[blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] Positronic brain [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


>
> When a positron meets its equal but opposite anti-
> particle, an electron, they annihilate each other.
>
> Does this also happen when authorised information
> meets an equal but opposite amount of unauthorised
> information?
>
> European Championships, Warsaw 2006, Appeal 4
>
> Imps
>
> Dlr: North
> Vul: Nil
>
>         KQJ7643
>         2
>         7
>         Q765
> 9                   AT5
> A753                KQJT4
> AKT865              3
> K2                  AJ84
>         82
>         986
>         QJ942
>         T93
>
> The bidding has gone:
>
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
> ---       4S        Pass(1)   Pass
> Dble      Pass      5S        Pass
> 5NT       Pass      6H        Pass
> 7H        Pass      Pass      Pass
>
> (1) Break in tempo
>
> Result: 13 tricks, NS -1510
>
>
> The Facts:
>
> The NPC of North/South called the Director at the
> end of the match. East had taken a very long time
> before passing over 4S, and again in the next
> round of bidding.
>
> North/South objected to the double and to the
> raise to 7H.
>
> The Director:
>
> Ascertained that East had indeed taken a long
> time, and that West had acknowledged this at the
> table, and decided to allow the late call and
> rule that there had been unauthorized
> information. The Director consulted with a number
> of players, asking them what they would have done
> with the West hand (not mentioning the break in
> tempo, of course). All the players would have
> doubled, and all were thinking about raising to
> 7H, but not all eventually would have. When told
> about the hesitation, all players agreed that it
> made no difference, since all the information
> they needed was contained in the bid of 5S.
>
> Consequently, the Director ruled that there had
> been no logical alternative to the Double, and
> that the unauthorized information had not
> suggested the raise to 7H.
>
> Ruling: Result Stands
>
> Relevant Laws: Law 16A
>
> North/South appealed.
>
> Present: All players and the Captains and Coaches
> of both teams
>
> The Players:
>
> All concurred that there had been a break in
> tempo. East admitted to thinking for a long time.
> The captain of North/South, who had been sitting
> on the North/East side stated that he had looked
> at his watch after one minute and that five more
> minutes had gone by before East passed. West
> confirmed that the delay had been "a couple of
> minutes". The captain of East/West, who had also
> been sitting on the North/East side, called it
> "a couple of minutes" too.
>
> As to the alleged break in tempo in the second
> round of bidding,West did not agree that it had
> occurred. The tray may have returned "somewhat
> slower" but one has to accept that as normal at
> this level of bidding. The Captain of North/
> South stated he had timed it to 4 minutes.
>
> The Director told the Committee that the table
> had not been in real time troubles, but that the
> match finished with only a 2 or 3 minutes left on
> the clock. For that reason, and because West did
> not dispute the break in tempo, he had accepted
> to consider the case even despite the late call.
>
> North/South, by way of their captain, stated that
> they did not contest that East had no Logical
> Alternatives to his double, and that they
> accepted that call. They did not accept however,
> that 5S should have shown the CA. With the same
> hand but only the CQ instead of the ace, East
> could also have bid 5S. The break in tempo helped
> in reducing that possibility. With the extra
> information, 7H became an "educated gamble".
>
> North/South pointed to the fact that not all
> players that had been consulted had raised to 7H,
> which surely must have meant that passing was a
> logical alternative. Combined with the undeniable
> unauthorized information, that must lead to an
> adjusted score.
>
> West stated that in order for East to bid 5S, he
> needed to have HKQ fifth and the two black aces.
> He had bid 5NT in order to find out what 5S was
> based on, and raised to seven when he found out
> it was based on hearts. He would have passed 6C.
> He did not believe his partner could have had a
> two-suited hand, since he would have bid 4NT with
> that.
>
> The Committee:
>
> Ruled that there had been a significant break in
> tempo by East on the first round of bidding (the
> Committee preferred to call it "4 or 5 minutes"
> to "a couple of minutes"), but not on the second
> round.
>
> The Committee found that 5S did indeed show a
> very great hand, and should be considered a
> grand slam invitation. The call was very close.

I fail to see how the TD came to his conclusion that AI negated UI when he 
didn't investigate  [a] what the agreements were, and [b] what inferences 
were made available by the agreements and the inferences made available by 
the UI.



As for me, if a W chose to X after partner read a novel I wouldn't quibble 
with it- even though I could.  P, X, or 5D could be winning actions.  An 
argument against X is what to do should partner takeout to 5C in the event 
he has xxxx-xxx-x-xxxxx- and S finds a double, and then a subsequent double 
of 5D- so minus 420 would start looking pretty good.



The closest discussion as to bidding agreement concerned 5S- that it was a 
very great hand.  But Which Very Great Hand [or hands]?  Until that is known 
a sensible judgment can't be made of W assertion that it requires SA CA 
HKQxxx.  Because if it indeed promised that then there is no logical 
alternative to 6D showing GS values in hearts missing the SA and CA.  The 
actions of EW uncover the lie and the TD didn't make that finding.



But what I wanted to speak about was the  kaka of the proposition that there 
was AI pointing to GS values- because there was no such AI.  East's original 
pass suggests that he doesn't have sufficient controls to enter the bidding. 
That suggests [to W once he hears 5S] that he doesn't have as many as two 
aces to go with his great hand.  The pass followed by 5S suggests that his 
strong hand consists of good distribution.



But what it really comes down to is that with no fact as to the agreements 
in effect it is untenable to assert, whether true or not,  that AI provided 
the same inferences as UI.  Translation- the TD was out to lunch.



I am going to suggest an inference for the first trip to the library:  E has 
the expectation for being plus but is worried that his side won't take at 
least 11 tricks- and regrets* not taking action.



As for the second trip to the library- because he knows [by his own 
hesitation] his partner knows that that the X was made with UI available, E 
has extraneous information available [that the double was clearcut] to 
evaluate- thereby contains inferences that there was no speculation in the 
X- with the logical conclusion that at least twelve tricks are safe -hence 
5S.



*= I have substantial values that are useful but not proven



regards

roger pewick


> But in the end, the feeling in the Committee
> prevailed that a break in tempo of 4-5 minutes
> is very long and contains substantial
> unauthorized information, and that a player ought
> to be bending backwards in trying not to take
> advantage of it.
>
> The Committee's decision: Score adjusted to 6H by
> East, making 13 tricks, NS -1010.
>
> Deposit: Returned
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
>