ACBL – FALL – 2006 – Honolulu - Hawaii

APPEAL CASE 4

Event: Blue Ribbon Pairs Session: First qualifying session, Nov. 21

Board 8 Vul: None Dlr: West

Dick Bruno

ª Q 8 4 3

© 2

¨ K Q 8 4

§ A K 8 5

Barie Wall Ray Miller

ª A J 7 2 ª K 9 5

© K Q 10 5 4 © J 9 7 3

¨ 6 2 ¨ A J 3

§ J 7 § Q 10 9

Peggy Kaplan

ª 10 6

© A 8 6

¨ 10 9 7 5

§ 8 4 3 2

West North East South

1© Dbl 2NT (1) Pass

3§ Pass 3© All Pass

(1) Explained as a relay to 3§.

Facts: The result at the table was 3♥ by West making three after the opening lead of the §A. 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 3§ 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 4© was a less successful logical alternative (LA) for East, rather than

bidding 3©, which was demonstrably suggested by the UI. In accordance with Laws 16 A and 12 C.2, an adjustment was made to 4© by East, down one

for a score of E-W minus 50.

The Appeal: East said that West opened all 11 point hands. 3§ suggested 12—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 4©

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, 3©, as opposed to 4©, 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 3© and whether there were any other calls, such as 3¨ or 3NT, to

consider as LAs. The panel considered a minimum hand like :ªA x ©K Q 10 x x ¨x x §K x x x 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 ¨J would make 4© an excellent game. Therefore, the committee

deemed 4© a LA to 3♥.

The Committee: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin and Jim Thurtell

.

APPEAL CASE 5

Even: Blue Ribbon Pairs Session: First Qualifying, Nov. 21

Board: 26 Vul: Both Dlr: East

Mark Bennett

ª K 9 8 6 3

© J 10

¨ Q 8 4 3

§ Q 5

Judy Schulman Rich Kasprowicz

ª J 5 2 ª 7

© 7 © A 8 6

¨ A 10 9 7 5 ¨ K J 2

§ K 10 8 7 § A J 6 4 3 2

Iku Donnelly

ª A Q 10 4

© K Q 9 5 4 3 2

¨ 6

§ 9

West North East South

1§ 1©

Dbl Pass 2§ 2©

3§ Pass Pass 3©

4§ Pass 5§ Pass

Pass Dbl All Pass

Facts: The final contract was 5§ doubled making seven for an E-W score of plus 1150 after the ©K opening lead. E-W play that the negative

double of 1© is for takeout and denies four spades.

Director’s Ruling: The table director, after consultation with other tournament directors, decided that this use of a negative double is not

Alertable, per ACBL regulations. If it is not Alertable, then the failure to Alert it is not an infraction, and there is no misinformation (MI).

The Appeal: N-S appealed on the basis that they believed that this interpretation of the regulations was incorrect.

The Decision: It is not normally within a committee’s scope of authority to interpret the Laws and Regulations. However, Laws 92 and 93

required the committee to consider the appeal. The committee believed that its options were to (1) agree with the director’s interpretation, or (2) to

resubmit the issue to the tournament directors for reconsideration of their previously stated interpretation. The majority of the committee concluded that

the ACBL regulations do not require Alerts 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 1©. Accordingly,

the committee did not resubmit the issue to the directors, but merely affirmed the decision that there had been no infraction. The committee also felt that

this was an appropriate matter to forward to the ACBL for a definitive statement.

Committee Members: Jeff Goldsmith (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Joann Sprung, Peggy Sutherlin and Jim Thurtell.