[blml] The dog in the night

[Sven Pran]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Willner
> Sent: 8. juli 2007 19:31
> To: blml at rtflb.org
> Subject: Re: [blml] The dog in the night
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, I offered:
> > MP/EW vul/Dlr W
> >     K32
> >     972
> >     AQ752
> >     A8
> > QJ84    AT76
> > A6      JT8
> > KJT96   84
> > J3      QT96
> >     95
> >     KQ543
> >     3
> >     K7542
> 
> > Auction:
> > 1D!-P-1S!-?P
> > 2S-?..P-P-2NT
> > P-3NT-AP
> >
> > 1D was alerted (not announced).  North passed without asking.  After 1S
> > was alerted, South asked about the auction and was told that 1D showed
> > nothing about diamonds and either 14-16 balanced or 11-15 unbalanced
> > with at least one 4cM.  1S was natural but could be quite weak if short
> > in diamonds.
> >
> > Over 2S, North re-asked about the auction, getting the same information
> > given to South plus an explanation of 2S: 3 or 4 card support but not
> > maximum with 4 spades and not balanced 11-13.  After hearing the
> > answers, including those to several supplementary questions, North
> > paused awhile then passed.
> 
> There were no comments on this except that pass was not a LA for South.
> The ruling at the table didn't reach that question.  The TD ruled (after
> consultation), that North's actions didn't suggest anything except
> trying to come to grips with an unfamiliar situation.
> 
> That seems a fair enough ruling.  The problem is, at the table, it was
> quite clear that North was showing values.  (I was West.)  Is there any
> way the TD could have known that, other than the obviously-biased EW
> testimony?
> 
> Later on, it occurred to me that there might have been.  Doesn't a North
> who is just trying to understand what's going on ask about the alerted
> 1D bid?  (In practice, virtually every pair we meet asks about the bid;
> it is highly unusual for anyone not to do so.)  We're all used to
> drawing inferences in the play when an opponent fails to so something
> expected.  (Hence the subject line, which will be familiar to Sherlock
> Holmes fans.)  Is this an instance where a TD could draw the same sort
> of inference?  I don't think I've seen this suggested before; is there
> anything to it?
> 
> (A different ruling wouldn't have changed our results; we got quite a
> good score on the board anyway.)

If North is really trying to understand what is going on for the purpose of
selecting his call there is of course good reason for asking.

But generally I can imagine at least two good reasons for not asking, at
least not asking until the play period is about to begin:

You do not believe at the time that the explanation will influence your
selection of a call. (So sorry if you later find out that it would in fact
have done!)

You suspect that there can be some misunderstanding and do not want to help
opponents finding out.

(Not considering the reality in your situation).

Regards Sven