APPEAL NABC+ SIX

Subject Misinformation (MI) – Failure to Alert

DIC Henry Cukoff
Event Wernher Open Pairs
Session First Qualifying
Date July 22, 2008

BD# 28 Sam Punch

VUL N/S ♠ Q42
DLR West ♥ AJ4
♦ K7632
♣ 62
Marta Peltz Andy Vinock
♠ KT9 ♠ AJ873
♥ 763 Summer 2008 ♥ Q
♦ T94 Las Vegas, NV ♦ 85
♣ AQJ8 ♣ KT973
Stephen Peterkin
♠ 65
♥ KT9852
♦ AQJ
♣ 54

West North East South Final Contract 3♥ by South

2♦ Pass 2♥1 Opening Lead ♠T
Pass 3♥ Pass Pass Table Result Made 5, N/S +200
Pass Director Ruling 3♥ S, making 5, N/S +200
Committee Ruling 3♥ S, making 5, N/S +200

(1) Not Alerted – agreement is non-forcing..

The Facts: The director was called at the end of the auction. South informed E/W of the
failure to Alert. The director asked West if she would like to withdraw her final pass with
the correct information (i.e. that 2♥ was non-forcing). West said, “No.”
East was asked away from the table what he would have done with timely and correct
information. He said he would double 3♥ for takeout.

The Ruling: It was judged that East was unlikely to bid or double with correct
information. The failure to Alert was not the cause of damage; therefore, in accordance
with Laws 40C and 12C2, the table result of 3♥ by South making five, N/S plus 200 was
allowed to stand.
The Appeal: All four players attended the hearing.
East claimed he would have doubled 3♥ if Alerted but passed in the hope that the
opponents would not get to game. If they did bid game, he was planning to bid 4♠ over
4♥. West said she would have responded 3♠ had East doubled 3♥. The opening
lead was the ten of spades, followed by the spade king and another spade.

The Decision: The committee felt that East's actions rather than the MI resulting from
the failure to Alert were the cause of the E/W damage. Even if it could be presumed that
South would normally bid again after getting a raise to his forcing 2♥ response, there was
no obligation on his part to do so since "forcing" would not necessarily have meant
"game forcing." Furthermore, East's range of choices was either to double 3♥ (his
preferred action if 2♥ had been Alerted) or to bid 4♠ over 4♥-P-P (assuming that
South bid again). The committee thought double of 3♥ clearly superior to 4♠ over 4♥ no
matter what the meaning of 2♥ was, and it was not persuaded by East's argument in favor
of pass in the hope of a N/S error. A player who rejects a clear action in the hope that his
opponents will do the wrong thing is not well-placed to complain when the opponents go
right. All of E/W's contentions seemed of a self-serving nature. The committee agreed
with the director’s ruling of allowing the table result of 3♥ by South making five, N/S
plus 200 to stand.
The committee strongly felt that East should have known not to bring this appeal.
Therefore, it assessed an appeal without merit warning (AWMW) to E/W.

The Committee: Ron Gerard (Chair), Abby Heitner, Mike Kovacich, Danny Sprung and
Eddie Wold.

Commentary:

Goldsmith I don't think this is as open-and-shut as the committee (AC) did. Before
finding out the result (though after finding that South will pass 3♥), East
said he'd double 3♥ if he knew that 2♥ was non-forcing. The MI (that
South ostensibly has a strong hand vs. a weak one) strongly suggests the
actual choice over the alternative more successful action. So the judgment
call is whether doubling 3♥ is a likely action. The AC deemed that it was
not, but I'm not convinced. Is the information from the rest of the auction
(South's pass of 3♥) enough to suggest that East's claim that he'd double
3♥ given the correct information is likely to be biased? No, that
information is essentially the MI---South passed because he had a hand
that will bid 2♥ non-forcing instead of one which will bid 2♥ forcing. So I
think I'd accept East's double.
Is East's double of 3♥ automatic regardless of the MI? I don't think it is. I
think the plan to bid 4♠ over 4♥ and pass over 3♥ is at least a reasonable if
not a majority action. The AC disagrees with this judgment. They may be
right, but experience shows that bridge players' decisions vary greatly; I
suspect that a group of East's peers would be split between the two plans
without overwhelming support for either. Some would plan to pass
throughout.
Goldsmith Cont.

What are the likely and probable results after a double of 3♥? West could
bid 3♠ or 4♣ over the double. 4♣ seems pretty strongly indicated; East is
known to have long clubs and could have only four spades. South could
bid 4♥ first, in which case, West will have a problem and will probably
pass, as partner didn't act over 2♦. Overall, I think the likely results are
(for E/W) plus 130, minus 50, minus 650, and plus 100. At all probable
results are plus140 and plus 170. Other possible results are plus 420 and
plus 200 (4♥ doubled down one). I expect others to judge differently, but
assuming those ratings, then Law 12C2 requires us to award minus 170 to
N/S and plus 130 to E/W.
Was the E/W bad result a consequence of the MI, or was it due to their
mis-defending 3♥? Since they can't get plus 130 (or even minus 50) vs.
3♥, E/W’s mis-defense is irrelevant.

Polisner Excellent. No two bites allowed.

Rigal A harsh but not unreasonable decision by the committee. Once East failed
to double the clearly non-forcing 3♥ call, he really did not deserve a
second chance. After all he already knew the opponents’ approximate
hand patterns and heart fit. If you don’t double 3♥ now, when will you?

Smith I am a bit surprised at the AWMW here, but obviously the committee did
a very thorough job on the case. It was not even close to being convinced
by E/W.

Wildavsky The case is not clear-cut. N/S failed to properly inform their opponents,
and the MI made the winning action less attractive. With proper
information it seems at least at all probable that East would have doubled,
and I might judge it likely. E/W's arguments did not help their case, but
the appeals committee did not need to attach overwhelming importance to
them. The facts of the case speak for themselves. I'd have adjusted the
score for both sides to E/W plus 130 in 4♣, so I certainly don't agree with
the AWMW.

Wolff Okay ruling, but, if the committee thinks it wise, and I do, it is very
important to Alert weak two-bid responses not being forcing, so a small
procedural penalty is again in order.