[blml] EHAA [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Swiss Teams
Dlr: East
Vul: Both

The bidding has gone:

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       1D        Pass
2D        Pass      Pass      ?

You, South, hold:

QT72
AQ32
Q3
984

What call do you make?

Richard Hills:

"Pass."

What other calls do you consider making?

Richard Hills:

"Pass.  This is partly a matter of style.  The Al Roth
style of the 1950s was to require very heavy values for
initial action, so therefore very frequent protective
balancing.  In my opinion, more problems are given to
the opponents by requiring very light values for initial
action, so therefore very rare protective balancing.

"A flaw in balancing theory is that it makes the
unjustified assumption that the opponents know what they
are doing."

Hans van Staveren:

>...a glance at the convention card to make sure they
>are not playing inverted minors and forgetting...

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm
EBU Appeals Casebook 2006, number 17

Tournament Director:
Andrew Crawford

Appeals Committee:
Frances Hinden (Chairman) Matt Haag Paul Lamford

Swiss Teams        9654
Dlr: East          KJ64
Vul: All           J7
                   J73
K3                                     AJ8
975                                    T8
AT8642                                 K95
AT                                     KQ652
                   QT72
                   AQ32
                   Q3
                   984

Basic systems:
East-West play Every Hand An Adventure

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

(1) Weak hand with diamonds

Result at table:
3NT making by West, NS -600, lead Hx

Director first called:
At end of auction

Director's statement of facts:
TD was called at the end of the auction and
established the above auction. After the hand had been
played West said he thought his partner had opened 1H.

Director's ruling:
Table result stands

Details of ruling:
TD advised the players that N/S had been given a
correct explanation of the E/W bidding system and
therefore the result stood.

Appeal lodged by:
North-South

Appeals Committee decision:
Score assigned for both sides (Law 12C3):
50% of 2D +3 by E/W, NS -150
+ 50% of 3NT making by E/W, NS -600
Deposit returned

Appeals Committee's comments:
Correct explanation was "no agreement". On being told
that South has to guess whether to protect or not.

Note West has UI from the lack of alert and
explanation, but we did not think that assuming a 1st
in hand game all 1D psyche was a logical alternative
so allow the 3NT bid.

South must protect if 2D is weak to protect a
possible game or certain partial swing - he simply has
to guess given the correct explanation.

L&E Comment:
The Committee considered the response of the pair, who
described their system as "Every Hand An Adventure".
Whilst EHAA is a published system with a fairly long
pedigree it is practically unknown in this country.
The pair had submitted their system card on request
which was perfectly satisfactory. The secretary is to
write thanking them for their co-operation.

Casebook panellist Frances Hinden's comments:
I don't recall being told at the AC hearing that West
thought East had opened 1H; he did not say anything to
that effect at the hearing (although it is possible it
was written on the form and we did not notice). The
ruling we gave was based on West thinking they played
inverted raises and East thinking they didn't whilst
the system card did not specify. If we had believed
that the agreement was that single raises were weak,
the TD's ruling would have been upheld.

Casebook panellist Jeffrey Allerton's comments:
The TD had written on the appeals form: "After the
hand had been played West said he thought his partner
had opened 1H." It is apparent from the AC ruling and
comments that either they were not aware of this
statement or they simply did not believe it; they
ruled on the basis that West knew what East had
opened 1D but that there had been a misunderstanding
over whether or not inverted raises were in use.
Most representations are made verbally at English
appeals, but this case demonstrates that it is worth
reading the form as well in case some points have
been omitted.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills
Graduates and Developmental Training Section
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
Telephone: 02 6223 9067
Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au

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