[blml] Broken the second rule of war [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Harald Skjæran:

>I'd certainly be curious to opponents both passing even at red with
>12 hearts between them. But since I've got no clue to what wheel
>might have fallen off, I'd stick to what partner has showed.

Richard Hills:

In my experience of relay systems, pard usually gets the initial
response right; it is in the later specific shape-showing responses
that pard can add or subtract a step.  Therefore, my guess for a
wheel falling off is that pard correctly showed spades or balanced,
but pard later incorrectly showed spades when pard should have shown
balanced instead.  (Of course, I have an unfair 20/20 hindsight on
this particular problem, since I know the full deal.)

Harald Skjæran:

[snip]

>I'd just bid 6S (or 6C), expecting to stand a good chance to make
>if partner's got what he's told me. I see absolutely no reason to
>try to guess a contract under the assumption that a wheel fell off
>somewhere.

[snip]

Richard Hills:

I agree that it is right to bid 6S or 6C.  But which contract?  At
imps scoring it is worthwhile investing two imps by choosing 6C as
an anti-wheel "safety play".

Holding 100 honours in clubs, the contract is still likely to make
if pard holds a balanced hand with a worthless doubleton in clubs,
since the king of clubs may be the only loser whether playing in
6S or 6C.  But if pard has holds a balanced hand with a worthless
doubleton in spades, 6C may make when 6S fails.

*     *     *

EBU casebook 2001 appeal number 18, "The Swedes bid it better!"

Tournament Director:
David Stevenson

Appeals Committee:
John Young (Chairman)  Rob Cliffe  Tony Ratcliff

Swiss Teams
Brd: 18                       9
Dlr: East                     KT542
Vul: North-South              98542
                              97
QJ4                                                  AKT82
A873                                                 ---
AQ3                                                  KT7
843                                                  AQJT5
                              7653
                              QJ96
                              J6
                              K62

SOUTH     WEST      NORTH     EAST
---       ---       ---       1C (1)
Pass      1H (2)    Pass      1S (3)
Pass      3H (4)    Pass      3S (5)
Pass      4H (6)    Pass      4NT(7)
Pass      5C (8)    Pass      ?

(1) Swedish Club, 11-13 balanced or 17+ hcp any
(2) 8+ hcp, spades or balanced
(3) 17+ hcp, relay
(4) 11-13 hcp, 4=1=4=4
(5) Controls?
(6) 4 controls (ace = 2, king = 1) + maximum
(7) Spiral Scan: initially asks for spade king

{but the word "initially" was omitted in the at-the-table
explanation}

(8) No spade king

Result at table:
6C making by East, NS -920, lead Sx

Director first called:
At end of hand

Director's statement of facts:
West says 3H was a mistake: he confused the responses for 4=1=4=4
with 3=4=3=3.

N/S ask why 4NT was not described as a possible prelude to further
asks. Also they ask whether East has fielded West's misbid.

After spade lead declarer won finessed, club. South "knew" North
had spade king so no ruff. She actually ducked the club.

East was suspicious of West's 3H call because it gave N/S twelve
hearts. He bid 4NT in case West provided helpful answer like 6C or
6D. He was not thinking of grand slam.

Director's ruling:
Table result stands
Record of hand to be sent to L&EC

Details of ruling:
Misinformation of 3H: probably not, but no damage anyway.

Misinformation of 4NT: No. No reason to describe as prelude to
further ask (compare Blackwood).

Fielded misbid: No.

Because of coincidence of action report to be kept

Appeal lodged by:
North-South

Comments by East-West:
West did not know he had made incorrect bids.

Appeals Committee decision:
Director's ruling upheld
Deposit returned

Appeals Committee's comments:
We feel that N/S were not damaged by any erroneous information.

*     *     *

Field-Marshal Montgomery (1887-1976):

"The U.S has broken the second rule of war.  That is, don't go
fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is
don't march on Moscow.  I developed these two rules myself."

Richard Hills:

According to Bobby Wolff, the second rule of bridge is the Rule
of Coincidence.  East-West have landed on their feet after the
dreaded offence of Convention Disruption, so under the Rule of
Coincidence their score should be adjusted.

Matthias Berghaus (casebook panellist):

"Very mysterious case. East had doubts about 3H (who wouldn't ?).
I think what has happened is that East tried to get West to bid
something he could 'read', something which would give him a clue
what this bid was really meant to show. In a relay system (which
this seems to be) you can try to guess WHICH wheel has come off.
I know. Believe me. Hence 4NT, asking for a card partner is known
not to hold. At least this would explain the comment about
'Helpful 6C or D' from partner. I think East was flying blind and
bid a contract which could survive minimal trump support from
partner. So I believe there was no infraction, but this is
guesswork."

David Stevenson (casebook panellist):

"The Rule of Coincidence used to apply in North America. In
effect it said that if both players did something strange but
successful on the same hand then you ruled against them
automatically. Fortunately it no longer applies.

"However, the basic idea was sound: TDs and Committees should be
properly sceptical of such situations. Here, where the TD did not
think there was any reason to adjust he did decide to send a
report to the L&EC in case any similar hands were recorded for
this pair.

"The following would be a good Rule of Coincidence:
'When both members of a partnership take strange yet ultimately
successful action on the same hand the TD or Appeals Committee
should always investigate carefully to see whether there are
further considerations, such as concealed understandings or
unauthorised information. If the TD or Appeals Committee
ultimately rules no infraction (or no damage) he or they should
consider whether to make a report to the sponsoring
organisation.'"


Best wishes

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

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. DIAC 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