Appeal No. 3

Italy v France

Appeals Committee:
Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Gary Blaiss (United States), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark)

Mixed Pairs Qualifying Session 1

Board 21. Dealer North. North/South Vul.
	ª 10 8 © J 9 5 2 ¨ Q J 9 7 § A 10 9
ª K J 6 4 2 © - ¨ A K 6 4 § K J 8 4		ª 9 5 © A 10 8 6 ¨ 5 3 2 § Q 7 6 3
	ª A Q 7 3 © K Q 7 4 3 ¨ 10 8 § 5 2

West	North	East	South
Duguet	Guerra	Duguet	Paoluzzi
	Pass	Pass	1©
1ª	2¨	All Pass

Contract: Two Diamonds, played by North

Lead: Nine of Spades

Play:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 claim:

ªJ ¨4 ¨6 ¨A §4 ª2 ª4 §J ¨K ªK ª6 §8 §K

ª8 ¨7 ©2 ¨9 §9 ª10 ©J §A ©5 ¨J ¨Q ©9 §10

ª9 ¨2 ©6 ¨3 §Q ª5 ©A §3 ©8 §6 ¨5 ©10 §7

ª3 ¨8 ©3 ¨10 §2 ªA ©4 ª7 ©Q ªQ §5 ©K ©7

Result: 7 tricks, NS -100

The Facts:
North alerted and explained his call of 2¨ as "either natural, or heart support". South forgot the system, did not alert, and passed. West called the Director after the hand, stating that he had not cashed his King of Clubs at trick 10, because North could not have another Heart with which to reach dummy.

The Director:
Ruled that West had been misinformed as to the methods of North/South and had been damaged as a result of that.

Ruling:
Score adjusted to 2¨ by North, two down, NS -200.

Relevant Laws:
Law 75A, 40C

North/South appealed.

Present: All players

The Players:
North/South agreed to the facts as presented. South had forgotten the system.
North stressed that East had full knowledge of what had happened. She could easily have ducked the Ace of Hearts, after which it is impossible not to take seven tricks.

East agreed to this, but explained that she had not understood why South had passed. She had been tired and hungry.

West said that it did not matter whether his partner had ducked the heart trick or not. He had had the last chance to take a second setting trick and he had missed it because of the misinformation. He had played North for having three hearts and thus four clubs, and had simply exited, expecting to take two club tricks in the end, and beat the contract three.

When asked if he had understood that the Director had ruled against him because of the misinformation to West, North explained that he had understood, but that he still thought East could have set the contract by two tricks.

The Committee:
Fully agreed with the Director's decision and focused instead on the issue of the deposit.
The fact of forgetting a part of the system does not release one from correctly explaining it. West is entitled to the same information that North has provided to East. A small error in the play, such as the one that East has made, does not diminish East/West's right to a score adjustment if there has been consequential damage to West. At a European Championship, a player should not appeal a ruling simply because he doesn't understand it. The Committee felt that the deposit ought to have been forfeited. Nevertheless, the Committee decided to return the deposit but publish the Appeal. Future appellants are advised that the generosity will not continue.

The Committee’s decision:
Director’s ruling upheld.

Deposit: Returned

Appeal No. 4

Italy v Ireland

Appeals Committee:
Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Gary Blaiss (United States), Grattan Endicott (England), Steen Møller (Denmark)

Mixed Pairs Qualifying Session 2

Board 1. Dealer North. None Vulnerable.
	ª J 7 © 10 9 8 7 5 ¨ K 3 § K 6 5 3
ª K 6 2 © K 4 ¨ 7 2 § Q J 10 9 7 2		ª 10 9 4 © Q 6 ¨ Q J 9 8 5 4 § 8 4
	ª A Q 8 5 3 © A 5 3 2 ¨ A 10 6 § A

West	North	East	South
Cleary	Longinotti	Cleary	Mai
	Pass	Pass	1§
2§	Dble	5¨	Pass
Pass	Dble	Pass	6§
All Pass

Comments:
1§ strong, 2§ natural, but if 1§ is natural, 2§ shows spades and diamonds

Contract: Six Clubs, played by South

Result: 8 tricks, NS -200

The Facts:
East had not noticed an alert on 1§ and consequently explained 2§ as diamonds and spades.

