[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Marvin French]

From: "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.

Danny Kleinman permits me to quote his thoughts on the
subject (it was too complicated for me!):

 West committed an infraction by explaining East's 2NT
without having been asked for an explanation of his alert.
This provided unauthorized information to East, namely, that
West's three clubs following was not a game try . which is
exactly the rationale for the rule that explanations should
not be volunteered.  There is no reason to believe that West
was in any way dishonorable in volunteering his explanation,
and I do not believe that West should be subject to penalty
or discipline.

However, the report does not say whether East acted
properly.  East was required, at the end of the auction, to
draw attention to the misinformation and to call the
director at that time.  Was East also required to bid four
hearts over three clubs?

No, East had a close decision: minimum for his two notrump,
but lovely fillers in clubs.  Give West S-Ax H-KQ10xx D-xx
C-KJxx, and I would expect four hearts to make without a
club finesse.  Without even trying to construct hands for
West, I would deem four hearts a plausible alternative (a
better term for it than "logical alternative") to three
clubs.  Other plausible alternatives include three diamonds
(hedge) and three notrump.

Given West's erroneous explanation (most likely based on the
misconception that two notrump was Lebensohl), I would
expect West to pass East 's rebid.  Because three diamonds
is a plausible rebid for East, I would  adjust the result to
three diamonds down four (not four hearts down one).

So the penalty for West's misinformation is simply the risk
of the least favorable plausible result thereby incurred. -
Danny Kleinman

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, California
www.marvinfrench.com