### Appeal No. 1 Italy v Italy Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Bill Pencharz (England) Mixed Pairs First Qualifying Session

Board 2 N/S vul. Dealer East | NORTH Q J 8 J 9 6 2 K 10 4 3 A K
WEST 7 6 5 5 A J 8 J 10 6 5 3 2 | EAST A K 10 9 3 2 Q 8 7 4 9 6 Q
| SOUTH 4 A K 10 3 Q 7 5 2 9 8 7 4

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Viggi | De Falco | Calzoni | Cividin
- | - | 1 | Pass
2 | All Pass

Contract: 2 Spades, played by East Result: 9 tricks, +140 to East-West The Facts: Two Spades had been explained by East as “8-11”, by West as “Constructive”. North claimed he could have bid something if he had known that the West hand could have as few as six points. West stated he knew he was supposed to have at least 8 points, but considered the bid of Two Spades to be the lesser of evils. The Director: Accepted the explanation by East-West. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: North repeated that he could not bid over the Two Spades if there were 8 points in West, but he would have called if the explanation had been “constructive”, which could have been done with more distribution and less points. East explained that in their system, Two Hearts would show a weak support in Spades (or natural), but that this could also be bid without the Ace. The Committee: Decided that the Director had ruled correctly, and that the appeal lacked any merit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40B Deposit: Forfeited ### Appeal No. 2 Italy v Norway Appeals Committe: Steen Moeller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Nissan Rand (Israel) Mixed Pairs First Qualifying Session

Board 26 Both vul. Dealer East | NORTH A Q 10 9 8 7 3 10 7 5 4 Q 7
WEST K Q 2 K J 8 7 6 K J 10 5 4 | EAST 6 4 A K J 8 5 3 A 9 3 A 8
| SOUTH J 5 2 9 6 4 Q 10 2 9 6 3 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Mikkaelson | De Falco | Mikkaelson | Cividin
- | - | 1 | Pass
2 | 3 | Dble | Pass
3NT | All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: 10 of Hearts Result: 13 tricks, +720 to East-West The Facts: The Double had been explained differently on either side of the screen, East to North explaining it was strong, maximum, West explaining it as being for penalties. North said that South, with 3 card support, might have bid Four Spades if she had known the double was not for penalties, but “strong”. The Director: As 4 Spades would cost North -800 the Director did not consider North-South had been damaged. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: North expressed his strong opinion that the course of the auction should not be disturbed by incorrect explanations and that his side should have its opportunities In an undisturbed auction. The Committee: Noted the possibility that a score adjustment might not simply allow of a 4 Spades contract. It might incorporate an element allowing that over 4 Spades East-West could perhaps arrive in 6 Hearts. It considered that a player who argues that he should be allowed to appeal for a worse score has no merit in his appeal since Law 40C provides for score adjustment only when a non-offending side is damaged. The concept of damage is addressed in the Code of Practice. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: 40C. Code of Practice. Deposit: Forfeited Committee’s note: This type of appeal finds no favour with the committee. ### Appeal No. 3 Italy v Germany Appeals Committe: Steen Moeller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Bill Pencharz (England) Mixed Pairs First Qualifying Session

Board 7 Both vul. Dealer South | NORTH 6 4 3 J 8 7 3 K J 9 10 6 3
WEST K Q 9 A K 9 A 4 3 2 Q 8 7 | EAST J 10 8 7 5 Q 6 2 Q 6 5 9 5
| SOUTH A 2 10 5 4 10 8 7 A K J 4 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Buchlev | Rosati | Malchus | Rosati
- | - | - | 1
1NT | Pass | 2 | Pass
2NT | All Pass

