Corrected to 7S|
Result: 7S NS: +2210
Directors Statement of Facts and Ruling:
On the third round of the auction, South made an
insufficient bid of 5D. Under Law 27, South had the option of
correcting the insufficient bid by any legal bid or Pass, but
whatever option South took, North would have to pass for the
remainder of the auction. South chose to bid 7S which became the
final contract and was made.
As I was explaining the the ruling, North made a
joking comment ("Boo!") when I explained that he would have to pass
for the remainder of the auction.
EW believed that this influenced South to bid 7S and
sought an adjustment.
It was ruled that South's action in bidding 7S was not
based on any unauthorised information from North's comment and the
score was allowed to stand.
Apparent only choices were 6S or 7S. Believed comment indicated 7
rather than 6.
Opponents Submission: Were other options - eg conservative 6S in
case N did not have real spade support - eg solid
of the Appeals Committee:
Not demonstrable what action is indicated over another
by potential UI. North please note imprudence of such comment at