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

[David Burn]

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of David Burn
Sent: 22 September 2007 05:08
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blml] The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep is sick
[SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

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?

[res ipsa loquitur]

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.

[At this point it may safely be assumed that the Director was some
time-server who couldn't be bothered to do his job.]

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

[They believed that North would have doubled precisely what? Remember that
West has alerted 1NT and explained it as a "weak takeout for clubs and
spades". Do they seriously suggest that West would have passed 1NT? It
appears that they do, for...]

and 1NT would have gone down four for +1100. 

[I have not analysed the play in 1NT doubled, for I was not one of this
idiot Committee who believed that the hand could ever have been played in
1NT doubled. I have no doubt that their analysis is as meticulous as one
would expect from a pack of dogs barking not so much up the wrong tree as in
the wrong forest. But somehow, I cannot bring myself to care.]


I don't know what point you're trying to make, Richard. But this "example"
ought not to have seen the light of day as supporting evidence. Or indeed at
all.

David Burn
London, England