[ArtK78]

In my opinion, saying that 5NT guarantees possession of all of the key cards and that it is a grand slam try is redundant. If it guarantees possession of all of the key cards, it is, per se, a grand slam try. If the 5NT bidder was not interested in a grand slam, he would sign off.

I would have bid the grand over 5NT.

I had a similar situation some years ago at the Washington DC Summer NABC. In the final round of the first day of the two day NA Swiss Teams, my opponents bid very slowly throughout the auction - long pauses over every bid. Eventually one of them bid 4NT, and there was a response. The 4NT bidder bid 5NT, and the responder, after considerable thought, made the response showing the worst possible holding consistent with his prior bidding. After considerable thought (just like every other bid in the auction) the 4NT bidder bid the grand. It was a claim. I appealed. The basis to my appeal is that responder took considerable time before making his response to 5NT, the response showed the worst possible holding consistent with his prior bidding, and yet opener bid the grand. If the worst possible response to 5NT is sufficient to bid the grand, the 5NT bidder should have bid the grand on the previous round. Since he did not do so, I contended that something other than the response to 5NT convinced him to bid the grand.

The committee spent considerable time grilling me over the opponents' tempo. I told them that the opponents' tempo was consistently slow on every bid. Nevertheless, it was my argument that the tempo was irrelevant on most of the bids, only the tempo on the response to 5NT was relevant. My argument did not carry the day, as the committee let the result at the table stand.

This appeal was written up in the Washington DC NABC Appeals Book. The commentators were more sympathetic to my argument than the committee was.

[Walddk]

Jlall, on Jun 4 2008, 12:12 PM, said:

So what was the result of this ruling, and which players were involved (if anyone knows)?

Gavin Wolpert just told me that the contract was ruled back to 6NT and that here was no appeal.

Roland

[SoTired]

Instead of 5N, couldn't North bid 6C asking for 3rd round control in clubs? That would give him a more useful answer than 5N would.

[skjaeran]

5NT here logically just promise the possesion of all KC. Responder is unlimited, and opener is thus forced to bid 5NT to inform partner of this.

I agree with passing 6NT. As a TD or AC I would never allow a grand after a BIT with this hand. And I'd never bid the grand after partner hesitated either. Passing obviously is a logical alternative, and the BIT definitely suggest bidding on over passing. Very easy decision in my opinion.