[blml] SF NABC #13

[Adam Beneschan]

> I find this format very difficult to read. Can you supply links for the 
> cases?

There appear to be other problems with this...  For example, here's
how one of the paragraphs appeared in my news reader:

  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 E/W pair was questioned about the *what* call?

Then, I saw this 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.

It sure looked to me like the break in tempo was possibly because
opener wasn't sure what suit had been set as trumps.  (She had both SK
and DK so this wouldn't have been a problem last round.)  But later I
saw this:

  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

What 3S bid?

I haven't read beyond that.  I guess I'll have to go to the online
link. 

                                -- Adam