[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Tim West-Meads]

Steve wrote:
> 
> 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.

Below I give the EBL policy as taken from the official EBL website.  
Please note that this *differs* from the regulation quoted in the AC 
ruling (albeit the ruling says that "EBL policy applies").  Perhaps I am 
being foolish in assuming the web-site is correct and the ruling a poor 
paraphrase of the actual regulations.

**The following classes of calls should be alerted:

1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 
2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead 
to special understandings between the partners. 
3.  Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or 
overcalls, and non-forcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to 
opening bids of one of a suit. 

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
All doubles. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced 
hand, or suggests a no-trump contract. 
Any call at the four level or higher, with the exception of conventional 
calls on the first round of the auction. 

Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as 
the letter.
** End policy

Strictly speaking only *bids* are alertable while pass/X/XX never are (so 
a forcing pass would not be alertable even though conventional!).  
However IMO this conflicts with the "spirit" of the policy and I would 
argue that conventional *calls* are alertable (unless excepted by the 
specific regs for screens not being in use).

The only issue then is what constitutes "special" under the terms of 
item 2".

> The fallacy of "only one non-alertable meaning."

But the EBL/WBF are *known* not to embrace *that* fallacy.  Natural 
opening bids of 2x are not alertable regardless of strength or being 
forcing/non-forcing (Natural 2/1 responses not alertable whether 
GF,Promising a rebid or F1).

Thus we can infer that a "non-conventional" meaning is not "special" if 
it is one of a range of commonly played meanings.

OK, it would be better had that been *stated* in the policy rather than 
merely inferential but I don't think the actual policy is particularly 
ambiguous, I just think the TD got it wrong (and was derelict in his/her 
duty in failing to seek official clarification from the EBL when on-site 
directorial opinion was divided).

> 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.

I agree with this, which is why I have a problem with the regulation 
quoted by the AC:

** Reg C2
  (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".

Under *that* regulation I would indeed alert *everything* if playing with 
even a semi-regular partner.  However, I would also rule that NS were 
not damaged by the failure to alert since it is inconceivable that the 
pass would have a non-alertable meaning under a regulation this broad 
(even if undiscussed there will be inferences from other 
agreements/discussions/experience).

I would also say that any partnership which discussed their 
system/alerts based on the official EBL regulations on the web only to 
discover that those regulations are *not* being applied in an EBL 
tournament has been treated unfairly.  

Tim