[blml] SF NABC #10

[Guthrie]

[Jerry Fusselman]
After looking at a dozen cases, at last I can disagree once with 
Nigel---I hate to think I never have anything to add.  Am I correct in
assuming that Nigel agrees with every aspect of this committee decision?

Anyway, the case is at
http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/SanFrancisco2007/NABC+10.pdf.  There is
no commentary yet, so I am sticking my neck out.

Actually, I agree with the committee's in every way except one.  I
think the appeal has no merit, and a PP should be assessed.  These are
the facts from the case that make me think so.

1.  NS violated ACBL procedure by announcing a transfer here---it was
not after their NT opening or overcall.
2.  The announcement of transfer would not be adequate if they were
really playing Canape, as they later claimed.
3.  There were no alerts of Canape bids.
4.  There were no system notes of a possible Canape style.

(The committe did not even mention #1.)

Therefore, all evidence is for misexplanation, not misbid.  South 
eggregiously used the UI of an improper announcement to attempt to
rescue the situation.  An ideal case for PP at the table, and a
finding of lack of merit in committee.

[nige1]
I agree with Jerry that the committee should have seriously considered 
issuing a PP. Jerry knows I'm no legal expert, just an ordinary 
player, so I'm flattered by his overall endorsement of my gut reactions.

I enjoyed skimming through the SF NABC+ appeals reports. I thought the 
rulings where much easier to understand than usual but I commented on 
a few that intrigued me. I also hoped that BLMLers would help our 
education by high-lighting interesting points and anomalies that I 
missed.

I'm especially grateful to Jerry for his insights into American 
regulations e.g. Announcements :)

Incidentally, I don't understand the American use of the term 
"Canapé". For me a "Canapé bid" is a bid of a suit with the systemic 
agreement that you may hold a longer suit. (As NS did in this appeal 
#10). When I referred to SAYC "1C" and "1D" bids as "Canapé", however, 
Americans contradicted me! In another appeal [SF NABC #7] the 
committee fined a pair 1/6 of a board for failing to "pre-alert" an 
opening of 1H with four-four in the red suits as "Canapé"! Seems weird 
to me :(

This illustrates another problem with (IMO unnecessary and 
idiosyncratic) local regulations. Not only do they render appeals much 
less useful as case law.  Typically, their proliferation also 
engenders a vast new vocabulary. When that vocabulary uses familiar 
words in inconsistent new ways, confusion is inevitable.