[blml] Hawaii Appeal 4

[Noel & Pamela]

>> --
>> Kind regards,
>> Harald Skjfran
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >

I've had enough!

IF East had bid 4H and it had MADE, NS would have been spitting chips as the
4H bid was 'obviously' suggested by the UI.  And the appeal committee would
have been arguing that 3H (making 4) was the ONLY possible LA.

This is getting ridiculous.

I agree Linda, SCARY.  Double Shots rule in Bridge if this sort of thing
stands.

regards,
Noel 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


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