[blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[David Burn]

Sorry for top-posting, but this is even more absurd that Probst's recent
efforts. West thought that 1NT showed the black suits. On what basis other
than raving insanity, therefore, did the AC decide that 1NT doubled by East
would become the final contract?

David Burn
London, England

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Sent: 22 September 2007 03:36
To: blml at rtflb.org
Subject: Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick
[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

It is interesting that of the four blmlers who
responded to the poll, all four were blinded by
their "fully sick" six-bagger, so chose to rebid
2D.  Furthermore, only two of those four even
bothered contemplating the alternative of pass.

Given the vulnerability and the matchpoint form
of scoring, sending 1NT two off for +200 is a
hugely better score than playing 2D for +130.

And South's "fully sick" six-bagger is a two-
way advantage.  If South chooses to defend 1NT
and North has a quick stopper outside the heart
suit, then South will be able to cash many tricks
against 1NT, so +200 or better on defence is very
plausible.

But although a pass of 1NT has been demonstrated
to be a logical alternative, the blml poll
suggests that a pass of 1NT is not a "logical
alternative".

As has been noted before, the term "logical
alternative" is a misnomer, since the WBF Code of
Practice defines:

"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."

If the four blmler respondents are representative
of South's class of player, then a 2D rebid is
the only "logical alternative", since none of
them adopted any other call.

A problem occurs when members of an Appeals
Committee are more expert than the actual South,
so therefore confuse a logical alternative with
a "logical alternative".  See attached.

Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

*     *     *

New Orleans 1995 appeals casebook
Case 7
NABC Life Master Pairs

Dlr: South        Helen Fournier
Vul: East-West    AKT4
                  9754
                  9
                  QJ84
Andrew Bernstein                  Steve Natelson
Q92                               J7
T32                               KJ86
753                               K82
9653                              AKT2
                  Mark Parent
                  8653
                  AQ
                  AQJT64
                  7

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

(1) Alerted: Explained as a weak takeout for
clubs and spades.

Result: 3D made four, +130 for North-South.

Facts: West Alerted the 1NT overcall as a weak
takeout, usually 5-5 in the unbid suits. This
"Sandwich Notrump" convention was not listed on
their convention card. The notrump bidder
obviously thought his bid was natural and
strong. East announced the misinformation before
the opening lead.

Director's Ruling: The Director ruled that
misinformation had been given and the result was
changed to average-plus for North-South and
average-minus for East-West.

Committee Decision: South claimed he would have
passed (rather than bid 2D) had he not been
given misinformation. They believed that North
would have doubled and 1NT would have gone down
four for +1100. The Committee decided that
misinformation had been given and the contract
was changed to 1NT doubled down three, +800 for
North-South. This result gave declarer the best
of it, because it allowed for a small heart
shift to set up a heart trick.

The real problem that faced the Committee was to
determine if pass was a plausible action even if
most players would have bid 2D. Should the
Committee heavily favor the nonoffending side?
The Committee decided that pass was a logical
alternative and +800 for North-South was the
unanimous decision.

The Committee voted 3-2 to assess a one
matchpoint procedural penalty against East-West
because the misinformation was explained before
the opening lead. The Law requires that the
defending side make this explanation at the end
of play. This information should have been given
after play of the hand.

Dissenting Opinion from Committee Chairperson
Bill Passell: East announced that misinformation
had been given before the opening lead in an
attempt to be as ethical as possible. Damage did
not occur because of this announcement. I do not
believe that this situation should be penalized
automatically. A reprimand for East would have
been sufficient in this case.

Chairperson: Bill Passell
Committee Members: Bob Glasson, Jim Linhart,
Richard Popper and Norma Sands



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


_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml at amsterdamned.org
http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml