[blml] alertability

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner
> Two questions about alerts and explanations arose among our group. We'd
> very much appreciate your comments on them.
> 
> 1. The bidding :
> N     E     S   W
> 1C   1H   X    p
> 1S   2D
> 
> Now South asks West whether they have 2-suited conventions.

This question is "questionable". South should ask for a (complete)
explanation of the auction so far (i.e. East's calls) and may follow up with
the above question on whether they have 2-suited conventions in their system
and in case what such (or other) alternative calls would have shown.

> Assume they indeed play that 2NT shows 55+ in hearts and diamonds ;
> apparently that's what South would like to know ; but they play it "strong
> or weak".
> 
> Should West :
> a) answer affirmatively, and volunteer the information that 2NT would have
> been strong/weak, so that partner probably has an intermediate-strength
> 55.

If that is the agreement/understanding then yes, absolutely.

> b) answer affirmatively, and that's all, because if South wants to know
> whether a 55 is still possible, he should ask.

This is precisely why leading questions are "questionable".

Law 75C: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply
to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special
information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general
knowledge and experience.

Notice that "inference drawn from his general knowledge and experience" only
includes inference that should be expected obvious also to the opponents.

> c) answer affimatively, and that's all, because 2D seems to show 55 anyway
> (bridge logic ; with 54, double) and because an experienced player should
> know there are hands unsuitable for a 2NT bid anyway (poor O/DR).

This seems poor excuses for not giving a full explanation.

> 
> 2. You have an agreement that weak suits may be bypassed ; for example,
> you
> might answer 1NT to 1C within the usual range, while holding a weak 4-card
> major.
> This should be disclosed, and the letter of most regulations say you've to
> alert everytime such a bypass would be unexpected ; this means nearly any
> low-level bid is alertable, and makes it unpractical.
> So, is it enough to put such an agreement into the 'important notes'
> section, or pre-alert it ?

That depends on your (local) regulations for using alert. If the alert in
such situations is not explicitly exempted I would rule that it is
compulsory.

Regards Sven