Contract: Two No-Trumps, played by West Lead: Three of Hearts Result: 9 tricks, +150 to East-West The Facts: Two No-Trumps was explained by West to South as showing support in Spades and a maximum. Before the lead, North asked and was led to believe it showed only two spades. North said he would have led a club if he had known there were three spades in West’s hand. The Director: Found that there had been misinformation, but that the club lead was uncertain even with the correct information. The Director applied Law 12C3, as per the authorisation provided to him by the Appeals’ Committee and the WBF Code of Practice adopted by the EBL for its tournament regulations. Ruling: Score adjusted to: For East-West (offending side): Two No-Trumps making eight tricks, -120. For North-South (non-offending side): a weighted score, 50% of Two No-Trumps making eight tricks, +120, and 50% of Two No-Trumps making nine tricks, +150. East/West appealed. The players: West explained that they had decided that after the One No-Trump overcall, the system would be the same as after an opening of One No-Trump. East said she had forgotten this, and tried to explain this to North. East stated she had said “we have not discussed” North maintained that East had not used the word “discussed” and that he had understood “he has no three spades”. West argued that the lead of a Heart is a consequence of North-South’s system in which the opening of One Club could be done on a two-card holding, and there was therefore no damage. The lead was a guess regardless of the explanation. North stated that if he knows West has three spades (or even four), partner must have clubs. The Committee: Found that there had indeed been misinformation. The explanation had obviously not been written down, which would have solved some of the problems. But anyway, regardless of whether East had said “no 3 spades” or “no agreement”, the call did actually show three cards in spades, and North had not been told this. The Committee agreed with the Director that the lead of clubs was not obvious, but that, knowing that South would have at most two Spades it becomes more likely. The Committee felt that some weighted score was the correct ruling, and that the correct weight for the score of 120 ought to lie somewhere between 50% and 100%. The Committee did not find that the appealing side merited a substantial change from the score they had received from the Director, whereas their opponents should not receive any higher score either, considering that they had not appealed. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C3, Code of Practice. Deposit: Returned Committee’s note: The Committee had remarked that, left to itself, it would probably not have offered a different adjusted score for each side. Subsequent Comment: In subsequent discussion between Tournament Appeal’s Committee members it became apparent that the Committee might have fallen short of its true action by not changing the Director’s ruling to a single weighted score for both sides. Committee members have suggested that the equity position to which Law 12C3 refers is the same for both sides, and that there is an argument, especially in a pairs event, to apply a procedural penalty to the offending side. ### Appeal No. 4 Italy v England Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Steen Moeller (Denmark) Mixed Pairs Third Qualifying Session

Board 11 None vul. Dealer South | NORTH K 6 5 A J 10 2 A 2 Q 6 3 2
WEST Q 4 2 9 8 J 9 7 3 A 9 7 4 | EAST A 9 8 K 7 6 4 3 K Q 4 K 10
| SOUTH J 10 7 3 Q 5 10 8 6 5 J 8 5

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Mossop | Pierro | Senior | Pasquale
- | - | - | Pass
Pass | 1 | 1 | Pass
Pass | 1NT | All Pass

Contract: One No-Trump, played by North Result: 6 tricks, -50 to North-South The Facts: South had explained 1NT as showing 18-20 HCP, bu North had explained it as “14-16(17)”. At first, West had complained that he could have doubled, and defended for two down. East later also complained that if the 1NT had been explained as 12-14, she might have doubled also. The Director: Deduced that the real meaning of the call was 18-20, as explained by South. Thus West had not been misinformed. North had explained his correct holding so East was not misinformed either. Ruling: Result Stands. East/West appealed. The players: East explained that when North told her that the 1NT showed 14-17, she had assumed that North-South were playing weak No-Trumps, so she did not enquire further. She was in a bit of time trouble, so she had not bothered to check the Convention Card. She felt she was damaged because during play, she had failed to switch to diamonds in time. The Committee: Agreed with the Director in deciding that South had given the correct explanation, 18-20. Thus West could not claim any adjustment. The Committee further felt that East had not been damaged. She had been wrong when she “foolishly assumed” (her words) that North-South were playing weak No-Trump, and had thus contributed to her result. The Committee noted that East was correct in wanting a review of North-South’s methods, because if the system would have been 12-14 (also consistent with the hand), there would really have been damage. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 40A, 40B Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 5 France v Bulgaria Appeals Committe: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Tommy Sandsmark (Norway), Anton Maas (the Netherlands) Mixed Pairs Final - First Session

Board 12 E/W vul. Dealer West | NORTH 8 6 6 3 2 K 10 6 4 3 2 5 2
WEST A J 7 Q J 9 8 7 A J 10 9 4 | EAST K 9 3 A 10 5 4 Q 9 7 Q 8 3
| SOUTH Q 10 5 4 2 K J 8 5 A K 7 6

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Gunev | Kaplan | Popova | Lustin
1(1) | Pass | 1(2) | 2
Dble(3) | All Pass

