Re: Toronto 2017 case R6

No consideration of a disciplinary penalty for disrupting the auction?
Bill

Sent from my iPad

> On 22 Feb 2018, at 13:50, Richard Hills <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> In an auction which was competitive up to the 7-level, East has just bid 7D. Before South has a chance to generate UI by breaking tempo, North forestalled South's break-in-tempo by announcing that, "I am bidding 7S no matter what you do." Now relieved of any burden of responsibility, South is able to double 7D in tempo. As advertised, North converts to 7S, which is cold for 13 tricks, +2210.
> 
> The Director ruled:
> 
> A) Without North's extraneous remark, South would have broken tempo before doubling 7D.
> B) Defending 7Dx was a logical alternative to bidding 7S.
> C) The hypothetical break-in-tempo demonstrably suggested removing to 7S.
> D) Hence the score was adjusted to 7Dx -800.
> 
> The Appeals Committee ruled:
> 
> Y) Without South actually breaking tempo, North does not actually hold any Unauthorized Information, hence North can choose any call.
> Z) Thus the table score of 7S +2210 was restored.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Richard Hills
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml