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

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of 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.

We have found it impossible in Norway to have alert regulations based upon
what is "standard" or "common knowledge" because what is "standard" in one
environment is not necessarily standard in the next.

Instead our alert regulations are based upon strictly objective criteria
like a bid not showing length in the named suit and/or showing length in a
different suit, a pass showing possible extra values, a call being ambiguous
and so on. 

Also we never consider it illegal to alert any call (but alerts of course
convey UI to partner). Alerts are popularly described as messages to
opponents: "You can have reasons to ask about this call".

So according to these principles; where a negative double shall be alerted
so shall the corresponding trap pass.

A completely different issue is the consequence of missing alerts where
required. When judging damage we always take into account whether opponents
really can claim damage from a missing alert as such or if it can as well be
contributed to their own ignorance of for instance what is "common
agreements".

Specifically we very seldom if ever grant redress for damage when the
missing alert is related to a convention that has been correctly described
on the front page of our convention cards.

I am fully aware that other jurisdictions have different alert regulations.

Regards Sven