## Maastrict Appeals

### Appeal No. 1

Hong Kong v Austria Open Teams. Round 2.

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Vernle | Wan | Krittner | Chin
- | - | Pass | Pass
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3(1)
Pass | 3NT(2) | Pass | 4NT(3)
Pass | 5NT(3) | All Pass

(1) Explained (N to E) as "minors" (2) Explained as "no interest in minors" (3) Quantitative Lead: Small heart. Result: Twelve tricks, NS +690. Present: All players except West. The Facts: After opening of dummy East called TD, explaining that he was told dummy would have both minors. If he have known the actual distribution was possible, he might have led otherwise. The explanation is not in line with the actual hand. North/South showed their system-details, that state 3 to be "Minor-suit Stayman". The convention card shows "3S - minor interest". The Director: Deemed that there are discrepancies between the given information, the convention card and the system details, resulting in damage to the opponents. The ruling was a consensus after discussion between the Directors and some players. Ruling: Incomplete information given. Score adjusted to 5NT-2, NS -200 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Law 20F - 75C. North/South appealed. The players: The appellants commented that the system agreement between North/South is "Minor-suit Stayman." While different pairs play this convention differently the specific arrangement of this pair is that the bid shows both minors with mild slam interest. The primary evidence is the supporting system notes, duly furnished after the Director was summoned. The notes say "Minor Suit Stayman, mild slam interest, opener bids 4C/D to set the suit and invite cue- bid." If 3 promises only one of the minors, there is no way opener can set the suit on his own. So North did give the correct system meaning to East when he wrote "minors". As for South, he realized that he had made the wrong bid (3) after the tray was pushed to the other side (systematically he should go through 3, Stayman, then rebid 4 to show this type of hand). Consequently, for fear of complicating matters, he dared not bid 4 over partner's 3NT (signoff) and instead, invited with a quantitative 4NT. The good diamond slam that was bid at the other table was thus missed. The respondents said that North told East that South had both minors when asked about his 3 bid. Consequently East was damaged as he was talked out of his rational club lead. At the appeal East said that he would have asked further questions if the answer had been Minor suit Stayman. The Committee: Noted that the player explained "Minors", the convention card said "Minor interest" and the system details said "Minor Suit Stayman." The Committee felt a club lead was unlikely anyway, but possible, and decided on a weighted assigned score under Law 12C3 to reflect this. The Chairman expressed his worry that players did not know their system and felt at this level that consequent results were not what should decide bridge matches. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to 80% of 5NT+1 by North, NS +690, 20% of 5NT-2, NS - 200 to both sides. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Joan Gerard (USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA)

### Appeal No. 2

Germany v Hong Kong University Teams Round 5

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Ng | Reim | Wong | Balschun
1 | Pass | 1 | Pass
2 | Pass | 2 | Pass
3 | Pass | 4 | Pass
4 | Pass | Pass | Dbl
Pass | Pass | 5 | Dbl
All Pass

Comments: no alerts Contract: Five Clubs Doubled, played by East Result: 11 tricks, NS -550 The Facts: North had been told that two diamonds was game forcing, so he understood the meaning of two spades. South had not been told about the game forcing aspects of the bidding, and he claimed he would not have doubled if he had been. The Director: Did not believe that two diamonds required an alert. Ruling: Result Stands. North/South appealed. The players: South was not present at the hearing, but North spoke in his place. South had not been informed about the meaning of two diamonds and two spades, so he suspected a bidding disaster. He doubled on that basis. North volunteered that a contract of four spades would go two down, and this was the score correction he was looking for. East/West explained their bidding system. One spade was forcing, showing 11+. One no-trump would also have been forcing, but showing 6-9. Two diamonds denied a minimum opening hand, and when East continued past two hearts, the situation had become fully Game forcing. The Committee: Agreed with the Director that two diamonds was not alertable. South had failed to realise that there were questions that he could have asked. He had made a poorly judged double, and he should keep the bad score that was the result. The Committee’s decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Relevant Laws: Law 21A Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Dan Morse (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel)

### Appeal No. 3

Israel v France Open Teams Round 3

Board 16 E/W vul. Dealer West | NORTH Q J 6 A K Q 7 3 2 A 9 8 3 - -
WEST 7 5 4 3 8 5 - - A 8 7 6 5 4 3 | EAST K 8 2 J 9 6 4 K 10 7 5 J 9
| SOUTH A 10 9 10 Q J 6 4 2 K Q 10 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Kalish | Levy | Podgur | Chemla
Pass | 1 | Pass | 2
Pass | 3(1) | Pass | 3NT
Pass | 4 | Pass | 4
Pass | 5(2) | Pass | 6
All Pass

(1) explained by North to East as "values, support , short C"; explained by South to West as "not sure, maybe splinter." (2) explained by North as "void", by South as "cuebid" Lead: Ace of Clubs. Result: 12 tricks, N/S +920. The Facts: Three Spades was explained differently at both sides, obviously incorrectly at the South/West side. West claimed he would have led differently with correct information. Well after the session, West came to the Director to state that he might have led a small club. On that lead, there is a chance that declarer would go down. The Director: Found that since the lead of the small club was not mentioned immediately, it would not be taken into consideration. With any other lead, South is expected to always make 12 tricks. Ruling: Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 75D2. East/West appealed. The players: East/West, by means of their captain, pointed out that West was a world-class player, for whom the lead of the small club was a possibility. With the explanations that he received, West was so certain to find the king of clubs in dummy, that he did not think very long about his lead. East/West found it very strange that South bid three no-trumps naturally, opposite what he explained to be a singleton spade. South explained that three no-trumps was a sort of a relay, although he admitted he had not alerted it. He apologised for his wrong explanation. He usually plays fragments showing the ace, and since he held that card himself, he was confused. North added that it would have been unheard for him to bid five clubs on the king alone. The Committee: Found that South had been wrong in not explaining the three spade bid correctly, not alerting his three no-trumps, and not explaining the meaning of the bidding before the lead. All this added up to mean that West had been denied his chance at brilliancy. The Committee did not want to quantify this chance, and chose to express their views into IMPs directly. The original IMP balance had been +11 to the team of North/South (5 made at the other table). The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to +7 IMPs to the team of North/South. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Dan Morse (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel).

