of the One Diamond call
as North-South play it is indeed the standard meaning in Polish Club. When West does not
press on, South is correct in believing he has fulfilled his obligations. Law 40B includes
"unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". The
Committee finds this to be the case. The Director, who did not apply a penalty because he
adjusted the score, was now asked to apply a penalty if he saw fit, and he did penalize North-
South 10%.
Decision: Directorial Ruling reversed, Original Table result restored, +510 to both sides.
Procedural penalty of 10% to North-South.
Relevant Laws: Law 40B
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 26
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Bill Pencharz (Great Britain), Naki
Bruni (Italy)
Open Pairs - Final "B" - session 2 France v Czech Republic

Board 1 NORTH
None Vul. 10 5 3
Dealer North 764
Q85
Q J 10 2
WEST EAST
Q KJ742
K98 QJ52
KJ43 962
A9853 4
SOUTH
A986
A 10 3
A 10 7
K76

Hnatova Dehaye Zadrazil Ghestem
- - 2 Dble
All Pass
Contract: Two Hearts Doubled, played by East
The Facts: Two Hearts was weak with both Majors. South claimed he was insufficiently
explained this. He asked "weak" and received a nod in reply. West disagrees and did not
notice any question being asked.
The Director: ruled there was no misinformation.
The Players: South restated he had asked, and believed he had received a reply. "It is
impossible that I do not ask, and I led spades!"
The Appeal Committee: ruled South should have protected himself better, as by asking to see
the Convention Card, which was properly filled out.
Deposit: Forfeited
Appeal 27
Open Pairs - Final "B" - session 3 Italy v Poland
Board 9 NORTH
East/West Vul. AQ863
Dealer North 8532
K64
Q
WEST EAST
J9 K52
A J 10 7 Q4
Q9 A3
J 10 8 6 5 AK9732
SOUTH
10 7 4
K96
J 10 8 7 5 2
4

Magnani Ratynski Baldi Siwiec
- Pass 1 1NT
Dble Rdble Pass 2
Pass 3 All Pass
Contract: Three Spades, played by North
The Facts: South had made a psych.
The Director: found no evidence to suggest anything strange.
East-West appealed.
The Players: North-South did not attend the meeting. West found the Convention Card badly
filled in (the 1NT overcall was almost the only thing that was on there), and stated that South
had alerted Two Diamonds, and explained it as forcing.
The Appeal Committee: found no evidence either, not for fielding, nor for undisclosed
agreements. They did see West's point though, in wanting the case investigated.
Deposit: Returned, specifically because North-South were not present and the Committee
could therefor not rule on the merits of the case.
Appeal 28
Wael (Belgium)
Open Pairs - Final "A" - session 3 Great Britain v Poland

Board 26 NORTH
None Vul. Q5
Dealer East AQ832
Q9753
J
WEST EAST
10 K84
J764 9
A K 10 4 2 J86
975 A K 10 8 3 2
SOUTH
AJ97632
K 10 5
-
Q64

Biegajlo Hackett Pawszak Mossop
- - 2 3
Dble Pass 3NT All Pass
Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by East
Result: 5 tricks made, -200 to East-West
The Facts: Two Clubs showed 11-15 with six clubs or five clubs and four of a Major. Three
spades was pre- emptive and the Double, which was negative, was not alerted by East to
North.
The Director: ruled that in a final of a European Championship, a player should be able to
protect himself more completely.
The Players: East said he thought it was normal to use negative doubles and he simply forgot
to alert. North assumed it was a penalty Double, and did not want to ask, be told it was for
penalties, pass and thus reveal he was thinking of raising. He would have bid Four Spades if it
had been alerted.
The Appeal Committee: agreed with the Director. The Committee strongly suggested that the
Director apply a penalty for the failure to alert, which he did.
Deposit: Returned
Appeal 29
Committee Members: Steen Møller, Chairman (Denmark), Nissan Rand (Israel), Naki Bruni
(Italy), Herman De Wael (Belgium)
Seniors Pairs - Final - session 3 Great Britain v Poland
Board 3 NORTH
East/West Vul. AK7
Dealer South K8732
K2
AQ6
WEST EAST
Q95 862
J 10 5 4 AQ96
Q J 10 6 A43
82 K 10 5
SOUTH
J 10 4 3
-
9872
J9743