Contract: Two Spades, doubled, played by South Result: 6 tricks, -500 to North-South The Facts: One Spade showed 11-13 with heart support or weak with the suit. The Double was explained by West to South: “Penalty”, by East to North: “Better than minimum. More Take Out than penalty”. There was nothing in writing. The Director: Established the facts. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: There was no dispute as to the facts. North claimed that if he had known that the double was punitive, he would have bid 3. The Committee: The committee found the 2 bid dangerous on the South hand. On the other hand, when you make a call like that, you will normally have to live with it. Your partner is likely to believe that you have a much better suit and therefore the committee believed it to be highly unlikely that North would have pulled out after the double. In spite of the fact that the committee found that there had been misexplanation, the committee did not believe that the misexplanation had caused any damage to N/S. Possible procedural penalty points for the misexplanation and for not writing down the evidence needed was mentioned but not inflicted. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 6 Italy v France Appeals Committe: Steen Moeller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Nissan Rand (Israel) Mixed Pairs Final - First Session

Board 18 N/S vul. Dealer East | NORTH J 8 5 3 2 10 4 3 Q J 5 9 5
WEST A K 7 6 K Q 7 10 9 8 6 4 4 | EAST 4 A 9 8 A K 3 2 A 8 6 3 2
| SOUTH Q 10 9 J 6 5 2 7 K Q J 10 7

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Stretz | Ligambi | Serf | Colonna
- | - | 1 | Pass
1 | Pass | 2 | Pass
3NT | All Pass

Contract: Three No-Trumps, played by West Lead: Queen of Diamonds Result: 11 tricks, +460 to East-West The Facts: After the above auction the North player had led the Queen of diamonds. At the end of the play he called the Director and protested that the One Spade bid should have been alerted and, if it had been alerted, he would lead a different suit. East-West commented that it was just a natural bid and did not require an alert. The Director: Considered that a habit of frequently bidding the major suit in such a hand was something that should be disclosed. Accordingly he ruled in favour of North-South. Ruling: Score adjusted to Three No-Trumps making 10 tricks, +430 to East-West East/West appealed. The players: East said this is “just normal bridge”, and is something that happens commonly. He did not believe any alert was required. Furthermore he drew it to the committee\s attention that by failing to mention diamonds he had missed his very good slam contract in that suit. North said he believed it to be a partnership understanding that should be alerted. It is strictly not the way bridge is taught in Italy, but he (North) plays a lot of bridge in France and is aware that in that country the practice is common, but normally it is done only on hands of 10 HCP or less. He thinks players from outside of France should be protected by a requirement for an alert. The Committee: The committee asked a number of questions of the Director. It appeared that his experience of tournament direction did not extend greatly beyond his own country where there is apparently a somewhat rigid view taken of the methods of bidding such hands. The requirement of the Code of Practice to consult adequately in a judgemental situation had been insufficiently pursued and, in consequence, the Director had not taken a broad enough view of the question. There was here no suggestion that if in the subsequent auction the diamond suit had been mentioned East could anticipate that it might be longer than the Spade suit. The common occurrence of such an auction as this one is not confined to France, it is commonplace in many countries and it does not by any means constitute a “special partnership understanding” (Law 40B). In this case in particular North himself was well aware of the possibilities of the hand from his considerable experience of play in France and he made his lead in that knowledge. It proved to be an unfortunate lead but these are the misfortunes of the game, they The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision overturned, original table result restored, +460 to East-West Relevant Laws: Law 40B, Code of Practice. Deposit: Returned Committee’s note: The Tournament Directors Committee of the EBL may well wish to cover the points arising in this appeal in its material for seminars. ### Appeal No. 7 England v Israel Appeals Committe: Herman De Wael (Chairman and Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Philippe Cronier (France) Mixed Pairs Final - First Session

Board 17 None vul. Dealer North | NORTH Q A K 6 5 3 7 6 5 3 K Q 9
WEST K J 7 2 Q 9 8 Q 9 4 6 5 3 | EAST A 9 5 J 10 7 4 2 J 10 A 7 2
| SOUTH 10 8 6 4 3 - A K 8 2 J 10 8 4

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Birman | Roberts | Birman | Curran
- | 1 | Pass | 1
Pass | 2 | Pass | 3
Pass | 3NT | Pass | 4
All Pass

