[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Eric Landau]

On Oct 25, 2007, at 5:30 AM, <gesta at tiscali.co.uk>  
<gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>          +=+ The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee asked me to make this
> decision known on blml:-
>
> Dealer E
> N/S vul
>
> North
> Swiss Pairs
>
> ª
> ©
> ¨
> §
> A 4
> A 5 4
> A Q 10 6 5
> Q J 7
>
> West
> East
>
> ª
> ©
> ¨
> §
> K 10 7 5
> J 10 8 7 6 3
> -
> K 10 2
> ª
> ©
> ¨
> §
> Q J 9 3
> K 2
> K J 3 2
> 9 5 4
>
> South
>
> ª
> ©
> ¨
> §
> 8 6 2
> Q 9
> 9 8 7 4
> A 8 6 3
> Bidding:
>
> West
>
> North
>
> East
>
> South
>
> 1NT1
> Pass
>
> 2¨2
> Dbl
> PassA3
> 3¨
>
> 3©
> 3NT
> Pass
> Pass
>
> Pass
> 1          10-13
> 2          Explained simply as “transfer”
> 3          Denies 3-card support
>
> Result:                        3NT–2 N/S –200
>
> Tournament Director’s statement of facts & ruling
>
> Phone call was made late on Friday night to register a request for  
> a ruling; details were submitted on Saturday afternoon.
>
> N/S are claiming damage on the grounds that the 3© bid should have  
> been alerted, as its meaning was affected by other agreements, and  
> that the “transfer” explanation was insufficient.  E/W play that an  
> immediate 3© response to 1NT is pre-emptive.  N claims that, armed  
> with this knowledge, it is less likely that she would have bid 3NT.
>
> I ruled that 3© is not alertable – it is competitive in nature, and  
> is scarcely affected by undisclosed agreements.  The opponents  
> could reasonably expect that there were other such agreements, and  
> had the opportunity to ask for any further implications about the bid.
>
> 3© was a free bid, and therefore hardly likely to be made on a weak  
> hand.  Even with a “correct” explanation, I don’t believe that N  
> would have bid any differently.
>
> I allowed the result to stand.
>
> Appeals Committee’s decision
>
> Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3© is alertable.
>
> If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might  
> not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time.  Because  
> N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here.
>
> We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information  
> here.  If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain.
>
> We adjusted the score to:-
>
> 15% of             3©–1 by W            N/S +50
> plus     85% of             3NT–2 by N            N/S –200
>
> L&E comment:
>
> It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included  
> in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible  
> argument that N was not damaged.  However, the L&E has concluded on  
> balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the  
> 3© bid did not require an alert.
>
> From N’s perspective the likely strength for W’s 3© ranged from  
> merely competitive to positively invitational.  The fact that a  
> purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been  
> inferred from W’s decision to bid again.  The third basic alerting  
> rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is  
> “natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your  
> opponents are unlikely to expect”.  The degree of unexpectedness of  
> the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to  
> require an alert.
>
> Mr Endicott undertook to place the agreed minute on BLML.
The TD got it right, and should have been upheld.

I play very similar methods (10-12 1NT, 1NT-P-3H preemptive).  There  
is virtually no negative inference on this auction from West's  
failure to bid 3H initially.  Perhaps he was simply hoping to buy the  
contract at the 2-level.  Perhaps he was prepared to defend 2S or 3C  
but not 3D.  3H presumably expressed a desire to play in 3H.  If the  
negative inferences on this auction require an alert, there would be  
very few bids that don't.

P.S.  This reply demonstrates why we should avoid posting in HTML;  
plain text only, please.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net