Re: Washington Appeal N9

On 2018-10-18 5:58 PM, Jeff Ford wrote:
> Appeal is part of http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2016Washington.pdf
> 
> The gist of the hand is that E/W made a bid (4S) that was ruled illegal 
> because of UI, and that N/S doubled the final contract. Some of the 
> commentators suggested that the double was wild or gambling so N/S 
> should keep their result on the hand of 4SX making exactly.
> 
> Is this the correct application of law? I thought that when adjudicating 
> a case like this that the gambling side was supposed to keep the part of 
> their result that came from the gamble, but not the entirety of the bad 
> result including the infraction of the other side.

That's my understanding as well.

Regardless of the legal principle, I'm not so sure 4S was illegal. 
Everyone assumed East's question showed values, but what hand makes a 
free bid and then doesn't ask about the double?  I can't construct one 
myself.  In an ideal world, West might have asked about the double 
immediately, but perhaps he had been taught "Don't ask if it doesn't 
matter at this turn."
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml