[BLML] The Mirror of Galadriel [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Tue Mar 13 23:05:41 CET 2012


Richard Hills:

>>Matchpoint pairs
>>Dlr: North
>>Vul: North-South
>>
>>The bidding has gone:
>>
>>WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH
>>---......2NT(1)...Pass.....3H(2)
>>Dble.....4C(3)....Pass.....?
>>
>>(1) 22-23 hcp balanced
>>(2) Transfer to spades
>>(3) Super-accept in spades, cue-
>>bidding the ace of clubs
>>
>>You, South, hold:
>>
>>J6432
>>---
>>J876
>>A654
>>
>>Two aces of clubs is "a grandma's
>>warning that all is not as it
>>seemed."
>>
>>What call did South make at the
>>table?
>>
>>South chose to Pass North's 4C.
>>The TD and AC accepted South's
>>argument that UI received by
>>South that North held a weak
>>5/5 in the minors corresponded
>>to the AI received by South of
>>the "grandma's warning".
>>
>>I disagree with the TD and AC. In
>>my opinion there are many
>>plausible reasons for the
>>"grandma's warning" (for example
>>North may have indeed held 22-23
>>hcp balanced, but improvised a
>>cuebid with KQ of clubs), so
>>South must choose an explanation
>>for the "grandma's warning" which
>>is not an explanation
>>demonstrably suggested by UI.

Thomas Dehn:

>From the auction alone, I don't
>think one can definitely conclude
>that N has a weak 5-5 in the
>minors. For example, N could also
>have a *strong* 5-5 in the minors.

Richard Hills:

Yes, North could also hold eleven
cards in hearts. The auction alone
does not create AI in one-to-one
correspondence with the UI.

Thomas Dehn:

>Now, if N/S have other partnership
>agreements, where they considered
>or actually played 2NT as showing
>a weak 5-5 in the minors, that
>combined with the CA in S's hand
>is probably enough AI to allow S
>to figure it out.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

In the Aussie Mixed Pairs event in
which the newly formed North-South
partnership played, almost half of
the contestants defined 2NT as
strong and balanced, and the other
almost half of the contestants
defined 2NT as weak 5/5 minors.

But all of the contestants used
transfers over natural 1NT and 2NT
opening bids.

So when, in response to West's
question, North described South's
3H as "natural and forcing", South
was constrained in her future
calls by Law 75A (changed to fit):

Whether or not North's explanation
is a correct statement of
partnership agreement, South,
having heard North's explanation,
knows that her own 3H bid has been
misinterpreted. This knowledge is
"unauthorized information" (see
Law 16A), so South must be careful
to avoid taking any advantage from
that unauthorized information (see
Law 73C). (If she does, the
Director shall award an adjusted
score.) For instance, if North
rebids four clubs, South has the
unauthorized information that this
bid merely shows a minimum weak
5/5 minors; but South's
responsibility is to act as though
North had made a slam try in
spades holding KQ of clubs and a
balanced hand with 22-23 hcp.

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120313/f63aa2ac/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list