### Appeal No. 4

Netherlands Antilles v Wales Seniors Teams Round 3

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

Contract: Seven Clubs doubled, played by East Result: 10 tricks, NS+500 The Facts: The match had finished at 17:30. At 23:30 the same evening, notification was received that there had been a revoke. While the period for penalty had ceased, Law 64C requires the Director to restore equity. The Director investigated the matter. According to North/South, the play had gone: A, small to the K, K. This had been ruffed, and declarer had conceded the King of Spades at the end. East/West had not been able to establish a line of play. The Director: ruled there had been a revoke Ruling: Score adjusted to 7 * -4, NS +800 East/West appealed. The players: North explained the line of play. She wanted to show partner that she also had the Ace and Jack of Diamonds, before returning the Spade. East gave a different version of what had happened in her opinion. Following the K, North/South had played two rounds of spades, which accounted for the diamond loser. The Committee: Started by stressing that they realize that it is possible for players to believe that they remember correctly. The Committee must weigh the evidence and reach a decision, but this does not mean that they think one or the other player is lying. The Committee then checked the conditions of contest and concluded that indeed the score had to be changed if they believed there had been a revoke. The Committee decided that no new evidence had been presented. And concluded that there was no reason to overturn the Director’s decision. The Committee’s decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Relevant Laws: Laws 85A, 64C, 79C, conditions of contest 18-3 Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), Richard Colker (USA), Grattan Endicott (England), Jeffrey Polisner (USA). (Herman De Wael assisted as Scribe)

### Appeal No. 5

Norway v Latvia University Teams Round 9

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Hagen | Gaigals | Kristofferson | Germanis
- | 1 | Pass | 1NT(1)
Pass | 2(2) | All Pass

(1) Forcing for one round (explained both sides of screen) (2) West asked South: South said less than 16, but not minimum, +/- 15-16. Result: Eight tricks, NS +110. The Facts: West stated that if he had known North could have been weaker (as he was) he could have balanced. The Convention card just said that 1H- 1NT-2NT showed 16+, nothing about 1H-1NT-2H. The Director: We felt West had been damaged but: 1. East/West had been cautious until now; on balancing it is less plausible to reach game 2. Only a few pairs reached 4 (10 out of 22) Therefore we adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to 2S+2 by West; N/S -170 to both sides. East/West appealed. Present: All players. The players: East/West said: On a balance vulnerable versus non-vulnerable, we always have a good hand, especially when opponents haven't shown a fit. As East, I would have considered bidding either 3, showing a good 3 raise with heart values, or maybe a direct jump to 4. We feel that the side who is hurt (us) should be given a beneficial judgement (+620). (I know we have ten spades and the opener has the A.) The Committee: Noted that West's "question" was merely a look. South proffered an explanation: he was slightly confused, and in fact the correct description of 2 is 12-15 or 12-16. At the Committee South agreed that he gave the wrong explanation. The Directives of the Code of Practice laid down that the Appeals Committee should take full account of that ruling, and this was done in the deliberations. Furthermore the Committee took into account the level of competence of the event. Relevant Laws: Law 21C, 12C3. The Committee's Decision: There was misinformation. It was possible that East would balance with correct information, and possible that, if so, game would be reached. Score adjusted to: 50% of 2H= by North, NS +110; 20% of 2S+2, NS -170; 30% of 4S=, NS -620 to both sides. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Grattan Endicott (England), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Bobby Wolff (USA).

### Appeal No. 6

Russia v Hong Kong Women’s Teams Round 9

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Maitova | Yeung | Kulitchkova | Chan
- | 1 | Pass | 1
Pass | 3(1) | Pass | 3
Pass | 4 | Pass | 6
Pass | 6 | Pass | 7
All Pass

(1) Explained by North as "splinter", explained by South as "strong, 5 / 4 or 6 / 5H" Contract: Seven clubs, played by North Result: 12 tricks, NS -50 The Facts: The Director was called to the table because of a revoke, but after the play also for a ruling. West complained that when she had asked for the meaning of six diamonds, South had said she had not known. West said she would have doubled with the correct information, but not now, since she feared a diamond void in North. This was quite possible, if North could have six clubs and five hearts. The Director: Considered the bid of six diamonds to be sufficiently clear, or at the very least that West should have more questions. Ruling: No damage, Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 75C East/West appealed. The players: North/South explained that they had had a bidding misunderstanding, which had resulted in the wrong contract. West repeated that with the correct information, she would have doubled, and that this was a Lightner double for diamonds. The Committee: Found that there had indeed been misinformation, and that this had resulted in damage. The Committee also found however, that West was partly to blame for not asking more questions than she did, and for not seeking the assistance of the Director when having doubts about the bid of six diamonds. So the Committee included a 30% weight of an unchanged score. The Committee’s decision: Score adjusted to 30% of 7C-1 by North, NS -50, 70% of 7C*-3, NS -500 to both sides Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Grattan Endicott (England, Scribe), Richard Colker (USA)

