[blml] Honolulu wereWolff

[Adam Beneschan]

Richard wrote:
 
> Honolulu casebook comment, NABC+ appeal 1, Bobby Wolff:
> 
> >I had brought this type of case before the ACBL Laws
> >Commission where a hesitation was made by a player who (as
> >far as she was concerned) was in the pass out position
> >making it such that there is no chance she was committing
> >what I call hesitation disruption (HD) which would impart
> >UI to a partner who was certain to be advantaged by it.
> >Here, if her LHO now passed that would end the auction. In
> >spite of knowing that South was considering bidding on
> >West competed further therefore, at least to me,
> >forfeiting her rights, or at least lessening her advantage
> >to be able to cry out "HD". The ACBL Laws Commission made
> >no comment and certainly did not pursue it.

I had to reread the whole appeal carefully, because my first reaction
upon reading the above comment by Wolff was, "Ingles, por favor?"
Really, with this convoluted English, it took a fair amount of effort
just to figure out what he was saying.

West had T3 9653 KT743 K5.  At favorable vulnerability, East dealt and
opened 1D, South overcalled 2C, West bid 2D.  That wouldn't have been
my choice, but maybe their system didn't allow a preemptive raise
here.  North bid 2S, pass, South hesitated then passed.

West then bid 3D, leading to a situation where North's next call was
influenced by the UI.  North bid 4C, and it appears that the committee
ruled that North's bid was illegal but did not cause damage (the
damage part is the controversial aspect).

But Wolff is saying it's West's fault for bidding on.  With unshown
5-card support, West is supposed to keep silent (and let them play a
2-level contract at matchpoints) or else "condone" the hesitation,
i.e. make it legal for North to take advantage of it????????  I'll
remember that next time I'm in South's position, and I would like to
buy the contract and stop West from competing.  I'll just hesitate
before passing, and then West will be constrained either to let us
have the contract, or else he will be at a disadvantage because I've
just passed extra information to partner and he can use it legally.  

I think Wolff really went off the deep end on this one.  If you're
only going to bid 2D to start with, then competing to 3D is a 102%
action, and it is unimaginable to me that Wolff say that West
forfeited her rights by doing so.  It seems pretty bizarre.  I think
it's also bizarre to suggest (as Wolff seems to be saying) that if you
hesitate and then pass in an auction that you think is going to be
passed out, then you're not really transmitting UI, even if the
auction doesn't get passed out as you expected it to.  It's a little
like saying that if I drive my car forward because I don't expect you
to try to cross the street, but you cross it anyway and I run over
you, then you're not really injured.

                                -- Adam