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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> Sven Pran:
> 
> >I am puzzled. Can we assume that East/West use some kind of negative
> >doubles? Would a Double from West as his first call have shown 4 spades?
> >Should not in such cases the _first_ pass from West be alerted? ("It can
> >show interest for a penalty double of the 2H bid").
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Although a negative double is a convention, it seems to me that a trap
> pass is not a convention, since a trap pass shows "willingness to play
> ..... in the last denomination named" (see the Chapter 1 Definitions).
> 
> Unless, of course, you rule that a trap pass is a convention because what
> willingness it actually shows is willingness to play in the last
> denomination named only if that last denomination is subsequently doubled
> by partner.
> 
> If a trap pass is not a convention, then a trap pass need not be alerted
> as an unusual natural call, since negative double agreements are now much
> more generally in use than the old-fashioned (but effective) agreements
> to play penalty doubles of overcalls.

It can be a matter of discussion whether or not the trap pass itself is a
convention, but it cannot be any discussion that if the partnership uses
negative or hi-lo doubles then that pass is basically ambiguous: It shows
either no relevant values or willingness to play the last denomination
doubled. If partner from his own cards finds that the latter alternative is
likely (for instance if he is void in the denomination) he will double,
otherwise he will pass or bid something else.
 
Therefore I consider the trap pass to be part of the convention "negative
double" and thus alertable.

Regards Sven

> Sven Pran:
> 
> >The consequence of the Director's and AC's rulings must IMO be (if we
> >shall be consistent) that also all passes in response to takeout doubles
> >must be alerted, is anybody practicing that?
> >
> >Example:
> >1H - Dble - Pass - Pass(*)  (*)is this Pass alertable? Not in my book.
> 
> Richard Hills:
> 
> Wrong example.  Try this one:
> 
> WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
>           Cummings            Seres
> 1H        X         XX        Pass(1)
> Pass      Pass
> 
> (1) Shows a penalty pass of hearts, not alerted.
> 
> About four decades ago, the world-class Australian partnership of Seres-
> Cummings gained a big number in an international championship when
> South's pass was not alerted.  East-West complained that the almost
> universal meaning of South's pass was that it showed equal preference
> between the unbid suits and was forcing on North to bid their longest
> suit.  At that time Seres-Cummings won the appeal on the grounds that it
> was not necessary to alert a natural call.
> 
> Alert regulations are more sophisticated nowadays, as they now require
> the alerting of natural calls with unexpected meanings.
> 
> Of course, for the 2004 case the penalty meaning of the second pass is
> somewhat more expected since the first pass by general bridge knowledge
> could be a trap pass awaiting an reopening double.
> 
> The famous American partnership of Berkowitz - Cohen lost a World Pairs
> championship because that had an illogical agreement that a possible
> trap pass of a partscore transmogrified into a forcing pass once an
> opponent redoubled to show strength.
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
> National Training Branch
> 02 6225 6285
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml