[blml] SF NABC #1

[Guthrie]

[Nige1]
[SNIP]
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.
[SNIP]

[Allain Gottcheiner]
That's the part I totally disagree with. A double on this hand is
automatic. It will nearly never be left in, of course, and the result 
is a bit unexpected, but what do you suggest ?
2D ? Most pairs play this as Canapé.
2S on a 10-count ?
Double says "I think we can make something, and I'm ready to play in
whichever strain you'll choose". IOW a perfect TO double.
The fact that it turns out right facing the actual hand doens't mean 
it was made to cater for a psyche. This is the C-word in disguise, and 
I wouldn't at all like to be called a C**** for making a perfect TO
double, whatever partner's hand turns out to be.

[Harald Skjæran]
Strongly agree with Alain and the AC.

[Nige1]
Alain and Harald agree with the committee that double seems OK; I 
agree too :) that is what I wrote :) but more relevant is what the 
players' *peers* think of it. The appellants  consulted  a group of 
top players who rejected it. As far as we know, the committee 
consulted nobody.

Alain introduces the C**** word. I'm sure that's a terrible mistake. 
Unfortunately, it is an attitude that the committee seemed to share. 
It drives players from the game. It encourages the paranoia that makes 
players resent adverse rulings, especially those that involve possible 
use of unauthorized information or concealed partnership 
understandings. In the UK, for example, a psych may be ruled 
suspicious, on the *balance of probability*, without slanderous 
imputation against the individual.