[blml] Brooklyn Bridge for sale [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

"even if North had passed, the committee decided that
South would clearly have bid 3S."

On a clear day you can buy the Brooklyn Bridge.  Of
the blmlers polled, the only one who thought that
South clearly had to take action chose a penalty
double (which would have led to a lesser adjusted
score of +100 instead of +130).

Since an accurate Law 12C2 ruling depended upon
determining logical alternatives for both North and
South, it seems to me that the committee erred by not
conducting "Groundhog Day" double-blind polls of
peers of North and South.

Of course, if this ruling had occurred in a Zone in
which Law 12C3 was enabled, then the adjustment would
have to be a weighted average of +50, +100 and +130.
As TD in a Law 12C3 Zone, my weightings would be:

+50  = 60%
+100 = 30%
+130 = 10%

Best wishes

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

*     *     *

APPEAL NABC+ ONE
Subject Unauthorized Information (UI) -Tempo
DIC Mike Flader
Event Life Master Women's Pairs
Session Second Final
Date November 18, 2006

BD# 2                 Esta VanZandt
VUL N/S               8 7 6 5 4 2
DLR East              A Q J
                      J
                      7 3 2
Migry Zur-Campanile                  Miriam Varinne
T 3                                  K Q J
9 6 5 3                              8 4 2
K T 7 3 2                            A 9 8 4
K 5                                  Q 9 4
                      Pat Levy
                      A 9
                      K T 7
                      Q 6 5
                      A J T 8 6

West      North     East      South
---       ---       1D        2C
2D        2S        Pass      Pass(1)
3D        4C        Pass      Pass
Pass

(1) Break in tempo (BIT)

Final Contract 4C by South
Opening Lead D3
Table Result 4C making 4, N/S +130
Director Ruling 3D by East down 1, E/W -50
Committee Ruling 4C making 4, N/S +130

The Facts: N/S admitted that there was a noticeable
hesitation (BIT) before South passed. E/W were not
present at the hearing and the director provided no
estimate of the duration of the hesitation. N/S said
that the hesitation was not extensive but was
noticeable.

The Ruling: The director ruled that South's hesitation
made the 4C bid more attractive and was demonstrably
suggested by the BIT and that passing 3D was a less
successful logical alternative (LA). Accordingly, in
accordance with laws 16 and 12 C2, the director
adjusted the table result to 3D by East, down one, E/W
minus 50.

The Appeal: N/S, the only players to appear before the
Committee, said that in their methods a change of suit
by advancer shows a hand with either a good suit or a
suit with support for the overcaller. North said that
when she bid 2S, she was committed to bidding again in
a normal non-game forcing sequence. South added that
if the auction had been passed back to her, she would
have bid 3S, which could not be beaten.

The Decision: The committee, working from the premise
that there had been a BIT, started their reasoning
with consideration of whether the BIT suggested a line
of action to North. Suggestions that South might have
been considering bidding 2NT seemed remote. It was
clear that if South had a minimum 2C overcall without
some spade support or tolerance, South would probably
not have broken tempo at all. Therefore, it appears
that the hesitation suggested further action - since
South probably had extra shape or a little extra in
HCP.

The committee then considered whether there was a LA
to North's bidding 4C. Clearly, bidding 3S was a
logical alternative, but since that bid would have
achieved a superior result (+140), that alternative
was discounted. The committee was split on whether
pass was a logical alternative. However, this issue
was rendered moot because it was determined that even
if North had passed, the committee decided that South
would clearly have bid 3S. Thus the N/S pair would
have arrived at an unbeatable and higher scoring
contract. Therefore, if a pass had been forced on
North, South's further action would have resulted in
a superior result for the offenders. Accordingly, the
committee restored the table result.

The Committee: Barry Rigal (chair), Darwin Afdahl, Ed
Lazarus, Lou Reich, Jim Thurtell.

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.
DIMA 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