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

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>an in-tempo 4H might have seen the hesitator's partner
>>carelessly pass a forcing bid.

Wayne Burrows:

>This seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred here.
>The East hand had undisclosed spade support

Richard Hills:

A minor but relevant for one imp quibble.  It is because
East had undisclosed spade support that the Director's
ruling of eleven tricks in 4H was changed by the Appeals
Committee to twelve tricks in 4S.

Wayne Burrows:

>It's more likely on this auction that any mis-
>understanding would propel them to slam rather than
>keep them out in my humble opinion.

Richard Hills:

Not so.  In my humble opinion an in-tempo 4H might have
seen the hesitator's partner reluctantly give up in 4S,
due to not remembering the alleged partnership agreement
that 4H was hypothetically a cuebid, rather than 4H with
the obvious surface meaning of the weakest possible call
attempting to signoff.  Then the hesitator might pass
4S, due to the apparent rejection by their partner of
their below-game try for slam.

And even if, in the absence of unauthorised information,
the partnership might misbid their way to slam due to
misunderstanding their agreements (whatever those
agreements might be), that is not relevant to a Law 16
ruling.  All that is relevant is whether there are
logical alternatives to bidding slam, and whether the
unauthorised information demonstrably suggested bidding
slam, and whether the deposit should be forfeited.  In
my humble opinion the answers to those three questions
are Yes, Yes and Yes.

In my humble opinion, an Appeals Committee is entitled
to forfeit a deposit even when it gives the appealing
side a one imp improvement on the Director's ruling, if
the appealing side's basis for the appeal was a
meritless request for a larger slam swing.


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