| * Agreed
breaks in tempo|
5C = 1 Ace
6H NS: -1430
Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling:
NS claimed that East's 6H bid may have been based on
the unauthorised information obtained from West's break in tempo before
bidding 4NT and 5H.
It was ruled that there had been
no infraction as it was felt that more than 70% of players in the
East seat would have bid 6H, given that up to this point, he had
shown no more values than the one ace promised in response to 4NT.
Table score was allowed to stand.
NWe think that if 5H was bid in tempo East
may pass as they might miss 2 aces but after hesitation from West
it was much easier for East to bid 6H.
of the Appeals Committee: The Committee were of the opinion that a
pass of 5H was a logical alternative on the East hand and it was
felt that 70% of players in the East seat would not have bid on.
(For example, there was the possibility of a hand where West held a
singleton spade and doubleton king of diamonds with very strong
hearts and clubs,
where there were no losers except for 2
Score adjusted to NS -680.