Appeal 1 - 2005
Reported by Pauline Gumby

Open ITS Stage I 2/2/2005

Appeals Committee: Bruce Neill, Edward Chadwick, Julian Foster

Board 2
NS Vul
Dealer East

H  AKJ764
D  A87
C  Q

S  98
H  Q98
D  Q954
C  K863

S  764
H  532
D  T63
C  9754
S  AK532
H  T
D  KJ2

P5NTP  5D*
 * Corrected to 7S

Result:  7S NS: +2210

Tournament 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.

Reasons for Appeal: 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 H.

Decision of the Appeals Committee:  Results stands.

Not demonstrable what action is indicated over another by potential UI. North please note imprudence of such comment at such times.

Back to Appeals | Home