[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Roger Pewick]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard.hills at immi.gov.au>
To: <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:42 PM
Subject: [blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


(1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted?

(2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many
players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way?


Best wishes

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

EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10
Sweden v England

Appeals Committee: Jean-Claude Beineix (Chairman, France), Herman
De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), David Birman (Israel), Jean-Paul Meyer
(France), Steen Møller (Denmark)

Open Teams Round 24 Board 13.
Dealer North. All Vulnerable.

\        QJ965
  \      QT9
    \    83
      \  932
KT3     \       A872
K76542    \     ---
9           \   QJT7
T85           \ AQJ76
         4      \
         AJ83     \
         AK6542     \
         K4           \

West       North      East       South
Townsend   Lindkvist  Gold       Fredin
---        Pass       1C         2H
Pass       Pass       Dble       Redble
Pass       (*)Pass    Pass
           (*)2NT     Dble       3D
Pass       Pass       Dble       Pass
Pass       Pass

Comments:
2H: 4H and 5+ minor intermediate, Redble showed a good hand
(*) first and second version of the auction, after the Director
ruled that the Pass could be changed

Contract: Three Diamonds doubled, played by South

Lead: C5

Result: 8 tricks, NS -200

The Facts:
West's second Pass was not alerted, at neither side of the
screen.
When East also passed, North asked what West's pass meant, and
he was told it was an indication that West would also have
passed the Double (without a Redouble). North then called the
Director, because he thought such a meaning ought to be
alertable.

The Director:
Consulted among his colleagues and could not find out for sure
whether or not the pass would be alertable. After some time the
Director returned to the table, declared that the pass should
have been alerted, and gave North the option of changing his
call. North did so, and the second auction continued as shown.

Ruling: Change of Call Allowed

Relevant Laws: Law 21B1, 21B2

East/West appealed.

Present: All players and both Captains

The Players:
West clarified that he had not alerted his Pass, and neither
had his partner. South had asked him about the pass, and he had
replied "business". West considered a Pass that had the meaning
of "I want to play here" as being the most natural meaning
possible, and should therefore not be alerted. West stated that
North, who is an expert player, could always have asked about
the meaning of the Pass.
North stated that he had not wanted to ask about the meaning of
the Pass, so as not to give away anything. He relied on it not
being alerted and called the Director when the Pass turned out
to have the meaning he considered alertable.
South explained that he had sat there, together with West, for
15 minutes, not knowing what was going on at the other side of
the screen.
North/South said that they too play penalty passes in this
position, but that they alert them.
The Captain of North/South summed up that there seem to be 2
schools concerning this pass, but that if this meaning is
considered non-alertable, then all normal passes suddenly
become alertable.

The Committee:
First of all checked whether the appeal had any reason of
taking place at all. The alternate contract of 2Hxx goes (at
least) one down, so East/West are asking for a score of -400.
Secondly the Committee made certain that all requirements were
met for North being allowed to change his call.

I wonder if this question was answered correctly?

If I am not mistaken. a player is permitted to ask a question at his turn to 
call; also, once the auction ending pass has occurred, declarer  [as 
distinguished from dummy to be] may ask.

As such, N would not be able to raise any question until after the hand, 
with the consequnce that it would be too late to change a call.

regards
roger pewick




The "change of
explanation" should be surprising and affect the decision made
by the player. These conditions are indeed met.
The Committee considered whether North should be allowed this
"double shot". By passing, North has two chances: East might
bid, and if he does not, there is still the option of calling
the Tournament Director. But the Committee felt that it should
not blame North for relying on the non-alert and the meaning
that this suggested to him.
So the question remained whether or not there had been a
"misexplanation" in the form of a missing alert. Is this Pass
alertable?
First of all, West's argument that it is a natural meaning is
irrelevant. There are many instances of "natural" meanings that
are alertable because the artificial meaning is much more
"normal" (like a 2C Stayman).
The Committee read the relevant part of the regulation: (C2)
  The EBL "Alerting Policy" applies. Any call which
  (i) has a special or artificial meaning, or
  (ii) which has a partnership meaning that may not be
  understood by the opponents, is a call that must be brought
  to the immediate attention of the opponents through the use
  of the "alert procedure".
The Committee asked the Director to join them again and tell
the Committee what the Directors had thought about the matter.
It turned out that opinions among the Directors had been
divided.
Within the Committee as well, opinions were divided as to
whether this Pass should be alerted. Some members would have
alerted it, some would not.
In the end the Committee decided that since there was no clear
indication that the Director had taken the wrong decision, his
ruling should stand.

The Committee's decision: Director's ruling upheld.

Deposit: Returned