Appeal No. 1
Brazil v. South Africa

Appeals Committee:

R. Wolff (Chair), G. Endicott, J-P. Meyer,
J. Polisner, N. Rand.

Open Teams Round 1

Board 12. Dealer West. N/S Vul.
	ª 5 2 © A Q 9 6 2 ¨ K Q 6 § K Q 3
ª Q 8 7 4 © 7 5 3 ¨ 10 7 4 3 § 10 9		ª K 9 6 © 8 4 ¨ J 9 8 5 2 § J 7 2
	ª A J 10 3 © K J 10 ¨ A § A 8 6 5 4

West	North	East	South
Sapire	Chagas	Eber	Villas-Boas
Pass	1NT	Pass	2§
Pass	3©	Pass	4§
Pass	4¨	Pass	4ª
Pass	4NT	Pass	5¨
Pass	5NT	Pass	6¨
Pass	6NT	Pass	7©
All Pass

Comments:
No Trump 15-17
3© = max, five hearts
4§, 4¨, 4ª = cues
4NT = RKC
5¨ = 1 or 4 from 5.
5NT = N>E = King enquiry
S>W= inviting to 7.
6¨ = N>E = an additional King
S>W = extra value in diamonds
6NT = N>E = Grand slam try, choose best
contract.
S>W = not alerted.

Contract:
7© played by North

Result: NS + 2210
The Facts: at the end of the auction West called the Director to reserve his rights in respect of the slow return of the tray after the 6NT bid.

The Director was asked for a ruling by West a little later in the round. By this time the Director found it difficult to resolve the disagreement between the sides as to the length of the delay in returning the tray, varying between 20 or 30 seconds and a full minute. He determined that there had been a delay that was potentially significant. Having consulted with other directors and with players he ruled that the result would stand.

Consultation: four strong players were consulted and all elected to bid 7©. Three of them observed that whilst 6NT was not to be passed 6ª was a clearer bid.

The Committee:
To the committee E-W argued that since 6ª was the available GS try 6NT was presumably to be passed. Mr. Chagas confessed to a fear that his partner might be confused by 6ª but could not be confused over 6NT. South agreed that the delay in returning the tray was some thirty seconds at least. On arrival of the tray South had immediately taken his bidding card from the box, placing it after a short delay. To the Director it had been indicated that the delay was largely due to the time taken in answering East’s question(s), although there was some dispute in front of the committee as to whether the question was asked before or after the tray was returned. It was agreed that the return of the tray after the 5NT bid was also slow, but no question had been raised about this.

The Committee's decision:
Director's ruling upheld.
The committee judged that there were many indications in the bidding that hearts was the agreed suit, that 5NT claimed possession of all the aces between the two hands, 6¨ was not
a sign off, and ergo there was every reason to consider that 6NT was a Grand Slam try. The auction was always headed for 7© and Pass was not a logical alternative for South.

Deposit: Returned. This was not without discussion. Amongst the members of the committee there was enough opinion that the appeal had occurred because of differences internationally of bridge culture and practice to justify return of the deposit.