## 11th European Open Pairs Championship
Sorrento, Italy
Appeals

### Appeal No. 1 Hungary v England Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Krzysztof Martens (Poland) Open Pairs Qualifying 1st session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Mrs Robson | Gabos | Weir | Harsanyi
- | - | 1 | Pass
1 | 2 | Dbl | Pass
3 | Pass | 5 | Pass
6 | Pass | Pass | Dbl
All Pass

Comments: 2 showed the black suits. Contract: 6 Hearts Doubled, played by West Lead: Ace of clubs, followed by a diamond switch Result: 12 tricks, NS -1660 The Facts: Three Spades was intended as a splinter, and explained as such by West to South. East explained it as natural, four cards, even despite the two-suiter in North. North led the Ace of clubs, to which South contributed the five, showing count. North continued with diamonds after which the slam was made. North stated that he would certainly have led a spade if he had known there was a singleton with declarer. The Director: Found that North-South were to blame for their poor result, since South should have been able to signal for a spade. Ruling: Self-inflicted damage Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North explained that if declarer really has four spades, the spade return is not necessary to defeat the contract if it can be defeated. But if he knows there is a singleton spade in declarer’s hand, the spade switch is easily found. East explained that they did not have many systemic agreements over the bid of 2 diamonds. West took the view that since the double showed diamonds, so 3 ought to show diamond support and spade control. East had not seen it that way b it was logical and fitting within their system. The Committee: Agreed with the director that there had been misinformation. The Committee investigated North-South’s defence and found it very strange that, with a singleton on the table, South did not give suit preference. However, there was no reason to find that North had taken an “Irrational, Wild or Gambling” action, after which redress would have been denied. North may well have played less than optimally, but this should not limit his right to redress. Without the misexplanation, it is likely that the contract would be defeated. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to 6, doubled, down one, NS +200. Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 2 Finland v Germany Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Krzysztof Martens (Poland) Senior Pairs Qualifying 1st session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Honkavuori | Princen | Honkavuori | Szedinicsek
1NT | 2 | Dble | Pass
Pass | 2 | Pass | Pass
Dble | All Pass

Comments: 1NT 13-16, 2 Landy Contract: 2 Hearts Doubled, played by North Result: 8 tricks, NS +670 The Facts: 2 Clubs was for the Majors, but South had forgotten this. West claimed that she would not have doubled 2 Hearts if she had known this. The Director: Found that West had no reason to double whatever the explanation. She could have asked the meaning of 2 Clubs and should not have believed the non-alert. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: South stated that he had been “ganz weg” (totally gone). East explained that he had intended his double to show the Minors, but West had interpreted it as showing values. The Committee: Found that North-South did not deserve the good score that they received. South should at least have realized after the call of 2 Hearts that 2 Clubs had shown the Majors. However, West had no-one to blame for their bad result but herself. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to North/South receive: 2 made (NS +110) East/West receive: 2 doubled made (NS +670) Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 3 Italy v France Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel) Open Pairs Qualifying 3rd session

Board 25 Dealer North | NORTH Q 6 4 A 8 3 2 A 10 4 3 K 5
WEST A J 9 3 2 K 6 J 9 A 10 7 3 | EAST 8 7 7 5 4 K 7 5 2 Q 9 8 2
| SOUTH K 10 5 Q J 10 9 Q 8 6 J 6 4

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Brunet | Gergati | Ancessy | Terenzi
- | 1NT | Pass | 2
Pass | 2 | Pass | Pass
2 | Pass | Pass | Dble
Pass | Pass | 2NT | Pass
3 | All Pass