Contract: Four Diamonds, played by North Result: 10 tricks, +130 to North-South The Facts: West called the Director after the bid of Four Diamonds, to report a break in tempo in the return of the tray with Three No-Trumps. The Director: Considered that passing Three No-Trumps was a logical alternative. Ruling: Score adjusted to Three No-Trumps, making eight tricks, -50 to North-South North/South appealed. The players: West stated that the tray had remained on the other side for two minutes. South said she had agreed, at the table, that there had been some delay, more than 15 seconds, but certainly not of two minutes. North agreed that he had taken some time in selecting his bid, but attributed the delay to East asking questions. East stated categorically that she had not asked any questions after 3NT, but only after 2. South explained her bidding. 2 is non forcing, showing five cards in hearts and at least four in diamonds (they play four-card majors). She had bid 3 on trumps rather than points. She could picture her partner with 1543, since with 2542 he would have bid 3, and she felt that 3NT would not make. Although she had noticed the delay, she felt it was not pronounced enough to compromise her in the bidding. The Committee: Had to find the answer to three questions: 1) Had there been Unauthorised Information? While the Committee did not believe the delay had been two minutes, it did consider the delay to be in the order of 30 seconds. South had admitted to a delay, and North had admitted to thinking. It was felt that any delay should, in the eyes of South be attributable to partner, and so Unauthorised Information was considered present. 2) Did the Unauthorised Information suggest bidding 4? While bidding 4 did seem the correct action, any hesitation would make it appear more likely that it would also be the winning action. In that sense, certainly the hesitation did suggest bidding 4. 3) Is passing a logical alternative? The Committee agreed that bidding Four Diamonds was a normal action on the hand. However, for it to be the winning action, one has to find two tricks more in diamonds than in No-Trumps. It was felt that, in pairs, a substantial minority of players would in fact leave in the contract of Three No-Trumps and hope for the best. Indeed, give North the Queen of Diamonds, and have East leading clubs, and the contract is made. Law 16 says that when in the possession of Unauthorised Information, and in the presence of a Logical Alternative, a player is not allowed to take the suggested action. Therefore the Director was correct in adjusting the score. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 16A, Law 12C2 Deposit: Returned Committee’s note: Even if the responses to the three questions that need to be answered are individually marginal, the three pieces of doubt, taken together, do not make the action acceptable. Since the three responses were affirmative, the adjustment was appropriate. ### Appeal No. 8 Italy v France Appeals Committe: Steen Moeller (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Nissan Rand (Israel), Anton Maas (the Netherlands) Mixed Pairs Final - First Session

Board 6 E/W vul. Dealer East | NORTH K 5 2 10 7 3 A Q A 6 5 4 2
WEST 7 4 Q 2 K 10 8 7 6 4 K Q J | EAST J 10 8 A K J 8 5 J 5 10 9 3
| SOUTH A Q 9 6 3 9 6 4 9 3 2 8 7

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Palau | Grassi | Hugon | Magliani
- | - | Pass | Pass
1 | 2 | 2 | Pass
Pass | 2 | All Pass

Contract: Two Spades, played by North Result: 9 tricks, +140 to North-South The Facts: The Director was called at the end of the play of the hand. East suggested that a hesitation had possibly caused delay in receiving the board through the screen had assisted North to make his bid of Two Spades. South said her pause before passing the second time had been 4 to 5 seconds but West felt it was longer than this. North said that he was not conscious of a delay but even if there had been one he did not know who had hesitated. The Director: Believed the tray had probably been on the other side of the screen for about 15 seconds. He thought it could perhaps have been slightly more but did not rule that it was more. The regulations say that “a delay of the bidding tray on one side of the screen of up to 15 seconds (at any time during the auction and whether or not out of tempo) shall not give rise to any inference of unauthorized information”. Ruling: Result Stands East/West appealed. The players: Each side maintained its position in disagreement as to the length of the pause. South quoted “3 seconds” to the committee as the time she had taken in thought, West disputed this and said it was much longer. East considered that Double would be the normal action on the hand if any action were judged appropriate; he thought the Spade bid on a three card suit was evidence that North had benefited from the hesitation. North agreed that Double would be more normal but said that he had bid Spades in order to play the hand, and observed that he had made such bids a number of times in the tournament because he considered himself a better card player than his partner. (The Director said he was aware that the player made such bids.) The Committee: Was not able to ascertain whether the tray had been passed at a regular speed prior to the alleged delay.It seemed it was probably the case that the delay, however long, was more noticeable because of the prior failure to randomise the speed of passing the tray. This creates a difficulty. The Committee felt it had no clearer view than the Director of the occurrence and that it lacked a basis for changing the Director’s ruling. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. The North player to be reminded that if he were ever aware that he could be in possession of unauthorized information he should avoid bids that might be perceived as strange. Relevant Laws: Law 16. Regulation 10 (re Law 73D). Deposit: Returned Committee’s note: If players omit to vary the speed of passing the tray it is clear that a single occurrence of a delay will stand out and may give unauthorized information in some circumstances. In applying the regulation there should be some sensitivity to this point. But players themselves should help to avoid the problem by making sure that they do not pass the tray with monotonous regularity of tempo up to the point when someone suddenly needs a little time to think. ### Appeal No. 9 Israel v Poland Appeals Committe: Steen Moeller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England) Mixed Teams Round 6

