[blml] Law 75D2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Matchpoint pairs
East dealer
Both vulnerable

The bidding has gone:

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       Pass      1H
2D        3H(1)     Pass      Pass
Pass(2)
?

(1) Not alerted, so implicitly described as a
limit raise, since the sponsoring organisation
alert regulation required other meanings for 3H
to be alerted.

(2) As required by Law 75D2, North called the
Director before the opening lead to advise that
3H should have been alerted, since the North-
South partnership understanding was that 3H
showed a pre-emptive raise.  As required by Law
21B1, the Director permitted West to retract
their Pass and substitute another call.

You, West, hold:

Q852
T4
AKQ864
A

What call do you substitute?
What other calls do you consider substituting?

*     *     *

It is interesting that none of the blmlers polled
opted for the wimpy, wimpy, wimpy rebid of 4D,
instead opting to keep game in spades in sight by
rebidding 3S or Double.

*     *     *

New Orleans 1995, Case Ten
Stratified Pairs Flight B/C/D

                 96
                 J975
                 T752
                 T64
Q852                             KJ74
T4                               Q8
AKQ864                           J9
A                                QJ752
                 AT3
                 AK632
                 3
                 K983

The bidding actually went:

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

(1) See above
(2) See above

Result: 4D made four, +130 for East-West.

Facts: South failed to Alert the 3H bid was
preemptive. The auction ended at 3H and North
announced the failure to Alert before the opening
lead. East and West were taken aside individually
by the Director and asked if they would have taken
any action with the correct information. East
indicated he would have considered action if the
3H bid had been Alerted but he was not specific.
West was given the opportunity to bid and she
elected to bid 4D. East-West discovered after the
hand had been played that they could have made 4S.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that the
best result likely for East-West was 4S made four.
The contract was changed to 4S made four, +620 for
East-West.

Committee Decision: The Committee examined East-
West's convention card and discovered that they
did not play responsive doubles. The convention
card indicated they did not play responsive
doubles. The convention card indicated they did
make sound overcalls. West was asked by the
Committee what she would have done if her partner
had doubled. She was adamant that she would not
have sat for the double and would have bid 4D. The
Director told the Committee that East indicated
that he would have bid if 3H had been Alerted, but
he was not specific about what that bid might have
been.

The Committee considered the result for each side.
Law 12C2 reads as follows:

[snip]

The Laws Commission has discussed that "likely" is
one chance in three and "probable" is one chance
in six.

The Committee first considered the most
unfavourable result that was at all probable for
North-South, the offending side. The Committee
decided that East might have bid 3S at least one
time in six. The contract was changed to 4S made
four, -620 for North-South.

The Committee now considered the result for East-
West at length. The Committee believed that West
was inexperienced (about 250 masterpoints) but
still should have reopened with 3S or doubled. If
East rebid 4C, West could have corrected to 4D.
The Committee also decided that East (600
masterpoints) should have deduced that something
was wrong with the auction. South opened the
bidding, West overcalled (they stated that they
played very sound overcalls), and North bid 3H.
East had 10 HCP and he might have examined South's
convention card or asked a question about 3H. The
Committee believed that 3S was the only bid East
could have made to get the partnership to 4S. The
Committee did not believe that this met the one
chance in three guidelines.  The Committee awarded
East-West the table result, +130 or average-plus
which ever was greater.

The Committee commended North for meeting his
ethical responsibility to inform the opponents
about the failure to Alert before the opening lead
was made.

Committee Chairperson: Alan LeBendig
Committee Members: John Blubaugh and Ed Lazarus

*     *     *

Michael Rosenberg, casebook panellist:

I really don't approve of this practice of pulling
players away from the table and asking them what
they would have done. Sooner or later, the bridge
population will figure out to always answer, "yes,
I would or might have bid or doubled or done
something other than what I actually did. These
matters should be considered by the Director or
the Committee if necessary.

Since responsive doubles were not being played,
East was stuck. In my opinion, East would have bid
3S shortly after Hell froze over, but I guess that
was a judgment call. East-West's bad result came
*subsequent* to the infraction, but came as a
*consequence* of not playing responsive doubles,
and West not knowing enough to double 3H.


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