The Committee
said that players using destructive and complex or unfamiliar (to the public)
conventions have a special obligation to know these methods and present them
clearly to their opponents. The 2© opening is such a convention and West's uncertainty
over the meaning of a redouble at his first turn (by his admission there was
little partnership discussion about this convention) is evidence of a failure
to meet an acceptable standard of development in a normal situation.
Although West's argument about his opponent's
degree of preparation in such a common situation might have merit in a flighted
or closed event, it was quite inappropriate in an open field of very mixed
standard, particularly since different federations adopt such different
approaches to the use of destructive methods in their mainstream events. The
Committee stressed that West should have realised that South's belated opinion
about the values shown by North's 3¨ was not an expression of a firm agreement but simply an
attempt to be helpful. Having chosen not to involve his partner in the final
decision he should have been prepared to accept the consequences. Bringing the
appeal to Committee suggests that West was unwilling to recognise his
responsibility in creating the problem.
Dissenting opinion (David Stevenson): It is
not unreasonable for general conventions in defence to be known as much as for
the opening side. Especially for a player from a European country where such
openings are normal it is a reasonable expectation for opponents to know
whether they play Lebensohl or not, giving the Appeal merit. The Committee
mentioned the advantage of all players attending since North's comment at the
start of the round could not be verified in East's absence.
|