[blml] Honolulu NABC+ Case 4 (the real one)

[Marvin French]

The discussiions of "Hawaii Appeal 4" have really been about
No. 3, as I look at the cases on the ACBL website

No. 4 deals with whether a negative double of 1H that denies
four spades is Alertable. Of course it is. My summary of the
Alert Procedure (under Bridge Laws & Regulations on my
website) includes in the list of Alertable calls:

- Negative double that does not imply an unbid major suit
(e.g., 1C-1H-Dbl denying, or not implying, four spades)

And where did I get this from? From the ACBL Alert
Procedure, which says:

"Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected
meanings, doubles do not require an Alert."

In this case the TDs declared that a negative double of 1H
that denied four spades was not Alertable. Like the AC, they
seem to have concentrated on the words "highly unusual,"
ignoring the word "unexpected."

Now, while the meaning of this double is not highly unusual
(perhaps), it is certainly unexpected by the vast majority
of players, so it's Alertable, despite what the AC wrote:

#####
The majority of the committee concluded that the ACBL
regulations do not require Alerts [sic] for this negative
double. The wording of the regulation suggests that an Alert
is only required for highly unusual meanings of a double.
The committee majority decided that this was not a highly
unusual meaning of the negative double of 1H. Accordingly,
the committee did not resubmit the issue to the directors,
but merely affirmed the decision that there had been no
infraction.
######

The majority of the committee can't read, either. They left
out "unexpected," perhaps reading the text as "highly
unusual *and* unexpected." "Or" does not mean "and."

Good for chairman Jeff Goldsmith for dissenting from the
AC's majority opinion, although he considered the regulation
to be at fault, not its interpretation. I say it's vice
versa.

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