[BLML] Cheshire cat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Thomas Dehn blml at arcor.de
Thu Sep 2 12:16:48 CEST 2010


Harald Skjæran <harald.skjaran at gmail.com>
> 2010/9/1 Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>:
> >  Le 1/09/2010 0:34, richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> >>
> >> EBU Appeals Casebook 2008, Appeal 12
> >> http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm
> >>
> >> Swiss Matchpoint Pairs (MPs converted to VPs)
> >> Dlr: East
> >> Vul: North-South
> >>
> >> The complete bidding and deal:
> >>
> >> WEST        NORTH       EAST        SOUTH
> >> Paul                    Stephanie
> >> Lamford                 Rohan
> >> ---         ---         Pass        Pass
> >> 1NT(1)      2D (2)      2H          3S
> >> Pass        4S          X  (3)      Pass
> >> 4NT         Pass        Pass        Pass
> >>
> >> (1) 12-14 balanced
> >> (2) Astro convention, spades and another suit
> >> (3) Slow double - agreed
> >>
> >>                  98764
> >>                  A2
> >>                  AJ653
> >>                  A
> >> ---                             AT52
> >> QT7                             KJ643
> >> KT2                             874
> >> KT76432                         8
> >>                  KQJ3
> >>                  985
> >>                  Q9
> >>                  QJ95
> >>
> >> Result at table: 4NT -4 by West, North-South +200
> >>
> >> Casebook panellist Richard Hills comment:
> >>
> >> Julian Huxley (1887-1975):
> >>
> >> "Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler
> >> but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat."
> >>
> >> Director's Cheshire cat adjustment:
> >>
> >> 50% of 5Hx East-West, +800 N/S / -800 E/W
> >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W
> >>
> >> Appeals Committee's Cheshire cat adjustment:
> >>
> >> 50% of 4NT East-West, +200 N/S / -200 E/W
> >> 50% of 4S North-South, +620 N/S / -620 E/W
> >>
> >> "Well! I've often seen a double without 4S," thought
> >> Alice; "but 4S without a double! It's the most curious
> >> thing I ever saw in all my life!"
> > AG : neither did  I.
> >
> > Really, this isn't a complex case.
> >
> > Either you consider that it is obvious to pull, and in that case you
> > must score the board as the table result.
> > Or you consider that it isn't, and you score the board as 4S, making,
> > with the possibility of a split score of 4SX+1 to EW (the worst result
> > that was at all probable).
> >
> > I consider it fairly close, as passing was mentioned by some voters, but
> > never chosen.
> 
> Which voters are you counting here?
> If it's those who replied to the post here on BLML, one (me) did in fact
> pass.

I passed, too. As did several participants in that other poll
that had been mentioned.
Especially, I do consider pass an LA.

I am not sure the score should be adjusted, though.
o E/W got a bad score because they didn't double 4NT.
   I consider the failure to double 4NT bad bridge. One might consider it
   a serious error if E/W are experts. 
o I have some doubt whether the hesitation "demonstrably" helps decide between -790 and -800.
  Lamford didn't need the hesitation to know that 4S was very likely to make, especially not
  in their system, where apparently 2H denied a good four card spade suit. He also didn't need
  the hesitation to notice they were nonvul. 
  Once again, a case where UI reinforces AI.


Thomas

-- 
Der Newskiosk
Von Sommerloch keine Spur: Alle Top-News der großen Tageszeitungen aus Wirtschaft, Politik, Sport, Lifestyle und mehr im News-Kiosk auf arcor.de.
http://www.arcor.de/rd/footer.newskiosk


More information about the Blml mailing list