[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Linda Trent]

This is getting scary.
So, what's up with this?

APPEAL CASE 4
Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs
Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21
                           Dick Bruno
Board 8                S Q 8 4 3
Vul: None              H 2
Dlr: West              D K Q 8 4
                           C A K 8 5
Barie Wall                           Ray Miller
S A J 7 2                            S K 9 5
H K Q 10 5 4                         H J 9 7 3
D 6 2                                D A J 3
C J 7                                C Q 10 9
                       Peggy Kaplan
                       S 10 6
                       H A 8 6
                       D 10 9 7 5
                       C 8 4 3 2
West     North     East     South
1H       Dbl        2NT (1)  Pass
3C       Pass      3H       All Pass

(1) Explained as a relay to 3C.

Facts: The result at the table was 3H by West
making three after the opening lead of the CA. EW
play 2NT as a limit raise or better in hearts.
West confused two auctions and provided a
mistaken explanation of 2NT without having been
asked. The partnership agreement of the 3C bid is
that it is a long-suit game try.

Director's Ruling: The director found that
there was unauthorized information (UI) arising
from the incorrect explanation of the agreement.
After consulting several players, the director
decided that bidding 4H was a less successful
logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than
bidding 3H, which was demonstrably suggested by
the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2,
an adjustment was made to 4H by East, down one
for a score of E-W minus 50.

The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11
point hands. 3C suggested 12 to 13 high-card
points, since with more, West would have accepted
the limit raise. South suggested that East's club
fillers made his hand worth a raise to 4H.

The Decision: The committee determined that
West?s misexplanation constituted UI under Law
16. Since East possessed information suggesting
that West might not have a game invitation, 3H, as
opposed to 4H, was made more attractive given
the form of scoring. So the questions to be
answered at this point were whether there was a
logical alternative to bidding 3H and whether there
were any other calls, such as 3D or 3NT, to
consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum
hand like: S Ax H KQ10xx D xx C Kxxx
where the game would depend on a club finesse.
The panel also noted that changing one of the
kings to an ace or adding the  DJ would make 4H
an excellent game. Therefore, the committee
deemed 4H a LA to 3H.

The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair),
Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin
and Jim Thurtell.