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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 10:49 13/09/2006 +0200, Sven Pran wrote:

>Example: A popular agreement in Norway is that an opening bid in 2M shows
>exactly 5 cards in that major suit and at least 4 cards in a minor suit.
>That bid is "natural" as far as the named major suit is concerned, but it
>must still be alerted because of the "side information".
>
>IMO the trap pass carries such "side information".

It does, but there is a difference : in thee times of negative doubles, you 
have to pass when holding the penalty hand ; this is common bridge 
knowledge, not conventional.

To the contrary, the side suit in Norwegian, Dutch or Belgian 2M openers is 
the kind of side information that you wouldn't be able to infer from bridge 
logic.

Some pairs, however, consider a pass over the O/C as forcing ; opener 
should reopen with a double in most cases ; and it may include some 
positive hands other than a penalty pass. This is a common agreement over 
stronger openings (stronger than a normal strong club, but not as strong as 
a standard 2C ; a good example is the Romex or Arno 1NT opening). One of 
its functions is to drive out psyches : opener has the suit, but overcaller 
thinks it is responder who holds a penalty pass, and one has to escape.
This kind of pass should be alerted, becausse it is far from standard and 
bridge logic.

Another problem is whether to alert bids that are purely natural, but 
unexpectedly nonforcing (eg negative free bids over an overcall) ; although 
they don't carry side information (second suit, short suit etc.) and 
although "an agreement as to strength doesn't make the bid a convention", 
not knowing about their nonforcing character would be a real handicap to 
the opponents ; for this reason, they should be alerted. The prime function 
of alerting is avoiding players being caught by surprise. Not complying 
with a set of rules.

Best regards,

     Alain.