[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Eric Landau]

At 10:24 AM 9/20/06, Laszlo wrote:

>The main problem is that a "pass" bid has two different "natural" meaning.
>
>A, There's nothing more to say about my hand, no additional strength or
>special distribution which i could show using our system
>
>B, I'd like to play the last bidden contract
>
>In the hand above it's a real huge problem which methode EW uses.
>Suppose they have an agreement and both of them play the same. Should
>they alert or no?
>
>There are lots of consistent anwsers to this question.
>
>P1, They should alert none of the two situations. Opponents know there
>are two possibilities, so if important they can enquier for that.
>
>P2, A is the usual method, so alert if B.
>
>P3, B is the logical method so alert if A.
>
>P4, The most of the players (including experts) have no agreement to
>this situation, so the pass can be the both type of hand. If EW has an
>agreement --- does not matter A or B --- they should alert.
>
>As I see, there are no law or regulation and nothing in the alert policy
>which correctly anwsers to this question. There may are anwsers in NBOs'
>rulebooks but not in WBF alerpolicy. Of course if someone likes one of
>the P1, P2, P3, P4 points better then the others he can explain it, but
>I don't think he is right. It's a thing which is missing from the WBF
>alert policy but should be in the next edition. We should think about
>what's the best solution.
>
>I think P3 does not work, cos the the majority of players who play A or
>play nothing do not understand there is something to alert. The other
>three Points can be good but I think the P1 is the best. Using screen
>there's normal in this situation if someone asks the meaning of this
>pass and no misinformation to partner. Without screen anyway in lots of
>cases the alert can inform West what his partner think about his bid.

I think Laci is on the right track here.  Any rule will work fine -- 
for those partnerships who have actually thought about and discussed 
the issue.  But that's a small minority.  For most non-novice 
partnerships, a pass is forcing, except when it isn't.  IOW, the 
"standard" treatment of a pass is something like "it is forcing if and 
only if the logic of the auction dictates that the opponents should not 
be allowed to play an undoubled contract".  That makes Laci's P2 and P3 
unworkable.  My own personal preference would be for P1 also, but P4 is 
certainly a viable choice.


Eric Landau                     ehaa at starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607