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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Matthias Berghaus (blml posting):

>>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.

[snip]

>>This often puts you in a difficult position regarding explanations,
>>since you want to disclose every aspect of the bidding without
>>giving the show away by explaining things the opps are not entitled
>>to be told.

[snip]

>>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.

Herman De Wael (casebook commentator):

>Two separate cases. I don't think the 3H misbid is in need of a
>ruling.
>
>As to the asking about a card that one has oneself, I don't believe
>this to be a single case. I feel that pairs that employ this tactic
>should inform opponents of the possibility. Of course, that is
>difficult in an actual case, but at least a general mention on the
>convention card should draw the attention to it.

Richard Hills:

Yes, the 3H misbid did not cause damage, since South found the only
opening lead which could defeat the contract and the misbidding dummy
became visible after the opening lead.

But suppose this hypothetical scenario existed: a misbid by West is a
20% chance when the opponents are silent with an assumed eleven or
twelve card fit, but is a mere 2% chance when the opponents are
silent with an assumed fit of ten cards or fewer.  With such exotic
hypothetical partnership experience, what must East disclose?

(If I was East I would pre-alert the possibility of an error before
the round started, but I would join Matthias in "telling the system"
during the auction, since "the opps are not entitled to be told"
that the questioner in a relay auction can see a heart void in their
own hand.)

As for Herman's second point, I agree that stating "asking for the
king of spades" instead of "initially asking for the king of spades"
was implicit misinformation, since the normal expectation is that a
person using an asking bid about a specific card in a non-relay
system (as, for example, in the Culbertson System) would not employ
that asking bid when already holding that card.

Of course, in the primitive stone-age Symmetric Relay system that I
use (system notes emailed on request) there is no capacity to vary
the relay to ask for specific cards, so I describe all of my pard's
relays with the uniform explanation in deadpan tones, "Relay, asking
me to describe my hand further."  When playing against inexperienced
opponents who have never met a relay system before, my repeated
deadpan words sometimes cause them to break out into fits of giggles,
creating a sociable atmosphere at the table.

:-)


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