[blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

David Grabiner:

[snip]

>I have about what partner expects me to have; the 5-5 distribution is
>an extra value, but the doubleton club is not an asset since partner
>probably has one or two.  In addition, the opponents are more likely
>to have gone to the 5-level when they shouldn't have gone, since it
>was the preemptor who bid on.  Thus I pass, after some consideration
>of 5H if partner's double shows extras.  I don't consider 5D because
>this is matchpoints, and 5D cannot be a good score if 4H was making.
>
>I would give East a bit of leeway if his second double was slow,
>because this was an unexpected auction.

*     *     *

EBU appeals casebook 2001, number 4 "Why take out?"

Tournament Director:
Chris Barrable

Appeals Committee:
Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal Steve Eginton

Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs      92
Dlr: South                    J2
Vul: Both                     3
                              AKQJ9863
K                                                      A863
A6543                                                  KQ9
JT542                                                  AKQ86
T2                                                     7
                              QJT754
                              T87
                              97
                              54

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       ---       Pass
Pass      4C        Dble(1)   Pass
4H        5C        Dble(2)   Pass
5D        Pass      6H        Pass
Pass      Pass

(1) Not alerted, not disputed, however was for take out
(2) Not alerted, but was made after hesitation

Result at table:
6H making by West, NS -1430

Director first called:
At end of auction

Director's statement of facts:
TD was called to table by North who reserved rights as a result of the
agreed hesitation prior to the second double.

Director's ruling:
Table result stands

Details of ruling:
TD believes West will bid 5D after partner's second double in 70%+
cases. The first was takeout and even though not alerted is played as
such. Law 16A.

Note by editor:
Under EBU regulations, all unalerted doubles above 3S are for penalties.

The definition of a logical alternative action in EBU events is one that
at least 30% of a player's peers would find if playing a similar system
and style. Thus if a call would be found by more than 70% of a player's
peers there is no logical alternative to it and the call is considered
evident. Note that the definition of logical alternative tends to be
different outside the United Kingdom.

Appeal lodged by:
North-South

Appeals Committee decision:
Director's ruling upheld
Deposit returned

Appeals Committee's comments:
We felt that the 5D bid was clear cut. When 4C is doubled for take out
the double of 5C can't be out and out penalties - just showing a good
hand.

*     *     *

Richard Hills:

I agree with Matthias Berghaus, Tony Musgrove and David Grabiner that
passing 5Cx is a logical action for West.  I am particularly impressed
that Matthias took the trouble to construct a plausible East hand which
was consistent with East's bidding (the actual East's bunny bidding was
totally inconsistent) in which 5H or 5D was hopeless, while 5C would
likely suffer an 800 penalty.

David Stevenson (casebook panellist):

>>Surely everyone will bid 5D? There seems little merit in this appeal.

Herman De Wael (casebook panellist):

>>Nothing to add. 5D is clear-cut.

Richard Hills:

But while it is logical to pass 5Cx if you are an analytical expert, a
pass is not a logical alternative for a superficial bunny, who is
dazzled by their 5-5 in the reds, so automatically bids 5D.  Given that
East's auction demonstrably proves that they were a bunny, it is likely
that West was also a bunny, so it is likely that the TD and AC gave the
correct ruling.

Ergo, David Stevenson was also correct in his hint that perhaps the
North-South deposit should have been retained rather than returned.

Likewise, Herman De Wael correctly eschewed logorrhea this time.

:-)


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6225 6285

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