From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Originator: boyiny@minkowski
Keywords: appeal, misinformation, infraction, ruling.
Reply-To: boyiny@math.mit.edu (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Canape is FUN!
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:35:26 GMT

Ted Ying writes:
>
>Okay folks.  This is a problem from the Hunt Valley regional.  You have
>just played the day in the Flighted Open Pairs and have been asked to
>sit in on an appeals committee panel.  This is the hand:
>
>          S: -
>          H: KQJT6
>          D: T82                      Board 11
>          C: Q9432                    None Vul
>                                      Dealer South
>S: 85                S: T9642
>H: 8                 H: 742           South  West   North  East
>D: AKQJ9764          D: 3             ----------------------------
>C: 87                C: AJT6          1S     3S     P      3NT
>                                      X      4D     X      P
>          S: AKQJ73                   P      P
>          H: A953
>          D: 5
>          C: K5
>
>The auction started as shown above.  After the 3NT call, the South player
>asked what the 3S bid meant.  East stated that they didn't play too often
>and that he assumed that it meant bid NT with a spade stopper and probably
>held a long running minor.  He bid 3NT.  South was looking at 5 sure tricks
>and decided to make a penalty double.  West ran.
>
>After the hand was played out (4D-X, off 1).  West had thought that his
>bid was just a gambling 3NT type hand with a running minor and not just
>requesting a spade stopper.  North-South thought that West's run to 4D was
>based off an inference taken from the answer given about the 3S bid.  The
>director was called to the table.
>
>The director listened to the auction and asked some questions.  She asked
>what West had meant and he said a long running minor.  He also stated that
>when he had bid it he thought it was a stupid bid and had intended to bid
>4D at his next opportunity if possible.  North-South felt that if East-West
>had the agreement that 3S was a long running minor only, that West would
>have no reason to pull the double, since he should trust East to have all
>other three suits stopped.
>
>The director agreed with North-South and rolled the contract back to 3NT-X
>down 5 (5 hearts and 4 spades off the top) for +1100.  East-West protested
>that this was a totally impossible result and appealed.
>
>What do you think?  If you have any questions, let me know.  In a few days,
>I'll post what the actual committee did and which side I was on (or can you
>guess).

The critical question in the Bridge World style of committees is "What is
the infraction, if any, and did it lead directly to an injury?".

Here, the answers are unclear.  East should have answered that they have no
clear agreement, since apparently there is none.  The actual answer would
be misinformation, an infraction if it was given as the direct answer to
the query.  [As usual, trying to be helpful on east's part induced the
problem.]  However, that is not what directly caused the problem.  The
allegation in law terms is that West acted on improper information about
East's hand due to the explanation.  

Here a ticklish situation comes into play.  Many people have the annoying
habit of asking an inexperienced partnership "What do you take his(her) bid
to mean..." (after an answer of "no agreement") which was in itself a minor
infraction.  If East gave the explanation when N-S made such a query, I
would rule that there has been no misinformation and the result stands.
(In this case the answer would have sounded like "I have no idea, I guess
that....")  Otherwise, I would rule that the director's ruling stands for
East-west: -1100.

The score for North-south is a different situation.  Should north double
4D?  In my opinion, NO!  Even if opener has five sure tricks, from north's
viewpoint 4Dx can still reasonably make.  North should pass and South
should bid 4H in the passout position.  Therefore, I would rule that North
was (perhaps unconsciously) trying for a "double shot" with the actual
action and therefore the North-South score stands at 100.

People _must_ understand that an opponent's infraction does _not_ entitle
them to a good score.  They must do all that they can to protect
themselves, and double shots should _never_ be rewarded with adjustment.