[blml] SF NABC #1

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Guthrie a écrit :
> [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. 
I'd very much like to know what they suggested. Remember that the 
appellants had reasons to present the facts as such ; the Committee 
apparently didn't find many players who would have rejected it, and 
that's what counts (well, perhaps they didn't search).

> 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, 
Indeed. I strongly feel that saying "West doubled to cater for a psyche" 
can only be motivated by the surrounding paranoïa, or worse.

> 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.
>   
Indeed; but do you really feel, deep in your heart, that the double was 
suspect "on the balance of probability" ? Try feeding the hand into a 
poll. In France, you would get about 80% votes for a double. Less in 
America, I guess, because the tendency towards "major first" isn't as 
strong, and you'll get votes for 2D. But even so, double stands out.
So I say it once again : you're allowed to make an obvious bid, even if 
it turns out to be the best one facing partner's semi-psyche.

(in fact, I wouldn't call East's 1C opening a psyche. It isn't a *gross* 
misrepresentation. He only lied by one card, and notabout HCP)

Best regards

    Alain