### Appeal No. 7

Hungary v Finland Open Teams - Round 8

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Kurko | Winkler | Leskela | Szalica
- | Pass | 1(1) | Pass
2(2) | Pass | 3(3) | Pass
3(4) | Pass | 3(5) | Pass
3NT(6) | Pass | 4(7) | Pass
5(8) | Pass | 6 | All Pass

(1) 4+ spades (2) 5+ hearts, 10+ points (3) 5+ spades, 4+ clubs, 17+ points (4) Fourth suit forcing, extra strength (West said "or natural") (5) 2+ hearts (6) Poor hand, diamond stop (7) Asking hearts or clubs (8) 3+ clubs Result: 12 tricks, N/S -1370. TD's statement of Facts: All the players at the table agreed that there had been a one minute pause before both the 3NT bid and the 5 bid. East explained that his partner was a pensive player. The Director: The hand was discussed by several Directors, and expert players were consulted, and unanimously offered that: 1. 5 was stronger than 4 and could not be passed with this hand; 2. Passing was not a logical alternative to them; and 3. the slowness of the 5 bid was as likely to be not knowing what to show and therefore not forward going, as showing extra or useful values. Ruling: Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 16. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: Hungary said (referring to the Director's 1, 2, 3 above): 1. Why is 5 is stronger than 4? Why not 4? 2. This is not true because partner may have a worse heart suit. 3. The only meaning of the long think would be that he had extra values. 3 showed extra values, 4 showed more extra values and the exact distribution and strength, thus the other hand should make the final decision. At the Committee, East/West said they bid 6 because they found a fit: North/South said he had already found a fit previously: East/West said that 6 (even 7) might be better without the fit. The Committee: Pass is not a logical alternative to 6. Pass is not suggested by tempo breaks. It was felt that East would be closer to bidding 7 than passing 5. The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Joan Gerard (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA). Deposit: Returned.

Appeal 8

Brazil v Croatia - Open Teams - Round 8

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Diklic | Chagas | Miladin | Branco
- | - | 1 | Pass
1(1) | 2(2) | Dbl | 3
Dbl | 3 | All Pass

(1) Relay (2) Spades + a minor if 1 relay: clubs + diamonds if 1 natural Result: Seven tricks, N/S -200. TD's statement of Facts: South did not notice West's alert of 1. East/West argued that similar sequences had occurred three times before. Ruling: Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 40B. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: Brazil said: South said that he was not alerted and did not know it was a relay, despite the fact other relays had occurred before. The scorer confirmed the lack of alert and did not write an alert signal on his sheet, again confirming the very strong possibility that the alert was not indeed made. At the Committee, South said he did not remember previous alerts of the initial response, or possibly one only. West said there was a lot of excitement the table and so he started alerting in a more low key way. With their relay system, they are continually alerting, and South was nodding each time he did. Since it was more low key it may have been invisible to the scorer (Dutch, acting for Croatia) who was sitting mainly behind him. He also said he had an earlier discussion with South because they found they both played a 1 response to 1 as relay, which is not usual. The Committee: Noted that South did not argue when West claimed South had nodded: noted that while the scorer had not noted an alert he had not in several other cases that were alerted. To alert under the regulations it is important that the alert card be shown to the opponent and an acknowledgement received: that is sufficient. If, despite giving an acknowledgement, the screenmate has not realised there was an alert that is not a failure of the alerter to alert. Furthermore, East/West had used similar sequences, and at this level South would be expected to protect himself in this situation. The Committee's Decision: The 1 response was alerted: no misinformation. Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Herman De Wael (Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France).

Appeal 9

Yugoslavia v Israel Open Teams - Round 10

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Kalish | Vucic | Podgur | Vladan
- | - | - | Pass
Pass | 2(1) | 2NT(2) | Dbl(3)
3 | 3 | 4 | Pass
Pass | 4 | All Pass

(1) Alerted, strong, 23+ HCP or up to four losers (2) Alerted, two-suiter, both minors (3) Alerted, one ace, diamonds or spades Result: 11 tricks, N/S +450 TD's statement of Facts: I was called at the end of play by North who complained because the explanations by their opponents were different on the two sides of the screen. (1) East alerted 2NT according to his system as a two-suiter (minors). Note: the system card and the written note from the North/East side of screen were presented to the Committee. But West described 2NT only as "two-suiter". (2) East's description does not correspond with his hand (he has Diamonds and Spades). (3) Why did West bid 3 if he did not know that 2NT showed both minors? The Director: In these conditions it seems very difficult to reach the correct contract of 6. North had correct explanation according to East/West's convention card. So, no infraction and no redress. Ruling: Result Stands. Relevant Laws: Law 75B, example 2. North/South appealed. Present: All players except South. The players: At the Committee, East said he made a mistake. He described the sequence of events as First, he bid 2NT: then he alerted: then he was asked: then he wrote "Two-suiter": then he realised his mistake: then he wrote "Minors". The Committee: There was no problem in Law: the Director's ruling was clearly correct. The deposit was returned because it was not obvious that the players understood the Law. The Committee comments that a screening process would be helpful to avoid this sort of appeal. According to the Law, a player has a right to get a correct explanation of the meaning of his opponents' calls, and is entitled to redress if he is damaged by an incorrect explanation. However, there is no redress when a player gets a correct explanation but his opponent has misbid because he forgot the meaning: making mistakes in bidding is just bridge! The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Herman De Wael (Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England), Jeffrey Polisner (USA).

