[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 01:06 22/09/2006 +0200, Laszlo Hegedus wrote:

> > >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
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >I think P3 is intenable, as is every prescript of alerting "type A" passes,
> >as every player, in every system, has "difficult hands" that can't be bid
> >in such-and-such situation. Therefore, 90% of passes are "type A complete",
> >i.e. "I have nothing to tell, or I have something to tell that my system
> >doesn't allow".
> >
> >
> >
>Sure I agree, P3 is strange ruling ind the real life. But which of the
>other three?

I prefer F1, BTA I've always been in favor of a ''significant alert' policy.