[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Tim West-Meads
twm at cix.co.uk
Mon Sep 18 18:25:00 CEST 2006
> *From:* Jean-Pierre Rocafort <jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr>
> *To:* blml at rtflb.org
> *Date:* Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:53:13 +0200
>
> 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.
Whereas if they alert one would surely assume the bid to be agreed as
artificial (ie forcing) - and there should be no doubt that playing a
forcing pass here would be alertable (and flawed IMO).
If the pass is "undiscussed" it *must* show a desire to defend 2H as
anything else would allow opps off the hook. I don't consider it at all
"helpful" to say one should alert a bid to show that one has discussed
it and agreed to play it as natural.
> > 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).
Insofar as I understand WBF/EBL policy 2C Stayman is alertable while 2C
(natural) is not. It would not be helpful for 2C to be alertable
regardless of meaning.
Tim
> 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
> _______________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>
More information about the blml
mailing list