[blml] SF NABC #8

[Guthrie]

[San Francisco NABC+ Appeal 8 corrected]
Blue Ribbon Pairs. 2nd Qualifying. Board 7. Both vul. South deals
East (Mitch Dunitz): S:84 H:T96 D:JT8643 C:AK
West (Ralph Katz)..: S:AT2 H:853 D:AK97 C:J42

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-West were 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-West go to "protect themselves"? When does 
"protecting yourself" become "harassment" or "unathourised 
information"? Asking for confirmation of a convention  that is clearly 
and *positively* marked on the system card seems to fit 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.