### Appeal No. 10

Netherlands v Greece Open Teams Round 11

Board 14 None vul. Dealer East | NORTH A 6 10 K Q 10 7 K Q 8 6 5 4
WEST K 10 8 3 2 4 3 9 8 5 2 A 7 | EAST J 7 A Q 8 6 2 J 6 4 3 10 2
| SOUTH Q 9 5 4 K J 9 7 5 A J 9 3

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
De Boer | Kotsiopoulos | Muller | Militsopoulos
- | - | 2(1) | Pass
Pass | 3 | Pass | 3
Pass | 4 | Pass | 5
All Pass

(1) Not alerted East to North, but alerted West to South. Shows 5, 4+ minor, weak (as described West to South). Lead: Jack of spades. Result: 10 tricks, N/S -50. TD's statement of Facts: After play was finished, North/South summoned TD because North claimed 2 was not alerted. East said he could not remember if he did. North/South now got confused about the meaning of 3. According to North it asked for a stop, according to South it showed a stop since 2 showed two suits. North could not bid 3NT now. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receiving 3NT by North (N/S +400). Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 40C. East/West appealed. Present: All players except East The players: The appellants agreed to the facts. The Committee: East/West -400 stands as ruled by the Director but North/South are not to have the full benefit of this because North did insufficient to protect his own back. There was a culpable failure to alert by East. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted: North/South (Greece) receive -4 IMPs (adjustment by the Committee) East/West (Netherlands) receive +1 IMP (Director's ruling upheld) Note: this is calculated against a score of NS -430 in the other room Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Dan Morse (USA).

### Appeal No. 11

Croatia v Chinese Taipei Women's Teams Round 13

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Meng | Kumpar | Chang | Duic
- | - | - | Pass
1 | Pass | 2 | Pass
3 | Pass | 4 | Pass
4 | Pass | 4NT | Pass
5 | Pass | 5NT | Pass
7 | Pass | 7NT | All Pass

Contract: Seven notrump, played by East. Lead: Spade. Result: 13 tricks, N/S -2220. TD's statement of Facts: South led a spade. Declarer played ace, king and queen of spades from dummy pitching two diamonds from her hand. When North discarded on the Q East spent some minutes thinking. With ten minutes left and three more boards to go, West urged East to hurry (in English). That didn't help, and West spoke in an unknown language to East. After that East tabled, showing six high cards in her hand and claimed. Here I was called to hear the complaint about the use of an unknown language. East admitted that she had lost the count of the spades, but finally realized that they were good. The Director: The Chief TD decided to give the Chinese Taipei team an official warning. This board started seven minutes late and the match finished seven minutes late. Both sides contributed to the initial lateness so both sides were penalised. Ruling: Result Stands. East/West receive an Official warning. Both sides receive a Time penalty. Relevant Laws: Laws 75F1, 16A2, 90. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: The Chinese Taipei NPC (CK Shen) wrote: When I asked East/West players the meaning of West's speech in Chinese, they both told me that it was to hurry East up to play the hand, or they might get penalty for slow play. We are very sorry to the Croatia team and the TDs for causing so much trouble by using Chinese at the table. From now on the players are forbidden from using any Chinese at the bridge table. The Croatian Captain wrote a detailed description of the passage of time and expressed some doubt as to whether the hand always makes anyway. At the Committee the Croatian players stated that they would not have finished late but for this board. The Chinese Taipei declarer said she had a brainstorm and she was sitting composing herself for some time. Her captain had recommended she should do this if necessary. She then claimed by showing her cards which she had realised were all winners. The Committee: Whatever the reason for becoming seven minutes late in the first place, a team cannot automatically assume they might catch up later: since Croatia were partly responsible for the initial delay the time penalty is correctly applied to them. Dummy was very wrong to hurry her partner up in any language. Thus there were two separate violations of procedure: both that dummy spoke to declarer, and that she did not use English. There was no evidence to suggest that dummy had said that the spades were running but it is obviously highly undesirable that dummy should communicate in this way. However, the Committee felt that declarer would always have made the contract. The Committee's Decision: Result Stands (as Director's ruling). East/West receive a 2 VP penalty. Both sides receive a Time penalty (as Director's ruling). Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Joan Gerard (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA).

### Appeal No. 12

South Africa v Italy Open Teams Round 12

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Duboin | Eber | Bocchi | Sapire
- | Pass | 3 | 3NT
4 | Pass | Pass | 5
Dbl | All Pass

Five clubs doubled, played by South. Result: 11 tricks, N/S +550. TD's statement of Facts: North took some time to pass, and East called the Director in order to establish this fact. East/West thought the break in tempo made it easier for South to find the Five Clubs bid. The Director: Ruled that there had been unauthorized information, and that passing was a logical alternative. Ruling: Score adjusted to Four Spades by East, down one. Both sides receive NS+100. Relevant Laws: Law 73F1. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: South agreed that there had been a hesitation, but he found it automatic to bid Five Clubs. After all, the bidding at the other table had been exactly the same. It would have been poor bridge to double or to pass. East agreed that it had been a mistake to call the Director in the way he did. Normally he would not call the Director at such a time, but this was a very long pause. The Committee: Saw that because the auction had developed so quickly, North had a difficult problem. It was clear that there had been an unmistakeable break in tempo, but the Five Clubs bid was dictated by the cards in the South hand and not the hesitation. South could expect North to be short in spades and to have a few clubs. There could easily be a game for both sides, and Five Clubs would be a cheap sacrifice or even a make. In the view of the Committee, there was no logical alternative to bidding Five Clubs. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored, both sides receive N/S +550. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Richard Colker (USA), Grattan Endicott (England), Nissan Rand (Israel).