LeightonM Baluk LeightonC Krupinski
- - - Pass
Pass 1 Pass 1
Pass 2 Pass 2
Pass 2NT All Pass
Contract: Two No-Trumps, played by North
Lead: Six of Spades
The Facts: One Club was Polish, One Diamond negative relay, Two Hearts showed a strong
hand with hearts and Two Spades was explained differently at either side of the screen. South
explained it as 4+ cards, and did not really speak about points, while North wrote "5+S, 4-
6HCP". East stated he felt damaged by the misexplanation.
The Director: decided there was no misinformation, and even if there had been, that East was
not damaged in his choice of lead.
Ruling: score stands.
East-West appealed.
The Players: South stated he believes his system is correct, and that with this hand he should
bid Two Spades. North thought his explanation was correct. The Director, himself Polish,
confirmed that this was the standard approach, but would maybe also bid Two Spades on the
South hand.
East explained his choice of lead by saying that it was the only suit he would not give
anything away in. West defended his play of the queen on the jack in trick one by saying his
partner would not lead into a known suit without at least an honor.
When pressed, East admitted he would also lead spades if he had received an explanation that
included the possibility of four-nil in the Majors.
The Appeal Committee: agreed totally with the Director's ruling and deplored East-West's
decision to appeal.
Deposit: Forfeited

10th European Open Pairs Championship: Warsaw, Poland, March 15-20, 1999

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10th European Open Pairs Championship: Warsaw, Poland, March 15-20, 1999

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10th European Open Pairs Championship

Warsaw, Poland, March 15-20, 1999

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 1 Poland v Italy

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: 6 No-Trumps, played by South

Lead: Ten of Spades

Result: 12 tricks made, +990 to North-South

Ruling: no misinformation, score stands.

Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +990 to both sides.

Relevant Laws: Law 40A

2) The change can be to any other call.

Appeal Committee: Steen Møller (Denmark), Chairman, Apolinary Kowalski (Poland),

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 1 Poland v Poland

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: 5 Hearts Doubled, played by West

Result: 5 Down, -1100 to East-West

Ruling: Average (50%) to both sides.

Decision: Table result restored, -1100 to both sides.

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

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Germany v Italy

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Result: 9 tricks made, -300 to North-South

Ruling: No misinformation, Result Stands

The Players: repeated their statements

Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, -300 to both sides.

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Hungary v Poland

Contract: Three Spades, played by North

Result: 9 tricks made, +140 to North-South

The Appeal Committee: Reached their conclusion in three stages:

1) The hesitation is established at 25 seconds

Relevant Laws: Law 16

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: Two Spades, played by South

Result: 6 tricks made, -100 to North-South

Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, Average Plus to North-South, Average Minus to

Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1

Open Pairs - Qualifying session 3 Italy v Ireland

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: Four Hearts, played by South

Lead: Four of Spades

Ruling: Four Hearts just made, +620 to North-South

The Appeal Committee: decided:

3) that there had had in fact been a revoke;

4) that without a revoke, South is quite likely to make his contract.

Decision: Directorial Ruling confirmed, +620 to both sides.

Relevant Laws: Law 64C

Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 France v Germany

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Lead: ace of spades

Result: 10 tricks made, -100 to East-West

Ruling: Unauthorized Information, score adjusted to 12 tricks, +620 for East-West.

Relevant Laws: Law 16A

Seniors Pairs - Qualifying session 2 Great Britain v Poland

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West

Lead: six of diamonds

Result: 9 tricks made, -600 to North-South

Ruling: Score Stands

Relevant Laws: Laws 21B, 40C, 12C1

Open Pairs - Semi Final "B" - session 1 Turkey v Italy

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

Contract: Five Diamonds Doubled, played by South

Result: 11 tricks made, +550 to North-South