[blml] EBL 2004 appeal number 10

[Steve Willner]

> From: "Tim West-Meads" <twm at cix.co.uk>
> Below I give the EBL policy as taken from the official EBL website.  

> **The following classes of calls should be alerted:
> 
> 1. Conventional bids should be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. 

As we have seen many times on BLML, no one knows what calls are 
conventional.  The similar EBU regulation avoids the problem by using 
"natural" and "artificial," both of which are clearly defined.

As Tim notes, the rule should probably say "calls" instead of "bids."

> 2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead 
> to special understandings between the partners. 

This one is hopeless.  First of all, "special" is never defined.  If we 
take Grattan's definition "additional to what is normal or general," to 
an experienced partnership, almost every call is likely to have some 
special meaning.  (Again it should be "calls," not "bids.")

> 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. 

This, at least, is clear.

> Nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as 
> the letter.

I wouldn't say the letter of the policy is deserving of much respect. 
Presumably most players do in fact respect its spirit, which is all that 
makes bridge playable under such vague rules.  No wonder the directors 
and AC had such a hard time with the ruling.