Appeal No. 2 - England vs Finland

Appeals Committee:
Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Maria Erhart (Austria), Tommy Gullberg (Sweden), Anton Maas (the Netherlands)
Herman De Wael acted as Scribe

Women's Teams Round 4

Board 13. Dealer North. All Vulnerable.
	ª J 8 7 2 © J 8 7 3 ¨ 8 5 4 § 7 2
ª Q 4 © A 9 ¨ A 6 2 § A K J 8 6 5		ª K 10 6 © 10 6 5 4 ¨ Q 10 3 § Q 10 3
	ª A 9 5 3 © K Q 2 ¨ K J 9 7 § 9 4

West	North	East	South
Nurmi	Teltshire	Suppula	Brock
	Pass	Pass	1NT
Dble	All Pass

Comments:
Weak No trump

Contract: One No trump Doubled, played by South

Result: 3 tricks, NS -1100

The Facts:
After the board, South asked North why she had passed. North said she thought the double had not been for penalties. The Director was called. The Double was strong (against weak No trump) but the Convention Card has the following mentions:
Under "vs NT" it says "X=5c.m+4c.M", and
under "Notes that don't fit in elsewhere" it says "Vs. weak NT: X=strong",
without cross-reference.

North showed the Director the resumé sheet of their opponent's system, which showed their Captain had been misled by the Convention Card as well. North/South had decided not to run so often if the Double was not for penalties.

The Director:
Decided that the Convention Card had been badly filled in and that this was the main cause for the events at the table.

Ruling:
Score adjusted to 3NT+1 by East/West (NS -630)
East/West receive an Official warning to clarify their Convention Card

Relevant Laws:
Law 75A, 40C, 12C2

East/West appealed.

Present: All players and both Captains

The Players:
East/West, through their Captain, stated that North ought to have known that the Double had been for penalties, because East had not alerted it. West had not alerted it either, and South had correctly interpreted this.

East stated she had asked if 1NT was weak, and when that was confirmed, she had not alerted the Double.
The Captain of North/South admitted that the alternate meaning of this Double was indeed on the Convention Card, and that he had missed it when studying the system, because it was not in the correct place.

North stated she had been convinced the Double showed some 5-4, and would not be passed out. She had been delighted about this. She knew the meaning because of the East/West Convention Card and of her Captain's notes and had followed them. She would never ever not have run if it was sure the Double was strong. She explained the escape sequence: she would have bid 2§, and if that was doubled, she would redouble to start bidding 4-card suits up the line.

When asked if it had occurred to her that even a conventional Double might be passed out, she replied that she had been convinced it was Take-Out. The Captain added that it was not very likely that a conventional bid would be passed out by East, because East was a passed hand.

The Committee:
Started by confirming that the Convention Card was wrongly filled in. Some members thought that North had not done enough to protect herself, she could and maybe should have asked when the Double was not alerted. It was however the opinion of the Committee that a player can trust a clear information on the Convention Card.

The Committee found that North had been misinformed, and decided that North had been damaged through this misinformation, and that the score should be adjusted.

As to the score adjustment, the Committee saw no reason to change the Director's adjustment, noticing that none of the parties had challenged it.

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

Deposit: Returned

In a separate decision, the Systems Committee, following its normal procedure, decided to suspend East/West for one match, during which they should complete their Convention Card. Furthermore, they should make absolutely certain that they inform their future opponent's of the original misplaced mention of this particular sequence.

Appeal No. 3 - France v Poland

Appeals Committee:
Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Tommy Gullberg (Sweden), Anton Maas (the Netherlands), Steen Møller (Denmark)

Open Teams Round 11

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

West	North	East	South
Kowalski	Multon	Tuszynski	Quantin
	Pass	1§	Pass
1©	Pass	1ª	Pass
1NT	Pass	2§	Pass
3§	Pass	3¨	Dble
Pass	Pass	3©	Pass
3ª	Pass	4ª	Pass
5§	All Pass

Comments:
1§ Polish, 1© 8+

Contract: Five Clubs, played by East

Lead: §3

Play: § to Queen and Ace, § to the King, ©2-©3-©K-©A
South now returned the ©J and the contract was made

Result: 11 tricks, NS -400

The Facts:
South called the Director after the board, claiming that his return of the ©J had been influenced by a wrong explanation of East's shape. East had explained his bid of 2§ as showing either 15+, 4ª-5§ OR 18+, 4ª-4§. West had explained it as only the first possibility. South had correctly interpreted his partner's ©3 as showing an odd number, so East's shape had to be 4-1-3-5. In that case, the return of the ©J had been perfectly normal.

The Director:
Consulted with his colleagues and with 5-6 good players, none of which would have returned the ©J. The Director concluded that South was not damaged through any possible misinformation, but through his own actions.

Ruling:
Result Stands

Relevant Laws:
Law 75A, 40C

North/South appealed.

Present: All players and both Captains

The Players:
West told the Committee that South had asked him about the bidding, and that according to his understanding, 2§ showed 5 clubs.
East explained that this was true, but that there were hands, of 18 points and more, where the systemic bid of 3NT was not advisable. That is why he had chosen to bid 2§ and why he had explained it in the way he did. East/West could provide no written evidence for either explanation.

South explained how he had arrived at the conclusion that East's shape was 4-1-3-5. The 4-5 were as he was told, and his partner's distribution signal showed that East was 3-1 in the reds. The 3¨ bid had not been alerted, so it could not have been on a singleton. That left just the 4-1-3-5 shape. Given that conclusion, only a heart return could not cost, and South could simply wait for his diamond tricks, and for any spade trick his partner might make.

North must have a spade honour, because if declarer has ªKQxx, he can throw the diamond losers away.
East pointed out that in any case 3© was natural, and South's assumption that East held the bare ©K was a mistake.

The Committee:
Arrived at three separate conclusions:
To start with, the Committee concluded that there had been misinformation. East's explanation about not wanting to jump to 3NT seems logical, and any benefit of the doubt about what is the agreement between East and West should go with North/South. South had been misinformed.

The second conclusion was less easy. Was South damaged through the misinformation, or not? South's explanation seems equally logical, and South should not be blamed for not analysing the distribution more fully, which under these circumstances was difficult. The Committee found was that it is was not clear that the return of the ©J was Wild, Gambling or Irrational. Therefore, South was entitled to redress.

This left the problem of what score to redress to. South had three possible returns, and two of those (the return of a spade or a diamond) are equal, leading to one down. That left only the heart return to be considered. It was suggested that the heart return was impossible, with a correct information, but the Committee found that that was not true, since the correct explanation still contained the high probability of a 4-5 in the black suits. Rather than discussing if the heart return would be found more or less than one third of the time, the Committee decided on that particular proportion.

The Committee’s decision:
Score adjusted to
Both sides receive:
66.7% of 5§-1 by East (NS +50)
plus 33.3% of 5§= by East (NS –400)

Deposit: Returned

Note: the result at the other table was 3NT-2 by East (NS+100) so the final result on the board was:
66.7% of -2
plus 33.3% of -11
or -5 IMPs to the team of North/South