### Appeal No. 13

USA v Belgium University Teams Round 18

Board 16 Dealer West | NORTH 10 9 6 5 7 A K 8 7 6 K J 5
WEST K J A K 4 J 2 A 10 8 6 4 2 | EAST A Q 4 2 Q J 9 8 Q 9 9 7 3
| SOUTH 8 7 3 10 6 5 3 2 10 5 4 3 Q

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Hung | V Overloop | Lasota | De Donder
1 | 1 | Dbl(1) | 3
Dbl(2) | 3 | Dbl | 5
Dbl | All Pass

(1) both majors (2) explained by West to South as "TO, general extra strength", by East to North as "both majors" Contract: Five diamonds doubled, played by North Result: 8 tricks, NS -500 TD’s statement of Facts: North claimed he would not have bid three hearts if he had received the explanation that West was showing points. He now thought East/West had a double major fit and he wanted to steer them into spades. The convention card did not provide a definite answer as to the real meaning. The Director: Had to rule on the basis of misinformation. Therefore he adjusted the score. He considered that the "most unfavourable result that was at all probable" was three hearts making, but that the "most favourable result that was likely" was four diamonds doubled, two down. He assigned a split score. Ruling: Score adjusted to North/South receive 4 * -2 by North (NS -300) East/West receive 3 made by East (NS -140) Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 12C2 East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: East/West presented their Convention Card, which showed "responsive doubles through 3D". East interpreted it this way, West did not. They had only been playing together for one week. North stated he would not have bid three hearts with the explanation of "general strength". The Committee: Cited the Laws and the Code of Practice to confirm that when different explanations are given, and there is no clear evidence in one direction, misinformation is to be presumed. In that case an adjustment is appropriate. The Committee accepted that North would not have made the call of three hearts with the explanation "general strength". The Committee saw no reason to change the Director’s assessment of the adjustment. The Committee’s decision: Director’s ruling upheld. Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Richard Colker (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel)

### Appeal No. 14

Denmark v Indonesia Women's Teams Round 19

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Syofian | Ege | Bojoh | Rahelt
- | 1NT(1) | Dbl(2) | Pass(3)
Pass | Rdbl | Pass | 2(4)
Dbl(5) | 2 | Dbl | Pass
3 | All Pass

(1) 11-14 (2) 14+ (3) forcing to redouble (4) clubs and a major (5) take-out Result: 8 tricks, N/S +100 TD's statement of Facts: The bid of two diamonds was the important one. North explained it as showing just the majors, so East doubled, thinking she was showing diamonds. She then passed the three diamond bid, believing it to be natural. On the other side of the screen, South explained two diamonds as either a five card, or asking for majors. West now believed three diamonds to be a cue bid, and since she knew partner must hold the stopper, she expected partner to play 3NT. The Director: Found that the differing explanations messed up the opponent's auctions and adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to 3NT= by East (N/S -600). Relevant Laws: Law 21, 12C2. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: South explained she had asked about the double over two diamonds, and was told it was penalty. North contributed that at her side, that double had not been alerted so presumably it was indeed intended as penalty. South decided to pass two diamonds, showing a small willingness to play there if North indeed held five of them. South added that West had asked if she had promised three diamonds, to which she had responded in the negative. North/South said they did not understand East/West's decision to play in three diamonds. East/West agreed that the double over two diamonds was indeed for penalties. West explained that she had bid three diamonds, intending to ask for a stopper. She realized that East must hold one, and was intending to put the contract of three notrump in partner's hand. East explained that she had interpreted three diamonds as being non- forcing, suggesting to play there. The Committee: Started by trying to decide what the real explanation of two diamonds should have been, and found that it was very hard to determine. The Committee decided to follow both explanations separately and see what the result was. It was clear that if West had received the explanation that North had provided, she would not have made the call of three diamonds. Equally clear was that East would not have let three diamonds become the final contract had she received the explanation that South had provided. Even so, the Committee did not believe the case was so easy. The Committee was under the impression that East/West were to a great extent to blame for their bad result. They were on a course of penalty doubles, and had North/South running to find a suitable fit. Then when they had seemed to settle in what could hardly be a good place, East/West had let them off the hook. Whatever three diamonds meant, it was a mistake from East to stop the bidding now, and not go on towards game. So it was decided to let the table result stand for East/West. The Committee then turned its attention to North/South. There was an opinion among some members that North/South did not deserve their result of +100. But when it was noted that in Bridge, you are entitled to good scores from opponents' mistakes, the Committee unanimously decided to allow the table result to stand for North/South as well. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), Herman DeWael (Scribe, Belgium), Dan Morse (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), David Stevenson (England).