The Director:
Ruled that it is the alerter's responsibility to make certain that his alert is noticed by his screen-mate. Therefore East was not an offender.

Ruling:
Result Stands

Relevant Laws:
Regulation 11.4: It is the obligation of the player making an "alert" to ensure that his screen-mate has noticed that an alert has been made.

North/South appealed.

Present: All players

The Players:
North told the Committee, in Italian, that he had shown the alert card in the middle of the tray. He thought East had assumed that he had been asking about the meaning of 2§.

South explained that she had bid 6§ (a suit bid naturally on her left) in order to have partner pick a slam.
When asked by the Committee, North explained that there had not been eye contact. The Convention Card was on the table, and he had said "strong club, 5-card majors" at the beginning of the table. North also told the Committee he had said "maximum 7 points, 0-2 controls" as an explanation of his Double.

East did not remember hearing "strong club" with the "5-card majors". She usually checks the Convention Card in order to find out about the NT-range. She had not heard anything about controls or she would have realized the 1§ had been strong. She had not known about the strong club until after the Director had arrived.
East had wondered a bit when looking at her own 6-card diamond suit.

When asked, West told the Committee that he had known the opponents were playing strong clubs.
The Director finally explained his ruling by saying that East had been very consistent in stating there had been no alert, and that the obligation rests on North to ascertain that the alert was noticed. It had been clear to the Director that East had not seen the alert.

The Committee:
Found that North had gone to great lengths to alert 1§; indeed to such lengths that East's failure to notice the alert was her fault and not North's (or to put it more simply: North DID alert South's 1§ bid).
Furthermore East should have known the basics of North/South's system, or at least should have checked before explaining the meaning of 2§.

The Committee decided to rule misinformation from East to North. If North realizes 2§ is natural, he will not pass 6§.

The Committee’s decision:
Score adjusted to 6© by South, one down, NS -50

Deposit: Returned

Note:
North/South are not entitled to any more adjustment. There had been no infractions causing South to bid 6§. East's 5¨ has to be considered a misbid, caused by her misapprehension of the meaning of 2§, but that is not an infraction.

Appeal No. 10

USA v France

Appeals Committee:
Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Grattan Endicott (England)

Open Teams Round-Robin Round 6

Board 16. Dealer West. North/South Vulnerable.
	ª 10 9 8 5 4 © J 6 5 ¨ A K 9 § Q J
ª K © K 3 2 ¨ Q 8 3 § K 9 7 6 4 2		ª A Q J 6 3 © A 10 9 ¨ 7 6 § 10 8 5
	ª 7 2 © Q 8 7 4 ¨ J 10 5 4 2 § A 3

West	North	East	South
Sussell	Rosenberg	Marill	Zia
Pass	Pass	1ª	Pass
1NT	Pass	2§	Pass
3¨	Pass	3NT	All Pass

Contract: Three No trumps, played by West

Lead: Five of Hearts

Play:
Heart to Queen and King, Heart to the Ten, §10 for the Ace, ¨JQK, Spade

Result: 11 tricks, NS -660

The Facts:
Three Diamonds showed a club fit, but East had forgotten this and had just shrugged and said "natural" to North. North called the Director after the play, stating that if he had known the meaning of 3¨, he would have continued Diamonds.

The Director:
Considered that a strong player ought to get the defence right and ruled he had not been damaged by the Misinformation.

Ruling:
Result Stands

Relevant Laws:
Law 75A, 40C

North/South appealed.

Present: All players

The Players:
North explained why he had defended as he did. If 3¨ is natural then there are no more than three diamond tricks available. The only chances are for declarer to misguess the clubs. North realized that West had a club fit, but he could be void in spades. North could not see how to defeat the contract if 3¨ is natural. If on the other hand 3¨ shows a club fit, it is easy to continue Diamonds.
West explained that he had given the correct explanation and that East had been mistaken. 3¨ is what the French call an "annonce de rencontre", showing a good fit.
West said that he did not see how the contract could have been defeated with the Spade return.

The Committee:
Agreed with the Directors that North's defence had not been optimal. However, with a correct explanation, the defence is very easy. In such cases the misplay has to be very bad in order not to warrant adjustment. In the eyes of the Committee, this was not the case.

The Committee’s decision:
Score adjusted to 3NT-2, NS +200

Deposit: Returned