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

[Wayne Burrows]

On 01/07/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
> 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.

There is much more that is relevant than that.

It is relevant whether there has been damage.  If no damage then no
adjustment is warranted.

There would be no damage if on choosing 4S West would take another
move and slam would be reached anyway.

It is unclear what the best ruling is here since we would need to know
more about the the EW agreements.  What West would bid over the 4S
that the appeal committee required East to bid is far from clear to
me.

His partner has bid very strongly and he has the hK which he has
already claimed he had shown but also significant other extras - six
trumps to the AJ10 and a singleton club.  I for one would be a bidder
and not a passer of 4S but I could be convinced that this West might
pass if there was some special understanding about the bidding that I
do not understand.

Wayne