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

[Jean-Pierre Rocafort]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au a écrit :
> (1) Should a natural call which has a logical meaning be alerted?
it depends
> 
> (2) Should the answer to question (1) be different if many
> players use that call in an unnatural and illogical way?
it depends
> 
i am puzzled by this notion of "alertable call". so often it leads to 
misunderstandings and lawyerings. how simple however it is to disclose 
meanings of calls that are a consequence of a partnership agreement or 
experience and could be mistaken by opponents.
  as long as EW have previously discussed this situation, they should of 
course alert west's pass as NS might otherwise think it is neutral or 
undiscussed, as for many other pairs. they should also alert if west had 
made a bid in place of his second turn pass because of the infernce.
  what surprises me the most is the division of opinions among directors 
and comitee and the return of deposit. anybody for a campaign of 
"helpful alerting"?

jpr

> 
> 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. 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



-- 
_______________________________________________
Jean-Pierre Rocafort
METEO-FRANCE
DSI/CM
42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis
31057 Toulouse CEDEX
Tph: 05 61 07 81 02      (33 5 61 07 81 02)
Fax: 05 61 07 81 09      (33 5 61 07 81 09)
e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr

Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr
_______________________________________________