[blml] Heartless [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Alain Gottcheiner:

>I have to raise unambiguously. If I doubled ("cards"), I'd be
>exposed to a 4D fit-jump or the like.

Richard Hills:

Even if Double was, by agreement, a Support Double (showing three
spades), you would be leaving pard in the dark about the playing
strength of your hand, so pard and/or you could be forced to a
guess whether to play or defend if LHO pre-empts.

Alain Gottcheiner:

>My valuation tells me to raise to 3S (6 losers but many tricks).
>Playing strong notrumps, this shows genuine clubs by inference.

Richard Hills:

At the table South chose the equivalent call of a 3H cue-raise,
since in the North-South methods 3S would be a pre-emptive raise.

John Probst:

>>3S ..... this hand smells of foul breaks.

Richard Hills:

At the table North accepted the invitation to game, but there were
not any foul breaks, since there was a friendly 3-3 heart break ->

Matchpoint pairs
Dlr: East
Vul: North-South

The bidding went:

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       Pass      1C
1H        1S(1)     2H        3H(2)
Pass      4S        Pass      Pass
Pass

(1) Promises at least five spades (would negative double with only
    four spades)
(2) Inviting game in spades

                    AT632
                    T73
                    A9
                    T93
J84                                    Q7
AK9                                    Q84
KQ84                                   JT7652
764                                    82
                    K85
                    J652
                    3
                    AKQJ5

East led the four of hearts.  The defenders cashed the first three
hearts tricks, then waited to collect their eventual trump trick
for one off.  This was a top, as all other North-South pairs gained
a plus score, since against other 4S contracts West did not choose
a 1H lead-directing overcall, causing East to choose a diamond lead
instead.  (Ace of diamonds, ace and king of spades, run clubs, thus
getting to pitch a heart before West could ruff in.)

East-West were an occasional partnership, with this session on 31st
May being their first game together since 19th January (although
they are opponents on a regular basis each Wednesday evening).

Shortly before the session started, East was bewailing how his
other partner psyched, ruining any chance of a place in a regional
congress.  West replied:

"I never psyche....."

{Gales of laughter from East and all other players within earshot.}

".....except when it works."

This board was West's only psyche of the session, and it worked.

Do East and West have a concealed partnership agreement?
Or do East and West have a revealed but illegal partnership
agreement?
As Director, how would you rule?


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