[blml] Be prepared! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

>Imps
>Dlr: West
>Vul: Nil
>
>The bidding has gone:
>
>WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>3D        3S        5D        5S
>Pass      ?
>
>You, North, hold:
>
>AJ752
>A
>A32
>KT72
>
>Do you agree with the previous 3S overcall?

Richard Hills:

No.

In my opinion to immediately overcall 3S is a
slight underbid.  My preference would be to
double 3D, then rebid 3S after pard's likely
3H.  In my style this two-step shows extra
strength (plus it has the further advantage
of possibly finding a cold 6C which might be
impossible to reach after a mere overcall in
spades).

>What call do you make now?

Richard Hills:

After endplaying myself in the auction by my
previous slight underbid, I have no choice
but to pass now.  From partner's point of
view, pard correctly believes that after my
strength-limiting mere overcall, pard is
captain of the auction.  Therefore, East may
have all the outstanding values, 5D may be
cold (due to East's spade void), and pard
will not be impressed if his -300 save in 5Sx
is unilaterally converted to a -500 oversave
in 6Sx.

John Probst:

>I just cannot buy a pass at all.

Harald Skjæran:

>I agree with John that pass is no LA here.

WBF Code of Practice:

"A 'logical alternative' is a different
action that, amongst the class of players in
question and using the methods of the
partnership, would be given serious
consideration by a significant proportion of
such players, of whom it is reasonable to
think some might adopt it."

Richard Hills:

I am not in South's class of player, because I
did not agree with South's 3S overcall.

Therefore, my views on the logic of captaincy
in this auction do not mean that the logical
call of pass is a so-called "logical"
alternative for South.  Given the WBF CoP
definition, "logical" is a misnomer.

This thread started in July 2004, when blmlers
were given the South cards and asked to
"prepare" a call over 5D with:

KQ3
KJT8742
85
A

Two blmlers (Wayne Burrows and James Hudson)
got their values off their chest by forcing
to slam, willing to take the small risk of
losing the first two diamond tricks.  At the
time I wrote, inter alia,

"...The correct answer is to prepare your
call by a thoughtful break in tempo.  After
that judicious pause, you then bid 5S.  Pard
will then know that:

(a) Your 5S is not a sacrifice against an
opposing cold 5D, and..."

Frances Hinden:

>I don't understand those who say "pass is not
>a LA". It would not occur to me to bid on.
>
>Pre-empting what may not be the point of the
>hand at all, I don't think a slow 5S suggests
>any particular call. I've already said all this
>twice already: once when I chaired the appeal,
>and once when I subsequently commentated on it.
>It's reassuring to me that I haven't changed my
>mind!

Richard Hills:

Yes, the actual TD made a possibly erroneous
judgement that Pass _was not_ a "logical"
alternative for South.  The actual AC made a
possibly erroneous judgement that Pass _was_ a
"logical" alternative for South.  The actual AC
majority made a possibly erroneous judgement
that the slow 5S demonstrably suggested bidding
slam.  While subsequently Frances, in the actual
AC minority, gained official support for her
views.

EBU Law and Ethics Committee:

>>The L&E is on record as concluding that in many
>>situations a slow bid is more likely to suggest
>>extra values than that the bid is a stretch.
>>However, the L&E doubts that this is a valid
>>conclusion of general application when a player
>>is under pressure at a high level.  Accordingly,
>>although the TD's conclusion that Pass was not a
>>logical alternative does not seem right, it
>>would not have been surprising if the score had
>>been allowed to stand on the basis that the
>>successful action was not suggested by the
>>unauthorised information.

[snip]


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch, DIAC
02 6223 9052

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