[blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>Would you believe that partner was wondering about where
>>they parked their car?

Wayne Burrows:

>There is no point in the laws having "demonstrably
>suggested" if you are going to use a 'balance of
>probabilities' argument.  Either the bid is demonstrably
>suggested or it is not.  It doesn't make any sense to me
>to rule against someone because the break in tempo 'might
>have suggested' some action when obviously and
>alternatively it might not have suggested that
>alternative.

Richard Hills:

If there was a 40% chance partner was thinking about where
they parked their car, and a 60% chance that partner was
thinking about making an unambiguous slam try before
partner choosing a reluctant apparent signoff in 4H, then
surely the balance of probabilities demonstrably suggest
proceeding towards slam, since between 60% to 100% of the
time partner will have extra values, and only between 0%
to 40% of the time will partner lack those extra values.

Wayne Burrows:

>In this particular case in a complex auction I will
>usually think for longer than usual even when it turns
>out after I have processed the information that I have
>only one possible action.  Thinking in that type of
>situation does not and can not demonstrably suggest one
>action over another.  It merely suggests that I needed
>extra time to process an unusual or unfamiliar situation.

Steve Willner:

>While the principle is true, it doesn't seem relevant to
>the Warsaw case.  Play was behind screens, and the pause
>would have had to be more than "several seconds" to be
>noticed.

WBF Code of Practice, Guidelines for Rulings - 5:

" ... It is desirable to exhibit extra tolerance in
relation to a "hesitation" when a player encounters an
unprecedented situation in the auction ... there was also
discussion of a possibility this might extend to abnormal
situations encountered in the auction because of
opponents' extraordinary agreements ... "

Richard Hills:

I disagree with Steve Willner that the WBF CoP "hot seat"
ruling would in principle have applied to the Warsaw 13
case if screens had not been in use.

Note that the CoP guideline refers to the _opponents'_
extraordinary agreements, not your own side's uncontested
"extraordinary" auction.  Furthermore, the hesitator
undermined any suggestion that their own side's auction
was actually unprecedented by alleging that their side
had a special partnership agreement that the hesitator's
reluctant apparent signoff in 4H was a cuebid of the king
of hearts.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the hesitator's
statement about their alleged extraordinary partnership
agreement was factual, the sloooow 4H could have reminded
the hesitator's partner about this obscure extraordinary
partnership agreement, while an in-tempo 4H might have
seen the hesitator's partner carelessly pass a forcing
bid.

This has happened many times in partnerships using old-
fashioned Texas:

WEST      EAST
1NT       4H (in tempo transfer to spades)
Pass

Law 40E2 footnote:

"A player is not entitled, during the auction and play
periods, to any aids to his memory ... "


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

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