### Appeal No. 15

Israel v Netherlands Women's Teams Round of 16 - First Session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Simons | Naveh | Pasman | Melech
Pass | 2(1) | Pass | 2(2)
Pass | 2 | Pass | 3(3)
Pass | 4(4) | Pass | 4(4)
Dbl | 4(5) | Pass | 6
All Pass

(1) Game force, 22+ (2) 0-7 (at the table, quoted as 0-8) (3) Maximum (4) Cuebid (5) After three minute break in tempo Result: Twelve tricks, N/S +1430. TD's statement of Facts: After the board was played, I was called to the table. East/West asked for a ruling since South had bid 6 after the very long break in tempo. North/South agreed to the break. North had explained to East that, after the double, pass would have shown a good hand, redouble the heart ace. Four experts were consulted regarding South's actions over 4: - One said he would always pass (although after noting that North could have bid 4 over 3 he had more sympathy for action) - One said he would always bid (5) - Two said that they would bid 5 but thought pass was a reasonable call clearly not a mistake. The Director: Pass was therefore deemed a Logical Alternative as per Law 16A. Ruling: Score adjusted. Both sides receive: 4S+2 by North (N/S +680). Relevant Laws: Law 16A, 12C2. North/South appealed. Present: All players. The players: South said that the double of 4 helped her to determine that 6 would be on a finesse at worst. Since North had not rebid 4 over 3 it was not possible to be missing two aces. She also said that 4 over the double confirmed a good suit. The Committee: Noted that over the double there were not many available calls and they could not all show good hands. Also noted that while random hesitations were in use in this tournament (see Screen Huddles in Bulletin #9) they would not have helped here with a three minute tempo break. The Committee considered it had heard no evidence to suggest the Director's ruling was wrong and felt it was unfortunate that this case had been brought to appeal. The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Deposit: Forfeited. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Grattan Endicott (England), Joan Gerard (USA).

### Appeal No. 16

Belgium v England Open Teams Round of 16

Board 30 None vul. Dealer East | NORTH 3 K Q 10 9 8 A 5 4 K J 5 4
WEST 4 7 4 2 K Q J 8 A 9 7 6 3 | EAST Q J 9 8 5 A 5 7 6 3 2 Q 10
| SOUTH A K 10 7 6 2 J 6 3 10 9 8 2

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Engel | Hallberg | V Middelem | Simpson
- | - | 2(1) | Pass
2NT | 3 | Pass | 4
All Pass

(1) 5 spades and 4+ of a minor Lead: The Q. Result: 9 tricks, N/S -50 TD's statement of Facts: North claimed at the following position:
| NORTH 3 Q 9 A 5 K J 5
WEST 4 - - K Q 8 9 7 6 3 | EAST Q J 9 8 - - 7 6 2 10
| SOUTH A K 10 7 6 2 - - 9 2
North stated he would make the contract on a double squeeze, provided that the information about the opening bid was accurate. At the time of the claim, East/West requested North to play the hand out. North now played and misplayed the final two cards. This table was open on Vugraph. The Director: Ruled that the claim was okay. According to Law 68D, all play subsequent to a claim is voided and the Director adjudicates the claim based on the claimer's statement. Ruling: Score adjusted to 4 making, N/S +420 to both sides. Relevant Laws: Laws 68D, 70A, 70B. East/West appealed. Present: All players. The players: East/West stated that declarer's statement did not contain enough detail for them to understand how the squeeze would operate, so they asked him to play it out. Had they known that by law they could not ask declarer to play the board out, they would have called the Director to get declarer to make a clarifying statement. North/South said that declarer stated that if the information he had been given about the opening bid were accurate (i.e., East had 5 spades and 4+ of a minor) he would make the hand on a double squeeze. Both pairs indicated that they were unaware of the requirement in the laws that once a claim is made, play must cease. North agreed to play the hand out but was somewhat upset that his claim had been contested (although this was not personal against the East/West players). He cashed his two top hearts and two top clubs and East was forced to come down to three spades and a singleton diamond. He then crossed to dummy with a spade and cashed the second top spade in the three-card ending, squeezing West between the minors. However, because he was unsettled about having to play out what he considered an obvious claim situation he lost his mental focus and discarded the wrong card from his hand, thus failing by one trick. As North/South were leaving the playing area they saw a Director and inquired about North being "forced" to play out the hand. The Committee: The Committee found that by law any play following a claim was void and the Director (or a Committee) is to adjudicate the claim based only on the claimer's statement. Had North been properly asked to elaborate on his statement of "double squeeze" he would have explained that he would cash his top hearts and clubs (as he did), forcing East to save three spades and unguard diamonds. The two top spades would then force West to unguard one of the minors, after which North would pitch the minor West kept. In effect, this would have prevented North from having the opportunity to commit the careless error he ultimately made. Since his error could not by law prejudice the adjudication of the claim, this was essentially a book ruling and the Committee had no reason to reverse it, nor indeed can they change the law. The Committee's Decision: Director's ruling upheld. Score adjusted to 4 made four, N/S +420, for both pairs. Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Richard Colker (Scribe, USA), Jens Auken (Denmark), Jeffrey Polisner (USA). Deposit: Returned.

### Appeal No. 17

Netherlands v Israel Women's Teams Round of 16 - Third Session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
van Zwol | Naveh | Verbeek | Melech
2(1) | Pass | 2(2) | Pass
Pass | Dbl(3) | Rdbl(4) | Pass
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3NT
All Pass

(1) Multi (2) Reject (3) North to East: takeout South to West: at first: penalty, later: may be for penalty (4) Penalty oriented Lead: Heart king. Result: Nine tricks, N/S +400. TD's statement of Facts: East called the Director at the end of the bidding, claiming there was a break in tempo before South passed the redouble, then called again to complain about both North taking the redouble out and about misinformation. West stated she had not played hearts when she got on lead because she was afraid of four or five hearts on he left. The Director: The TD did not think there was a sizeable tempo break since it was merely due to asking questions. Furthermore, North was not likely to pass with a takeout double of 2. Once it was realised East had psyched the heart fit was likely. South should have been warned by the doubt ("may be") and taken note of this for the defence. However, there had been misinformation in a common situation. Ruling: Result Stands. North/South penalised 3 IMPs. Relevant Laws: Law 16, 75. East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: The players explained their thinking behind the various calls and plays. The Committee: While it was felt the penalty was somewhat harsh, nothing said by the players gave evidence that there was any other reason to disagree with the Director's ruling. North/South were told that if they were not sure what the meaning was it was better to say so. The defence was misled by East's psyche rather than any misinformation. The deposit was nearly forfeited but was returned because there was some misinformation. The Committee's Decision: Penalty for North/South removed, Director's ruling upheld otherwise. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Ernesto d'Orsi (Brazil), Grattan Endicott (England), Joan Gerard (USA).

