|
APPEAL CASE 4 – Misinformation Mitchell Open
Board-a-Match Teams First qualifying
session Board: 26 Vul : Both Dlr: East Leszek Rabiega ♠ªQ 9
♥ 8 7 5 2 ♦ A Q J 9 8 6 ♣ 3 Steven Johnson Mark Teaford ♠
8 6 3 ♠
K J 10 7 ♥ A K Q ♥ 6 3 ♦ K 10 ♦ 5 4 ♣
A 10 7 6
5 ♣ K Q J 9 4 Gabriela Rabiega ♠
A 5 4 2 ♥ J 10 9 4 ♦ 7 3 2 ♣
8 2 West North East South Pass Pass 1NT (1) 2♣ (2) Dbl
(3) Rdbl Pass 2♦ Dbl (1) 15-17 HCP. (2) Explained as clubs
plus a higher ranking suit. (3) Stayman. |
The Facts: The director was
called after the hand was played. The explanation of 2♣
was incorrect.
The actual agreement is an unspecified one-suited hand. East said that with
the correct information, he would not have doubled 2♦ The Ruling: It was deemed that
there was Misinformation (MI). With the correct information, it was likely that
East would bid 3♦ over 2♦.
West would bid 3NT. North would lead the ♦Q. Therefore, in
accordance with Laws 40C and 12C2, the result was adjusted to the most favorable
result that was likely for the nonoffending side
and the same result for the offending side: 3NT by West, making three, E-W plus
600. The Appeal: North asserted that
had E-W arrived at a 3NT contract he would never lead the ♦Q.
He also did not correct the incorrect explanation prior to the opening lead
because the damage had already been done E-W did not try to suggest how the Auction might have
gone if they had been given the correct explanation to the 2♣
bid,
other than stating that East would not double 2♦. The double of 2♦ was based on the assumption that West had to
have diamonds given no club length or a four-card major. The Decision: The committee concluded
that the most likely auction given correct information was a forcing 3♣
bid
rather than the final double by East. West would most likely respond either 3♥ or 3NT. If West bid 3♥,
East might bid 3♠ followed by 3NT by West. The committee ruled that
the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred,
for the non-offending side, and the most unfavorable result that was at all
probable for the offending side would be 3NT making three. In accordance with
Law 12C2, the results of plus 600 for E-W and minus 600 for N-S were awarded. The committee found no
merit to the appeal; therefore, an appeal without merit warning (AWMW) was imposed to
N-S and the team captain. There was some discussion as to imposing a
procedural penalty (PP) to N-S for failure to disclose the correct
explanation prior to the opening lead, but the committee chose not to. DIC: Steve Bates Chairperson: Bob
Schwartz Committee
Members: Shannon Cappelletti, Jeff Goldsmith, |