Comments: 1NT=11-14 Contract: Three Clubs, played by West Result: 7 tricks, NS +200 The Facts: North originally explained Two Clubs as either normal “strong”, or weak with at least 4-4 in the majors. She corrected this after the bidding, stating that it could be 4-3 when weak. South explained his double as take-out, while North had suggested it was penalty. The Director: Found there had been misexplanation by North to East, and that this had resulted in damage to East-West, but was unable to find what would have happened with correct information. Two Spades Doubled making would have been a Top, while other adjustments would not give East-West any compensation. Ruling: Score adjusted to 60% for East-West, 40% for North-South. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North said that she had not given “penalty” as an explanation about the Double. Apparently the players had been using French at the table, and East stated that he had asked “Punitif?” to which he had received a positive reply. She had not alerted the double of South. East stated that from the explanations he had received, he was certain that South held four spades. West revealed that he had tried to play for one off, not believing that Spades could be 3-3. The Committee: Concluded that North had indeed been guilty of misinformation. She had certainly implied that South held four spades and was willing to defend. It was clear that East did not have the correct information, and that his decision to run to the minors was a consequence of this. However, it is far from clear how many tricks East will make in Two Spades Doubled, and a weighted score is advisable. Rather than going into the difficult problem of trying to quantify the probability of making eight tricks, the Committee decided to follow the Director in expressing the Adjustment directly into a percentage. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Committee’s Note: Making 2SX would earn East-West 99.3%, while down one would be 7.6%. The adjustment would be equal to one of giving East-West 57% of the making contract. ### Appeal No. 4 Israel v Latvia Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England), Krzysztof Martens (Poland) Open Pairs Semi-Final “A” 1st session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Friedlander | Gonca | Soffer | Alfejeva
1NT | Pass | 2 | Dble
Redble | 2 | Dble | 2NT
Dble | Pass | Pass | 3
Dble | 3 | Pass | Pass
Dble | All Pass

Contract: Three Diamonds Doubled, played by North Result: 9 tricks, NS +670 The Facts: West called the Director, explaining that Two No-trump had not been alerted. He claimed that he would not have doubled 3, but bid 3, if he had known that South was showing both minors by bidding 2NT. South said that before the last pass, she had indeed told West that she also held diamonds. The Director: Did not see any misinformation. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40A East/West appealed. Present: All players except West The players: South explained that she had intended 2NT as “to play, unless doubled”. She thought that, since she had already shown clubs, she must now also have been showing diamonds. East stated that North should not have run from clubs to diamonds, if 2NT was only “to play”. When asked what he would have done after 2SX in the South position, he reluctantly agreed that 2NT might well be a good call. The Committee: Considered that South had done more than she should. It is not clear that 2NT would by agreement show diamonds, but it did show them by deduction. She was under no obligation to reveal this to West, and yet she did. The Committee felt that the Appeal lacked all merit. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited ### Appeal No. 5 England v Czech Republic Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Krzysztof Martens (Poland) Open Pairs Semi-Final “A” 4th session

Board 13 Both vul. Dealer North | NORTH K Q 6 3 Q 7 5 4 2 J 8 7 3 -
WEST A 2 A J 10 3 10 6 5 4 J 3 2 | EAST 8 5 K 9 6 A K Q 9 2 10 8 4
| SOUTH J 10 9 7 4 8 - A K Q 9 7 6 5

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Sandqvist | Kurka | Burn | Vozabal
- | Pass | 1 | 2
Dble | 3 | Pass | 4
Dble | All Pass

Comments: Two Diamonds showed Clubs and a Major Contract: Four Spades Doubled, played by North Result: 11 tricks, NS +990 The Facts: Two Diamonds was explained on both sides of the screen as “Michaels”. Apparently that is the name that is used in Eastern Europe to indicate Clubs and a Major. When South subsequently alerted Three Spades, and before West made his final Double, the erroneous explanation was discovered. West stated that he could have bid Two Spades indicating a good raise in diamonds. The Director: Did not believe the different explanation would lead to a different final contract. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: West explained that with correct information, he would have been able to show a good diamond raise. The auction would then have been different and there would have been less (or no) reason to double Four Spades. When asked why he doubled given the information that it was Majors, he told the Committee that he did not want to lose the option of opponents reaching a Heart contract, which he could double. The Committee: Consulted the convention booklet, which states : If you use ANY of the (two-suited) conventions, YOU MAY NOT SIMPLY ENTER THE NAME. A proper entry includes the SPECIFIC SUIT(s) shown and could profitably leave out the name altogether. However, under MICHAELS it shows (1m)-2m: H+S (54+) East-West had indeed misinformed their opponents. However, the correct explanation would have been “Clubs and a Major”, not “Clubs and Spades”. In that case, the same argument still existed that West should be doubling, so as not to lose the option of the Heart penalty, with the added option even of discovering a fit there themselves! It was the Committee’s opinion that East-West had not been damaged by the misinformation. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 6 France v England Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), David Birman (Israel), Naki Bruni (Italy) Herman De Wael (Belgium) assisted in part of the hearing and acted as Scribe. Open Pairs Semi-Final “B” 3rd session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Saporta | Simon | Zimmermann | Lipton
- | - | - | 1NT
Dble | Pass | 2 | Pass
3 | All Pass

