Timothy N. Hill
thill75 at wesleyan.edu
Tue Apr 1 14:33:47 CEST 2014
On 2014 Mar 30, at 14:38, Roger Pewick <axman22 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The issue of note is the AC contradicting itself over the existence or not of an [discloseable] agreement.
> The AC ruled that NS had no relevant agreement [secret or not] as follows:
> "The panel first decided there was no legal way to allow West to make 4H since he could not be given the knowledge needed to make 4H."
> My comment about the ruling is this: the ruling means that even if the EW assertion were valid [that had W known that S was a blizzard he would maneuver 10 tricks instead of 9], to retroactively get the benefit of being told, there must first be an agreement to disclose- and since there wasn't, then there is no legal route to the telling and thus the knowing.
The laws to consider are 16B (extraneous info from partner), 40C (“Deviation from System and Psychic Action”), and 47E (play based on misinfo). My reading of the writeup is that the director and the review panel:
* did not apply 16B because, although it’s possible responder’s pass was illegally influenced by UI from opener and not just, as he claimed, by AI from opponents, the director and the panel apparently didn’t feel there was enough evidence to reach that conclusion,
* did not apply 47E because they concluded that even if declarer knew that responder thought that opener had psyched, and therefore knew that responder might have passed with a 14-count, declarer still wouldn’t possess enough information to place the CA in responder’s hand rather than opener’s, and
* did adjust the score and issue a severe procedural penalty under 40C, which (as quoted in the writeup) says “If the director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty.”
More information about the Blml