[blml] Splinter of the Mind's Eye

[Adam Beneschan]

> EBU casebook 2001, appeal number 1
> 
> Tournament Director:
> Eddie Williams
> 
> Appeals Committee:
> Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Alan Kay
> Brian Callaghan
> 
> Matchpoint pairs
> Dlr: East
> Vul: North-South
> 
> The bidding has gone:
> 
> SOUTH     WEST      NORTH     EAST
> ---       ---       ---       1D
> Pass      2C        Dble      3S(1)
> Dble      3NT       Pass      4NT(2)
> Pass      5D        Pass      6C
> Pass      Pass      Pass
> 
> (1) Break in tempo.  Not alerted, but
> intended to be a splinter bid, club
> support and a singleton spade
> (2) Simple Blackwood
> 
>                AK732
>                95432
>                4
>                T2
> 64                           Q
> KQ86                         AJ
> Q3                           AKT76
> AJ754                        KQ863
>                JT985
>                T7
>                J9852
>                9
> 
> Result at table:
> 6C making by West, NS -920

[portions of original snipped below]
 
> Director first called:
> At end of hand
> 
> North queried why East had gone on after
> 3NT as that was surely a signoff. 

Phbbbbbbt.  North needs some bridge lessons.

> Director's ruling:
> Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3):
> 20% 6S doubled -3 by N/S, NS -800
> +80% 6C making by West, NS -920
> 
> Details of ruling:
> There is misinformation but little damage.
>
> Appeals Committee decision:
> Director's ruling upheld
> Both deposits returned
> 
> Appeals Committee's comments:
> We felt that although E was in receipt of
> unauthorised information, it was normal to
> bid over 3NT. Although N/S have been
> deprived of a chance to bid 6S, it wasn't
> likely to happen in practice and so 20%
> seems about right.
> 
> Ron Johnson (casebook commentator):
> 
> "It seems to me that both the committee and
> the director were generous to North-South.
> I don't see anything approaching a 20%
> chance that North-South would have bid 6S
> with an alert of 3S.

This raises an interesting question.  Perhaps if E-W were on the same
wavelength, there's little chance that N-S would have bid 6S.
Obviously, after 1D-2C-3S, if West had interpreted the bid correctly
(and alerted it correctly), he wouldn't have bid 3NT.  Something like
4NT (Blackwood) seems more likely.  So there would have been less room
for N-S to show their suit---and they wouldn't have had information
about the misunderstanding.

The problem here, IMHO, is that, according to what I believe the
consensus is, N-S were entitled to the information that 3S was a
splinter, but when we decide what would have been a likely probable
auction, we still assume that West would have explained the splinter
correctly and then forgotten that it was a splinter.  It seems likely
that, armed with both these pieces of information (that East bid 3S as
a splinter, and that West thought East was showing a real suit), North
could have figured out that N-S had a big spade fit.  And I believe
that we are to assume that North was *entitled* to *both* pieces of
information.

Whether this means that North (or South) would have saved, at this
vulnerability, I don't know.  A 20% probability doesn't seem too far
off to me.  I think the director and AC did a good job on this one.

> Pass is simply not a logical alternative for East at this point.

100% correct.  I still maintain that 3S was not a logical alternative,
but on this layout it wouldn't matter since North is always leading a
spade.

                                -- Adam