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

[Matthias Berghaus]

Hi,

richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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."
>
>   

I still agree with my own comments (isn`t that nice :-) ). I refrained 
from answering Richard`s post earlier, having recognized the hand.

This deal illustrates the danger in any "Rule of Coincidence": Mere 
coincidence could lead to automatic rulings, but you have to get to the 
bottom of the case anyway to determine whether there was ( in this case) 
misinformation and resulting damage.
Since I used to play a relay system for a couple of years I have some 
experience in trying to find out which wheel is missing. Sometimes you 
have a suspicion (as here), sometimes you see partner showing something 
you look at in your own hand (and no extra shape to "invent" the queen 
oftrumps, fr example), so you try to find out what went wrong. Sometimes 
you can read the situation by trying out different questions you might 
have asked. Does partner think X was KCB instead of another shape relay? 
What other question might partner have answered? Sometimes it all falls 
into place then, sometimes you try another relay to get a "readable" 
response. The third step after a yes/no question gives a hint...
This often puts you in a difficult position regarding explanations, 
since you want to disclose every aspect of the biddding without giving 
the show away by explaining things the opps are not entitled to be told. 
Of course the Swedish East could have said something like "I suspect my 
partner forgot the system", but this might be MI (if opps kept quiet 
with 12 hearts), or it may give them more information than they are 
entitled to, or it may give them the wrong impression of your hand, 
which at least borders on MI, since you just volunteered information 
which led them onto the wrong track....
So telling them what the system is is the way to go, letting them fend 
for themselves and letting the TD sort it out if need be. I wonder what 
Herman has to say about this. I am fairly confident that he recognized 
the deal too, having been a commentator in this casebook. This case has 
some aspects touching the dWs.

Best regards
Matthias