### Appeal No. 18

Austria v Sweden Open Teams Round of 16 - second session

Board 27 None vul. Dealer South | NORTH A 6 A K 5 A K J 10 6 5 3 6
WEST 10 8 5 4 10 6 4 2 A K 9 7 3 | EAST Q Q J 8 3 Q 9 8 7 Q 8 4 2
| SOUTH K J 9 7 3 2 9 7 2 4 J 10 5

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Wernle | Sylvan | Kriftner | Sundelin
- | - | - | 2(1)
Pass | 3(2) | Pass | 3(3)
Pass | 4 | Pass | 5
Pass | 5 | All Pass

(1) Multi (2) GF (or nearly) with diamonds (3) Weak 2 in spades, without diamond support Contract: Five diamonds, played by South Lead: King of Clubs Result: 11 tricks, NS +400 TD’s statement of Facts: The Director was called after the board had been played and scored, when West complained that he had not been told that four clubs showed shortness. The Director: The director, who was sitting at the table to check on the time problems, found that West should have called as soon as the dummy became visible, and concluded that there was no damage. Ruling: Result Stands Relevant Laws: Law 40C East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: North/South explained their system. After the forcing three diamond response to the Multi, three spades showed spades without diamond support, whereas four diamonds would show spades with diamond support. There were a few sequences after which four clubs would be ace asking, and North had mistakenly thought this was one of them. When he heard the response of five clubs, North did realize his mistake, but found no occasion to give any explanations about this, as the bidding was by now over. South had explained the bid of four clubs as natural, and his reply of five clubs as support. West’s reasoning about the club lead being obvious, he concentrated on explaining how he would have found the spade lead with a more correct explanation. If four clubs is conventional, either cue or ace asking, North may show a secondary spade fit, and few club losers. That means that partner must be short in spades, and that the Ace of Clubs is needed as an entry for the spade ruff (if East has the right diamond holding). West stated that South had apologized about forgetting it was ace asking. South objected to that, stating he had said that partner had thought it was ace asking. West also pointed out that South had not alerted three spades. South agreed that he hadn’t, because he thought this was not necessary. He now understood that since it denied diamonds, it should have been alerted, and he apologized for the failure to alert. The Committee: Checked the system notes. These clearly indicate the responses of three/four diamonds and four clubs over the forcing three of a minor as indicating minor support and showing the correspondent major. They also explain that three of a major denies the minor support. They indicate the use of Redwood or Blackwood in many situations. The bid of four clubs, or any other third round bid, is not discussed. The Committee then had to decide whether or not four clubs was conventional in the system of North/South, taking under consideration their duty under Law 75 to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. By a majority decision, 3-2, the Committee decided that the evidence that was presented was sufficient to conclude Mistaken Bid. The Committee then applied the Law, which is very clear on this point. Since there is no misinformation, there is no basis to adjust the score. The Committee’s decision: Original table result retained Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Joan Gerard (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel)

### Appeal No. 19

Austria v Sweden Open Teams Round of 16 - third session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Wernle | Sylvan | Kriftner | Sundelin
- | Pass | Pass | Pass
1 | 1 | 2 | Pass
2NT | Pass | 3 | Pass
3NT | All Pass

Contract: Three no-trumps, played by West Lead and Play: 7 to the Ace J, taken with the Ace 3 for Jack and Queen 2 for the Ace, South completing his count signal. A Result: 9 tricks, NS -400 TD’s statement of Facts: During the auction, North had asked about the meaning of 2NT, and East wrote "14-16 Hcp (5+) 6+ H". North called the Director after hand, saying he had counted West’s hand to have just 2 spades, so expecting to be dropping the Queen. The Director: Checked the Convention Card and found no positive proof to suggest that the explanation had been correct. West stated that he wanted to be in game if partner held 10 points. The Director ruled there was misinformation, and consulted several players who would all have played the King of Spades with the information as given at the table. Ruling: Score adjusted to three no-trumps, one down Both sides receive NS +50 Relevant Laws: Law 40C, 75, 12C2 East/West appealed. Present: All players The players: East/West explained that East had given the correct information about the bidding. Since East was a passed hand, West should now simply pass as he had nothing more to add. They play 14-17 NT, so the hand was not a 1NT opener. A 2 bid would show five, or even six with 11-13, and 2NT shows 5 hearts and 14-16. East explained he had bid according to the explanation he had given, deciding to play game but bidding three spades in order to have partner choose between three no-trumps and four hearts. Three hearts would have been non-forcing. West explained that he had bid two no-trumps because he had been tired and was not thinking about the systemic meaning of the bid. South stated that he too had played the opponent’s system and that he realized it was difficult for West to pass. He appreciated West’s judgment and he found it strange that under those circumstances the call of two no-trumps still showed five cards in hearts. North explained that the first trick, and the spade return, told him that West had to have three diamonds. Partner’s count signal in the third trick told him declarer had three clubs, and so with 5 hearts he now counted declarer for the bare Queen of Spades. The Committee: Started by stating that North might have seen from other evidence that declarer had three spades, but then concentrated on the real problem: Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Bid. Some members found that East/West had fallen short of their attempts to prove the system, but other members found the explanation to be fully consistent and natural. In the end, a consensus was reached. The call was to be considered a Mistaken Bid, and so the explanation had been correct and there was to be no score adjustment. The Committee’s decision: Original table result restored Deposit: Returned Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Joan Gerard (USA), Jeffrey Polisner (USA), Nissan Rand (Israel)

