[blml] SF NABC #13

[Guthrie]

[San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 13]
Blue Ribbon Pairs. 1st Final. Board 22. EW vul. East deals
West (Shirley Blum)...: S:J3 H:KQ95 D:AT C:AKQ83
East (Steve McConnell): S:AKQ542 H:A74 D:K73 C:9

The auction:
-- -- 1S _P
2C _P 3D _P
4N _P 5C _P
5D _P 5H _P
7N AP
5C = Shows three controls.
5H = A break in tempo (BIT) before bid, which denied the SQ.

The Facts: The director was called after the hand and after the 
opponents had left the table. When the E/W pair was questioned about 
the 5? call, both players agreed that there had been a BIT. There was 
no agreement by either pair as to the length of the BIT.

The Ruling: The director determined that there was UI and that the BIT 
suggested additional values. If West didn’t care about the SQ, she 
should have bid 7NT after 5C. Therefore, in accordance with laws 16 
and 12C2, the result was adjusted to 6NT by West making seven, E/W 
plus 1470.

The Appeal: E/W were relatively inexperienced as a partnership, having 
played “a bit” on the Internet. Their system is two over one. The 3S 
bid showed 16-17 HCP and did not promise solid or semi-solid spades 
(They seemed to be unfamiliar with that treatment.). 4NT was Roman 
Keycard Blackwood in spades and the follow-up was the queen ask. At
that point, East did not know how to show the queen and decided that 
he would bid 5H, uncertain of its meaning, and then bid more later. 
West thought 5H denied the SQ but bid 7NT anyway thinking that East 
had to have other good card to make up his compliment of HCP to make 
his hand good enough to bid 3S. She thought that two side jacks 
instead of the SQ could make 7NT playable, so she bid it.
The committee asked West why she asked for the SQ if she was going to 
bid 7NT anyway. She said she asked for it so that she wouldn’t have to 
think about whether to bid 7NT. When her partner denied the SQ, she 
thought about hand possibilities that would make 7NT playable without 
bringing in the spade suit. She decided in favor of 7NT.

The Decision: When West made her decision to bid 7NT she already had 
interpreted her partner’s hand to be 16-17 HCP with six spades. Her 
partner’s BIT may have suggested his lack of certainty about how to 
deny the SQ more than anything else, which his bidding had already 
shown. In fact, in terms of HCP, East was at the bottom of his bid,
thus not possessing extra strength according to this partnership’s 
understanding. Since East’s hesitation seems to be the result of 
random confusion, the committee decided that the BIT did not 
demonstrably suggest a line of action to West. West was permitted to
make her choice of bid unconstrained. Therefore, the committee 
restored the table result of 7NT by West making seven, E/W
plus 2220.

The Committee: Michael Huston (Chair), Shannon Cappelletti and Jacob 
Morgan.

[Nige1]
It doesn't matter what East was really thinking about before denying 
SQ with is 5H bid. It matters what the hesitation implies to West.
For West the inference is *either*
[A] *He holds SQ* but is minimum for his jump rebid and seems to hold 
a misfit, so is reluctant to  encourage partner *or*
[B] He lacks SQ but has *substantial extra values*, so is reluctant to 
sign off.

In either case, the unauthorised information makes 7N a better 
prospect than the lesser scoring logical alternative of a small slam; 
hence IMO the committee ruled incorrectly. Worse: they encouraged more 
pairs to adopt "hesitation Blackwood".