Board 3 E/W vul. Dealer South | NORTH 10 8 7 5 4 2 7 5 4 3 3 Q J
WEST A Q 3 A Q 6 J 10 6 5 9 6 2 | EAST K J 9 8 A K 2 K 10 8 7 5 4
| SOUTH 6 K J 10 9 2 Q 9 8 7 4 A 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Budzik | Sagiv | Budzik | Poplilov
- | - | - | 2
Pass | 4 | Pass | Pass
Dble | Pass | 5 | All Pass

Contract: Five Clubs, played by East Lead: 6 Result: 11 tricks, +600 to East-West The Facts: Two Hearts showed 5 hearts and 4 or more of a minor, 6-10 points. South called the Director at the end of the bidding, stating that there had been a delay before the tray had come back with 4H-Pass. South stated the hesitation was 1 minute long. West said the tray had come back in the same tempo as always. North said that East had thought for half a minute. After the play, East had acted it out with the Director, and they came to a hesitation of about ten seconds. The Director: Ruled that there had been no unauthorised information. Ruling: Result Stands North/South appealed. The players: South was convinced that there had been a hesitation, and that it had been East who had thought. Four Hearts was “to play”, and could of course be weak or strong, but West had not enquired about this. North stated that he had bid Four Hearts immediately and that East had pondered over her bidding. East said she did not play very quickly. West said that even if there had been a delay, he could not be certain who it was that had thought. The Committee: Was convinced that West did not have a hand that was clear enough to bid on in the presence of unauthorised information, but was not certain if there had been such unauthorised information. The Committee estimated that there had indeed been some delay, probably slightly more than 15 seconds. However, considering the bidding, it was not clear whether, from West’s viewpoint, this delay was to be attributed to East’s thinking or to one of a number of other possibilities, not the least likely of which might well be a reflection by North. In the absence of any other piece of evidence, the Committee decided to follow the Director’s lead and rule that there had been no unauthorised information. The Committee's Decision: Director’s decision upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 16A Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 10 Italy v Ireland Appeals Committe: Tommy Sandsmark (Chairman & Scribe, Norway), Nissan Rand (Israel), David Birman (Israel) Mixed Teams Round 16

Board 7 Both vul. Dealer South | NORTH K 10 6 3 9 9 6 5 K 10 7 5 4
WEST A J 8 7 4 K J 7 4 3 A 10 3 - | EAST Q 2 A 8 6 2 K 4 2 J 9 6 2
| SOUTH 9 5 Q 10 5 Q J 8 7 A Q 8 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
- | - | - | 1
3 | Pass | 3NT | Pass
Pass | Dble | 4 | Dble
4 | All Pass

Contract: Four Hearts, played by West Result: 11 tricks, +650 to East/West The Facts: Three Clubs was first explained by East to North as natural, but when the tray returned with the bid of Four Hearts, East corrected this explanation to Ghestem, majors. North now called the Director, who ordered play to continue. The Director: Considered that there had been misinformation, but that the only moment this influenced the happenings on the board was with the Double to Three No Trump by North. It was felt that some of the time, North would also have doubled with the correct explanation, and that even the contract of Three No Trump would make on some occasions. After due consultations among the Directors and according to the power given them by the Code of Practice, it was decided to render a weighted score. The Director checked the result in the other room, which also was +650 to East/West. Ruling: Score adjusted to: 50% of Three No Trump, 8 tricks, -13 IMPs to East/West, and 50% of a flat board, 0 IMPs, rounded to a score of -7 IMPs to the team of East/West. East/West appealed. The players: Only East/West were present at the hearing. West claimed that 3 NT would make all the time, as the heart finesse worked. The Committee: The Committee took the view that there had been misinformation. The Committee felt that the probability of the result not being affected by the infraction was far higher than 50%. It was decided to alter the weights of the L12C3 decision. Rather than calculate what these weights should be, the score was adjusted directly into a net balance of -3IMPs to the offenders. The Committee's Decision: +3 IMPs to the team of North/South, -3 IMPs to the team of East/West. Relevant Laws: Law 40C, Law 12C, Code of Practice Deposit: Returned