[blml] SF NABC #8

[Guthrie]

[San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 8]
Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals
East (Mitch Dunitz): S:84 H:T96 D:JT8643 C:AK

The auction:
-- -- -- 1S
_P 2S AP

The Facts: The director was called at trick one. North’s convention 
card was marked – four-card majors; South’s card – four plus hearts. 
West looked at card in pass out seat and decided to pass. When dummy 
was spread, West discovered a disparity between the convention cards 
on major suit opening length, called the director and said he would 
have balanced.

The Ruling: Misinformation was ruled. Three of three players who were 
consulted would pass 3S with the North hand. Therefore, the result was 
adjusted to 3D by East making three, E/W plus 110.

The Appeal: N/S did not have two convention cards that were the same. 
North had his card marked with check marks in the four-card major box 
for both hearts and spades. South had his card marked with a four in 
the heart box and a five in the spade box. Questioning of South by the 
committee ascertained that they were a new partnership that had 
“worked up their system” by an exchange of e-mails in the last few 
days before the tournament. The committee determined that their 
agreement was to open 1H with 4-4 in the majors and to open 1S only 
rarely with four (most of the time they would have five). They had no 
bid for a four-card simple raise. West had looked at North’s 
convention card prior to making a decision to pass rather than
balance. After passing, making his opening lead and seeing dummy West 
asked some questions about style. At that point it was determined that 
North’s card was not correctly filled out. The director was called at 
this time. West advised the director that he had passed because he 
thought N/S could be in a 4-3 fit. He told the director he might have 
balanced if he knew N/S probably had an eight-card or better fit. The 
director instructed the players to play the board. If West had asked 
questions before making his lead, the director could have reopened the
auction and permitted West to withdraw his pass. He could also have 
asked his questions prior to passing.

The Decision: The committee determined that there was MI and directed 
N/S to ensure that they had two identical cards that correctly set 
forth the partnership’s agreements. The committee decided that since a 
four-card major opening frequently has a five-card suit and that the 
raise to 2? could have contained four spades there was a high 
probability that N/S had an eight-card fit. West’s decision to hope 
the opponents were in a 4-3 fit was a narrow window. The committee 
determined that the decision to balance, when an eight-card or better 
fit was likely, was not materially affected by the MI. A substantial 
number of Wests did pass (many N/S pairs played spade partials). E/W 
were vulnerable and West was 3-3-4-3. Therefore, the committee 
restored the table result of 2? by South making three, N/S plus 140.

The Committee: Richard Popper (Chair), Mike Kovacich and Hendrick 
Sharples.

[nige1]
I agree with the committee on appeals 2-7 :) for what its worth :)

In appeal 8, however ...

1. In close cases, the benefit of the doubt should go to 
non-offenders. Here, IMO, East was damaged. IMO it is safer to protect 
when opponents probably have an eight or nine card fit than when 
opponent's fit is likely to be only seven of eight cards.

2. How far must East go to "protect himself"? When does "protecting 
yourself" become "harassment"? Asking for confirmation of a convention 
that is clearly and *positively* marked on the system card seems to be 
the latter rather than the former.

3. The committee judged the bidding at this table by the *results* at 
other tables. This seems OK as a rough indication; but it usually 
occasions howls of derision and screams of protest from BLMLers who 
point out that at other tables, the auction and inferences may be 
quite different.