[blml] ACBL contains multitudes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

The ACBL Competition and Conventions Committee,
most recent meeting, Reno 22nd March 2004:

>>>The question was raised whether an opening 4H
>>>or 4S when playing NAMYATS should require an
>>>Alert. The point was raised that we should be
>>>consistent to principle (i.e. in general,
>>>negative inferences do not require an Alert).
>>>
>>>The Committee was virtually unanimous in
>>>determining that such a call does not require
>>>an Alert.

Grattan Endicott, "The purpose of an alert",
blml posting 22nd October 2006:

>>+=+ In the course of deleting a lot of old blml
>>material I came across this statement:
>>
>>  "I think the purpose of an alert is (or should
>>  be?) to alert opponents that they should not
>>  assume anything."
>>
>>I believe it is open to Sponsoring Organizations
>>to require an alert for any reason that they
>>think sufficient.
>>
>>So I do not believe a general statement of the
>>kind above is apposite to the discussion.  The
>>immediate purpose is to comply with a
>>regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to
>>make a provision for this manner of disclosure,
>>as a matter of choice by the SO, in exercise of
>>the power mentioned in Law 40B. To comment on
>>the purpose of the alert calls for an awareness
>>of the SO's reasons for making that choice.
>>
>>                      ~ Grattan ~   +=+

Chapter 1 Definition of an Alert in the Lawbook:

>Alert - A notification, whose form may be
>specified by a sponsoring organisation, to the
>effect that opponents may be in need of an
>explanation.

Richard Hills:

In my opinion, the Reno assertion that "negative
inferences do not require an Alert" and the
Endicott assertion "require an alert for any
reason that they think sufficient" lack any
congruence with the Lawful definitional phrase
"opponents may be in need of an explanation".

In my opinion, a Sponsoring Organisation which
creates an arbitrary rule that special negative
inferences need not be alerted is steering
perilously close to infracting the Law 75A
requirement that, "Special partnership
agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must
be fully and freely available to the opponents".

Fortunately, as I noted in the first post on
this thread, the ACBL powers-that-be ignored
their subcommittee's recommendation, so the
ACBL still requires special negative inferences
to be alerted.


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
National Training Branch
02 6225 6285