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

[Jean-Pierre Rocafort]

Tim West-Meads a écrit :
>>*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).

i think the purpose of an alert is (or should be?) to alert opponents
that they should not assume anything.
> 
> 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.
if "undiscussed", it's "general bridge knowledge" which, in this 
instance, isn't for most people "natural", but a willingness not to be 
involved in the bidding process for the moment.
if ew have the agreement that pass would be a willingness to defend 
against 2H after 1C 2H - - x xx, when w bids instead 2S, his spade suit 
may be shorter than if they had not the agreement, it's helpful to 
disclose it to the opponents and they may feel themselves misinformed if 
they are not let into the secret.
> 
> 
>>>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
>>>
>


-- 
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________