[blml] Borderline rulings [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Nigel Guthrie:

>>Declarer had read a book written recently by one
>>of the defenders that recommended doubling a
>>splinter for the lead of the lower-ranking
>>unbid-suit. **The defenders are a married couple.**

Grattan Endicott:

>+=+ **This qualifies as 'partnership experience' in
>my book.**
>      But seriously, when a player bases his action
>on an item of knowledge which he shares with his
>partner (but which is not incorporated within their
>discussed and announced system and is not widely
>accepted as general bridge knowledge) and the
>partner subsequently acts in conformity with that
>action, the mutual awareness must be regarded, in
>my view, as an undisclosed partnership understanding
>revealed by the synchronized actions of the players.

Richard Hills:

I agree with Grattan's paragraph above that if such a
mutual awareness existed, then it would be a concealed
implicit partnership agreement (Law 75A and Law 40B).

Grattan Endicott:

>In the case cited it seems to me that the partnership
>made use of extraneous information - not that the
>1987 law book, or today's book, carries a statement
>that can be applied beyond peradventure to the facts.
                     ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Richard Hills:

But I disagree with Grattan that the facts of the Miami
case actually fit such a mutual awareness.

Firstly, the actual West hand held both long clubs and
also a void in diamonds.  So the facts of West's hand
are consistent West "basing his action" of the double
of the 4C splinter on long clubs, rather than a void
in diamonds.

Secondly, there is no evidence that West writing a
book meant that East shared West's knowledge.  After
all, I have written a booklet about my version of
Symmetric Relay (copies emailed on request) but
knowledge of that booklet is not shared with all of my
partners, some of whom prefer to play Acol.

Thirdly, the East player is such a bunny that the fact
that expert commentator Bart Bramley stated:

"East's argument about strong diamonds makes no sense
at all. I think we would be hard pressed to find a
player that would not lead the CA."

is totally irrelevant, because East is not an expert,
so does not use expertly use logic.  The answer that
East gave of "decided to lead her best suit" is highly
plausible logic for a bunny.

Lucky coincidences in bridge happen all the time.  In
fact, it would be a violation of the laws of probability
if lucky coincidences did not occur.  But a single lucky
coincidence does not and should not be used to rule that
an infraction *must* have occurred.

(But, as was noted back in 1996, reporting the case to
the official Recorder was appropriate, since *multiple*
coincidences over several deals within the same
partnership are evidence of an undisclosed partnership
understanding.)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285