[blml] SF NABC #1

[Guthrie]

[San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 1]
Open LM Pairs Final. Board 2. NS E deals
East (Roy Welland): S:KJ942 H:J982 D:K3 C:KQ
West (Bobby Levin): S:7 H:K7543 D:AQ75 C:J93

Auction:
-- -- 1C _P
1H _P 1S _P
_X AP

The Facts: The director was called after the afternoon session. 1C 
was, by agreement, natural.

The Ruling: In accordance with law 40 A, a player is permitted to make 
an intentionally misleading call. Since there is no evidence of a 
concealed understanding and West’s double is considered to be a normal 
action, the table result of 1S doubled, down one, N/S minus 200, was 
allowed to stand.

The Appeal: North said that he believed West’s double was very 
unusual, since West would not be interested in defending 1S doubled. 
He said he had given West’s bidding problem to three “nationally 
experienced” players and no one chose to double as West had done. He 
said, “If I thought double were a usual bid, I wouldn’t be here.” 
East made no assertion that his hand was missorted. The 1S bid, by 
agreement, was natural.

The Decision: While recognizing the eccentricity of East’s bidding, 
the committee noted that law 40 (noted by the director) gives a player 
the right to make intentionally misleading calls. As a matter of 
bridge judgment, the committee found nothing abnormal about West’s 
reopening double. Accordingly, the committee could find no infraction 
or impropriety on which to base an adjustment. Although East’s opening 
1C bid was eccentric and his pass of the 1S overcall arguably unusual, 
there was nothing to indicate they were predicated on any impropriety 
or infraction. West’s 1H bid was ordinary and his double was hardly 
unusual, so there did not appear to be “fielding of a psych.” The 
director informed North that if he felt there should be a record of 
this E/W’s bidding, a player memo would be appropriate. The committee 
believed that a bridge appeals committee was not the proper venue to 
air this matter. Therefore, an appeal without merit warning (AWMW) was 
issued to N/S.

The Committee: Barry Rigal (Chair), Michael Huston, Eugene Kales, Ed 
Lazarus and Chris Moll.

[Nige1]

1. Apparently East habitually opens 1C on a two card suit. That is not 
"natural". On its own, it warrants a director call and an appeal.

2. The committee correctly note that East's pass of 1S is unusual. I 
agree that a pass with *four card support* for partner's hearts and 
two doubletons is weird. Unless East's pass is forcing? In which case, 
should it be alerted? Did the committee enquire?

3. A group of EW peers unanimously reject West's reopening double.  I 
agree with the committee that it seems OK; but I'm not competing in 
the LM pairs. If the committee feel the consulted group are 
unrepresentative, they should poll others, themselves.
Anyway, the double does appear to cater for a psychic 1C opening.

4. IMO the Issue of an AWMW by the AC is ridiculous. The committee 
seem to be embarrassed by a "possible psych-fielding" allegation 
against a high-profile pair; but despite the committee's protests, it 
seems to me that a single suspicious case may still be an infraction 
and appropriate fare for directors and committees.

5. IMO, the committee should award themselves an appeal without merit 
warning.