[BLML] Reno Non-NABC+ appeal 4 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Mon May 24 02:37:18 CEST 2010


>>Daylight Stratified Open Pairs
>>Dlr: North
>>Vul: North-South
>>
>>The bidding has gone:
>>
>>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>>---       1D        Pass      ?
>>
>>You, South, hold:
>>
>>T52
>>QT96543
>>983
>>---
>>
>>So you, South, elect to respond with a weak jump to 2H.
>>
>>The bidding continued:
>>
>>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>>---       1D        Pass      2H (1)
>>Pass      3H        Pass(2)   ?
>>
>>(1) Your 2H was initially not alerted by partner.
>>
>>(2) East foolishly enquired about the meaning of 2H.
>>
>>    Partner responded that 2H was natural and game-
>>    forcing.
>>
>>    But then partner noticed that she had not opened 1S,
>>    but had rather opened 1D.  So partner now explained
>>    that your 2H jump response promised 5 spades, 4 hearts
>>    and 5-9 hcp (which in fact is the convention written
>>    on your partnership's System Cards).
>>
>>You have multiple UI from partner.
>>
>>UI demonstrably suggesting that bidding is correct is that
>>partner believed at the time her 3H bid was forcing.
>>
>>UI demonstrably suggesting that passing is correct is that
>>partner now thinks you hold 5 spades, so raising to 4H may
>>see partner converting to a ridiculous 4S in a non-fit.
>>
>>What is your legal logical alternative?

Marvin French:

>4H
>
>The first UI is irrelevant after partner changes her
>explanation.

Richard Hills:

Incorrect.  The first UI informs you that, at the time pard
raised to 3H, pard thought that her 3H was game-forcing due
to her thinking that your 2H was game-forcing.  Plus the
first UI tells you that partner may now change her mind and
decide to play in spades if given the chance.  Indeed, this
she would do, holding at the table:

J94
AKJ
AJT7
A96

On the other hand, the first MI is irrelevant as MI, since
partner immediately changed her explanation.

Marvin French:

>I didn't hear the second UI behind the virtual screen

[snip]

Richard Hills:

Very incorrect.  Both Marvin French and David Burn should be
well aware by now that a player striving to obey Law 16B and
Law 73C should not try to ignore UI by pretending that there
was a "virtual screen".  Rather, what is required by Law 73C
is that a player should carefully listen to partner's UI,
then take a contraindicated logical alternative (which may
be a logical alternative that the player would never have
selected in the absence of UI from partner).

ACBL Appeal Panel, The Decision:

"The panel determined that no incorrect information was
given to E/W other than the original "natural, game-forcing"
explanation, which was corrected immediately. South had
forgotten their agreement (he only plays it with this
partner) and North's explanation is consistent with her 3H
bid (if she had realized, before she bid, what 2H was, she
would have bid 2S, their 5-3 fit, or 3S not 3H, their 4-3
fit). While unfortunate, N/S committed no rules infraction;
therefore, no adjustment is warranted.

The appeal was judged to have merit."

Richard Hills:

Two errors by the appeal panel.  Firstly, the panel forgot
the Iron Rule that creation of MI necessarily involves
creation of UI, so the panel should have read Law 75A.

Law 75A, final sentence, adapted for current case:

"For instance, if North rebids three hearts, South has the
unauthorized information that this bid merely shows a raise
of a game-forcing two hearts; but South's responsibility is
to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite
a weak response, showing maximum values."

In which case Marv's 4H bid is the right call for the wrong
reason.  On the other hand the Law 75A adaptation for the
current case might be:

"...to act as though North had made a preemptive raise of a
weak response, requiring South to drop dead and Pass."

In which case South's at-the-table Pass of 3H was correct.

So the appeal panel erred in not enquiring about exactly
what methods - drop-dead 3H or invite 3H - South plays in
his other partnerships.

Secondly the panel forgot about Law 40C1:

"A player may deviate from his side's announced
understandings always provided that his partner has no more
reason to be aware of the deviation than have the
opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit
understandings which then form part of the partnership's
methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the
regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director
judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the
opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a
procedural penalty."

Examining the System Cards to confirm that the obscure
convention was recorded there was a first step, but the
appeal panel should have enquired how often in the past
South had forgotten a convention he plays in no other
partnership.  If South had deviated often enough for
North to have "more reason to be aware" that 2H might be a
deviant weak jump response, then MI did exist, and the
appeal panel should have considered awarding an adjusted
score of 4C East-West +130.

Best wishes

Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550
Telephone: 02 6223 8453
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets



--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIAC respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the Blml mailing list