[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Steve Willner]

> From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort <jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr>
> 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.

If it were simple, we wouldn't have problems.  For an experienced 
partnership, practically every call will have some possibly-unexpected 
implications, but alerting all of them is not useful.

Blame -- if there is any -- attaches to SO's who fail to give clear 
alerting rules.

>>EBL 2004 Appeal No. 10
>>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 fallacy of "only one non-alertable meaning."

> From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
> And the Chapter 1 definition of "convention"
> states:
> "However, an agreement as to overall strength
> does not make a call a convention."

Readers of this forum shouldn't need to be reminded that L30C provides 
an exception for passes.

> So in Australia such a two-way pass is defined
> as non-conventional, therefore is not alerted.

I don't know what's "two-way" about the pass, but I don't see that 
either agreement is a convention.  Regardless of that, the definition of 
convention is so unclear that SO's are ill-advised to use the word in 
their alerting regulations.

Sven Pran:
 >>A very interesting consequence is that an
 >>opening pass that promises 13+ HCP regardless of
 >>distribution is _not_ a conventional call?

I missed the original message (spam filters got "turned up") and am not 
sure whether this was a question or attempt at _reductio ad absurdum_. 
I expect Sven knows L30C.