[blml] Chicago Cases Posted [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

On the earlier auction without any
unauthorised information, the survey
of blmlers suggested that 6S was _not_
East's only logical alternative.

The next question is whether the ACBL
Appeals Committee needed any
_objective_ evidence to distinguish
between:

(a) a player who forgotten their
methods, but is reminded of their
methods by partner's alert, and

(b) a player who is fully aware of
their methods, but has intentionally
deviated from them, so has no UI
from partner's alert.

or whether a mere _assertion_ of an
intentional tactical deviation is
sufficient evidence for (b).

Should the ACBL Appeals Committee
have explored a third possibility?

(c) a player whose _partner_
frequently forgets their methods, so
receives UI that partner has for
once remembered their methods when
partner correctly alerts.

Details of the actual table result
and actual appeal ->

Matchpoint pairs
Dlr: West
Vul: North-South

You, East, hold:

AKQJ982
A
K3
632

The bidding has gone:

SOUTH     WEST      NORTH     EAST
---       Pass      Pass      4S(1)
4NT       5C(2)     5H        5S
6H        Pass      Pass      6S
Dble      Pass      Pass      Pass

(1) 4S was alerted as less strong than
4D, since E/W agreed to play Namyats

(2) Lead-directing in clubs and shows
spade tolerance

The Facts:
E/W had agreed to play Namyats (four of
a major is a weaker hand with a long
suit and four of the respective minor
is a stronger hand) and had put it on
their card. East on this hand decided
to make a strategic underbid, knowing
that Namyats was on the card and that
West was a passed hand and probably did
not hold the values for slam
exploration. The 4S bid was alerted and
explained according to the
partnership's agreement.

The Ruling:
It was judged that when East became
aware that her partner thought she held
a weak hand (from the UI of the alert
and explanation), this now demonstrably
suggested a 6S call. It was judged that
double was a logical alternative (LA)
but pass was not a LA. Therefore, the
table result was adjusted to 6H,
doubled, down two, -500 N/S in
accordance with laws 16A and 12C2.

The Appeal:
E/W, the only players to attend the
hearing, contended that their bid was
properly alerted and explained. The
partnership (which played roughly once
a month) had a detailed and well-
documented system file. Since East was
willing to give up on slam
possibilities facing a passed hand, she
strategically deviated from the
agreement. East claimed that there was
no infraction. She was merely using her
own bidding judgment (by which she
indicated that she thought that 6H
might make). Her partner's lead-
directing call was facing her length,
and the DK was clearly waste paper. Had
the club ace been with South (which was
where the auction implied it would be)
a club lead would be necessary to beat
slam.

The Decision:
The committee questioned East about her
exploitation of Namyats, asking such
questions as whether her hand would be
a Namyats 4S bid in first or second
seat. She said that it would not be; it
would be a 4D bid. The committee
determined that by East's reasoning,
her bid was an intentional deviation
from the convention and that she would
also have bid 4S in third seat with
much weaker (defensive) hands. Since a
player is allowed to deviate from
partnership agreements intentionally
(so long as the player's partner is as
much in the dark about it as the
opponents), the committee concluded
that no infraction occurred. Therefore
the committee restored the table result
6S doubled making seven, E/W +1310.

The Committee:
Richard Popper (chairperson), Mark
Bartusek, Ed Lazarus, Barry Rigal and
Peggy Sutherlin.


Best wishes

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