[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Harald Skjæran]

On 01/03/07, Linda Trent <ljtrent at adelphia.net> wrote:
> This is getting scary.
> So, what's up with this?

Please explain why you think this is scary.
I fail to see anything extraordinary in this case.
The TD and AC got this one right IMO.

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Skjæran

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>