### Appeal No. 20

Norway v Chinese Taipei Women's Quarter Final - third session

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
Remen | Meng | Thoresen | Chang
- | 1 | 1(1) | Pass
Pass | 2 | Pass | 2
Pass | 2NT | Pass | 3NT
All Pass

(1) Random Result: 12 tricks, N/S +690 TD's statement of Facts: North called the Director at the end of play, complaining that the overcall of one spade had been explained to her (in writing) as "means nothing," while on the convention card it said "natural." South said she got confused because they had not prepared a defence against this overcall. West explained the bid as "making trouble, no promise of spades." East/West said they used that convention only when non-vulnerable against vulnerable. There was no mention of it on the convention card. The Director: Ruled that there had been a breach of the conditions of contest and adjusted the score. Ruling: Score adjusted to Six no-trumps, making. N/S +1440. Relevant Laws: Law 75A, 75C, 12C2, Conditions of Contest 13.3, 13.6. East/West appealed. Present: All players. The players: West apologised for the incorrect statement of their methods on the convention card; she had made out the card and had failed to go through it subsequently with her partner who was unaware of her error. They had both alerted the bid of one Spade and explained it correctly according to their partnership agreement. East and West considered that the South player had the evidence of the values in her own hand opposite the strong One Club opener which would suggest stronger action. The South player and her Captain said that it was the Captain's duty to advise his players about counter-action to disruptive bids and there had been no opportunity for this without foreknowledge of the agreement. The Committee: Found that the East-West partnership had failed to disclose their methods correctly. Agreed that the North-South pair were put at a serious disadvantage in these circumstances. Judged that the Directors had ruled correctly upon the facts but that it was not certain that, with correct information, the slam would be bid 100% of the time. The equity existing immediately prior to the infraction would allow for some chances that the slam might not be bid. The Committee's Decision: Score adjusted to: both sides receive: 75% of Six no-trumps, made, N/S +1440. 25% of Three no-trumps, +3, N/S + 690. Penalty: Having established their view of the equity, the Committee took account of the principle adopted prior to the commencement of the Tournament that, when appropriate, a restoration of equity is accompanied by a penalty on an offending side for a violation of law or regulation. Applying this principle the Committee penalized East- West for their breach of the Conditions of Contest, the penalty being a reduction of 3 IMPs in their score. Comments by the Code of Practice Group: Whilst the WBF Code of Practice Group is not of a mind to insist that any one particular method of applying Law 12C3 is "correct," this is an example of a situation in which a weighted score is considered to be desirable in expressing the equity between the two sides in the instant before the infraction occurred. It demonstrates the manner in which a weighted score may be awarded to implement that equity. (The Committee did not translate its percentage decisions into IMPs; this was done by the Director): 75% of +13 = + 9.75 25% of + 1 = + 0.25 Penalty + 3.00 Outcome + 13.00 These methods can be recommended. Appeals Committe: John Wignall (Chairman, New Zealand), Grattan Endicott (Scribe, England), Joan Gerard (USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA). Deposit: Returned.

### Appeal No. 21

Hackett v Volina Transnational Mixed Teams Round 4

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

WEST | NORTH | EAST | SOUTH
P Hackett | Gromov | B Cronier | Gromova
- | 1 | 1NT | 2
Dbl(1) | All Pass

(1) Alerted West to South as penalty oriented. Explained East to North as points together with the comment that it is the first time they played together. Result: Five tricks, N/S -500. TD's statement of Facts: The TD was called at the end of play. North claimed that if he had known the double is for penalty he would have redoubled and the final contract would have been two diamonds redoubled. The Director: Normal procedure was followed, ie various Directors and some players were consulted about the ruling. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 2Dx-1 by North (N/S -100) Relevant Laws: Law 40C, 21B3. East/West appealed. Present: All players. The players: West said that the double had been discussed but was not on the convention card. He said he believed the explanations on the two sides were equivalent, and that North should realise it was unlikely to be taken out. North said that if he realised the double was likely to be left in it is easier to find a redouble. The 1 opening showed four plus diamonds and an unbalanced hand. The Committee: Considered the two explanations were not equivalent. On a scale of doubles such as PENALTY - PENALTY ORIENTED - OPTIONAL - COMPETITIVE - TAKEOUT; West had described a Penalty Oriented double, East had described an Optional double. However the difference was not very great and was not enough for the Committee to believe that there had been damage. East was likely to be passing whatever the meaning. The attraction of redoubling was not very great especially since North's 1 showed an unbalanced hand, with a club shortage very likely given the auction, thus suggesting that the club suit opposite would be good. South would not be likely to bid on a medium club suit because of the expectation of shortage opposite. The Committee's Decision: Original table result restored. Deposit: Returned. Appeals Committe: Joan Gerard (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Jens Auken (Denmark), Herman De Wael (Belgium), John Wignall (New Zealand).