Contract: Three Clubs, played by East Result: 5 tricks, NS +400 The Facts: The Double had been explained by West to South as “normal”, but East told North it showed 5 of a Minor, 4 of a Major, 8+HCP. North now intended her Pass to show “nothing specific”, whereas South interpreted it as “weak or strong”. Two clubs was “pass or correct”. North stated that she was now afraid of a distributional hand but that with the correct information she would have doubled Three Clubs. The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation from East to North and that North-South had suffered damage from this. Ruling: Score adjusted to Three Clubs Doubled, four down, NS +1100 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C2 East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: North said that she had no conventional bids against a “Take-out Double” of 1NT, and that she did not know the meaning of Redouble; but she admitted that redoubling logically would have shown strength. She passed because she knew that she would get another opportunity to bid. The Committee: Agreed with the Director in deciding that North had been misinformed. North showed poor judgment however, in not Redoubling at her first turn, and not Doubling at her second. It was felt quite possible that North would have made the same mistakes with the correct information, and so the Committee decided to weigh the scores. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 50% of 3CX-4 by East (NS +1100) plus 50% of 3C-4 by East (NS +400) Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C3 Deposit: Returned Committee’s Note: The score for +1100 was 150.95 MP, out of a top of 154. +400 would have scored 73.92, and so the result for this table was 50%x150.95 + 50%x73.92 = 112.34 MP to NS (72.9%), and 41.66 MP to EW. ### Appeal No. 7 Italy v England Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Pairs Final “B” 1st session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Jephcott | Meo | Theelke | Del Gaubio
- | - | - | 1
3 | Dble | Pass | 4
All Pass

Comments: 1 was Canapé, the Double was not negative, but it’s explanation caused the problems Contract: Four Spades, played by South Lead: K Result: 11 tricks, NS +450 The Facts: The Double was not alerted on either side of the screen. It was explained by North as being for penalties, but by South apparently as “points”. West claims that with a correct explanation, he would have led the Ace of Clubs, which would result in the contract making exactly. The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation, which had resulted in damage. Ruling: Score adjusted to 4S=, NS +420 Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North and East agreed that on their side of the screen, the explanation had been “Punitivo”, the Italian word for a Penalty Double. South explained that he too had said “Punitivo”, but it was clear that in his pronunciation, this sounded like “Punti”, which was what West thought he heard, and which he (correctly) thought translated to Points. West reiterated that with an explanation “Penalty” he would have led Clubs. The Committee: Wants to remind the players that the only correct way of explaning the meaning of the calls is by writing, preferably in English. If you don’t, and the opponent misinterprets, then you may be unwillingly guilty of misinformation. Reluctantly, the Committee decided that there had been misinformation. However, the Committee expressed doubts as to the likelihood of a different lead after a different explanation. The diamond lead still seems so obvious that no adjustment seemed necessary. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored. NS +450 Deposit: Returned ### Appeal No. 8 Italy v Italy Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy) Open Pairs Final “B” 3rd session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Rosati | Pagani | Lena | Marino
Pass | Pass | 1 | 2
Dble | 2 | Dble | All Pass

Comments: 1 was strong, 2 a weak jump, the Double was take-out with 7+ points Contract: Two Hearts Doubled, played by North Result: 5 tricks, NS -800 The Facts: North did not notice an alert of 1, so he assumed 2 showed Diamonds and a Major. Only when dummy came down did he realize what had happened. East says he alerted with his finger, because he could not find the alert card. The Director: Ruled that there had been misinformation, but could not easily determine where the contract would end with correct one. Ruling: Score adjusted to Average Plus for North/South and Average Minus for East/West. Relevant Laws: Law 40B, 40C, 12C1 Rules and Regulations 9. East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: North repeated that he had not seen any alert, and explained that over a natural 1, 2 would show Diamonds and a Major, which is why he corrected to 2. Although the players were all Italian, th East told the Committee that he had rediscovered the Alert card after alerting with his finger, and had still used it. North said he had seen no such alert. The Committee: Found that East had indeed failed to alert properly. According to the Rules and Regulations, which make it the obligation of the alerting player to ensure that his screen-mate has noticed that an alert has been made. The Committee found that the Director might have made more effort to find an assigned rather than an artificial adjusted score, but since that part of the ruling was not appealed, decided not to change the Director’s ruling. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited ### Appeal No. 9 England v Portugal Appeals Committe: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France) Open Pairs Final “A” 3rd session

