[blml] Warsaw appeal no. 13

[Wayne Burrows]

On 29/06/07, Steve Willner <willner at cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> From: "Harald Skjæran" <harald.skjaran at gmail.com>
> > Look at the last appeal here:
> > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2006.pdf
>
> > The first thing to do is to show that the chosen action demonstrably have
> > been suggested over another by the UI transmitted.
>
> While this is of course true, it's pretty obvious in the case cited.
> The player thinks and then makes a minimum bid (4H) in partner's suit,
> which he has previously supported.  What bid could he have been thinking
> of that would have been weaker?
>

He may not have been thinking of any bid.

Partner made a simple overcall and then jumped in a new suit and then
had something in reserve to make a cue-bid when we had simply given
preference.

I would sit there and wonder a little exactly what partner had before
I gave any consideration to what partner had.  This reason for a
departure from normal tempo does not demonstrably suggest any
alternative.

Wayne