mikeh, on Mar 16 2006, 04:25 AM, said:
I am clearly not one of the bright ones, because I can think of several possibilities for what comes next, but.........
<snip>
So I opt for:..."but the 4♠ bid was made after much thought.."
My learned friend from Canada is definitely one of the bright ones.
North was in the tank for almost 5 minutes before he bid 4
♠, and even playing with screens there was no doubt as to who broke the tempo. The auction proceeded:
4
♠ - 5
♣
5
♦ - 5NT*
6
♠ - 7
♣**
7
♠ - pass
* Key Card ask
** Choice of grands in case your spades are Qxxxx
The TD ruled that South had not taken advantage of the UI, because the 5-level would be safe opposite a responder who had shown slam interest (4
♣). South had plenty extras.
However, the Appeals Committee overruled:
"The break of tempo had implied that it was correct to bid rather than pass 4
♠. Consequently, South's 5
♣ bid is not legal".
Result adjusted to 4
♠ making 13 tricks. 7
♠ was bid and made in the other room, so 17 IMPs to the non-offending side.
Curiously, the match ended 151-151 after 64 boards. Now what? Team B had a carryover of 2 IMPs from the round-robin (included in the final score), so Team A had won the match on the day and was declared winners according to the rules and regulations.
Team A was the offending side in this case, but here we go again: all is well that ends well. They could only just afford the loss of 17 IMPs on the board!
Roland