Board 15 Dealer South | NORTH - K 9 8 3 2 J 7 3 K Q 10 9 6
WEST K 10 6 5 2 J 6 5 K 6 4 2 J | EAST A Q J Q 7 4 Q 8 5 A 8 4 2
| SOUTH 9 8 7 4 3 A 10 A 10 9 7 5 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Lara | Eginton | Capucho | Nelson
- | - | - | Pass
Pass | Pass | 1NT | Pass
2 | Dble | Pass(1) | Pass
3 | Pass | 4 | Pass
Pass | Dble | All Pass

Comments: (1) no four card Major Contract: Four Spades Doubled, played by West Lead: K Result: 9 tricks, NS +100 The Facts: North asked East before doubling about the meaning of Three Spades and received the answer “probably 5 spades 4 hearts”. North complained that this information had affected the defence. The Director: Found that the explanation was correct according to the system. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: No infraction North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North recounted the play: Club to the Ace, small Heart to the Ace, Club ruffed, Diamond to the Queen and Ace, club ruffed, Heart towards the Queen. North explained that if he rises with the King, it costs a trick when West has four Hearts. West explained that she had originally intended a part-score contract but revalued the hand after North’s Double. East explained that the bid of Three Spades would now imply 54 in Spades and Hearts. The Committee: Agreed that North had been misled but not misinformed. West had simply used good judgment. The Committee's Decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited ### Appeal No. 10 England v England Appeals Committe: Steen Møller (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England) Open Pairs Final “B” 3rd session

Board 13 Both vul. Dealer North | NORTH J 9 8 7 7 A 9 8 4 2 9 7 3
WEST - K Q 9 2 Q J 10 6 A Q 10 5 2 | EAST A K Q 3 J 10 8 4 3 5 3 K 8
| SOUTH 10 6 5 4 2 A 6 5 K 7 J 6 4

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Smith A | Bowles | Smith R | Mohandes
- | Pass | 1 | Pass
3 | Pass | 4 | Pass
4 | Pass | 5 | All Pass

Contract: Five Hearts, played by East Result: 11 tricks, NS -650 The Facts: Three Spades was at first explained, by East to North, as “first round control”. One round later, East corrected this explanation to “splinter”. North asked for a ruling because over a splinter, he has available a Double that asks for the lead of the suit below, in this case diamonds. With the lead of the King of Diamonds, East makes only 10 tricks. The Director: Found that there had indeed been misinformation, but was unable to decide what the result would be. When hearing of the lead directing double, East-West are unlikely to go past Four Hearts. Ruling: Score adjusted to 60% for North/South, 40% for East/West Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 40C, 12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players The players: North started by stating that in fact a score of -620 is worth more than 60%. In addition, East/West were also now quite aware that there was a missing diamond control, and yet went past 4. East explained the options available to him after a double of 3. Pass would show interest without the A, so East would probably bid 4, ending the bidding. The Committee: Agreed with the Director on the point of misinformation, but found that he had failed to provide equity for North/South. An adjustment to 4 making would be absolutely necessary, and it was felt that some added compensation should be p for the chance of East/West bidding on regardless. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 20% of 5H-1 by East (NS +100) plus 80% of 4H= by East (NS -620) Deposit: Returned Committee’s Note: The score for +100 was 140.04 MP, out of a top of 154. -620 would have scored 101.58, and so the result for this table was 20%x140.04 + 80%x101.58 = 109.27 MP to NS (70.96%), and 44.63 MP to EW. The Committee further noted that the Directors had been extremely busy during this section and put no blame on them for awarding this artificial score.