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

[Adam Beneschan]

Marv wrote:
 
> 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.

I do fault the ACBL for this.  If memory serves, it used to be spelled
out explicitly that a negative double of 1H that denies four spades
was alertable.  Somewhere in between then and now, they've simplified
the regulations but done so in a way that a case that used to be clear
is apparently no longer clear (even if you read it correctly, whether
it's "unexpected" is still somewhat a subjective judgment).  At least,
the ACBL should have avoided adding confusion when they changed the
regulations, by providing a list of things (in an "official" place)
that used to be clear-cut "alertable" or "not alertable" and
indicating whether those are now alertable or not alertable, so that
they're still clear-cut.  

                                -- Adam