[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 26/10/2007 08:10:05  GMT Standard Time, 
gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes:

+=+ The EBU Laws &  Ethics Committee asked me to make this 
decision known on blml:-

I  will not give the full text of the above (as it is cannot easily be 
formatted in  non-HTML and readers can refer to it) but I was interested to see this 
2005 hand  appear on BLML as I and my partner Stefanie, both members of this 
list, were the  appellants.

Indeed, this decision, which was regarded by some at the  L&E as wrong, led 
to a change some time later in the EBU Orange Book. I  wrote on IBLF:

"The new issue of the Orange Book, in section 5G3, changed  "any bid where 
the partnership has an agreement over possible alternative calls  which affect 
this one" to be non-alertable. This renders the above double (the  discussion 
was about alerting a "negative" double - PL) when playing negative  free bids, 
and the value-showing 3C response above as not alertable (a Lebensohl  
situation - PL). Even the last bid in the auction 1C-(1S)-2C-(2S)-3C (if, for  
example, it usually shows more values as 2NT would be a competitive 3C bid or  other 
strong hands) would not be alerted; and we can choose more complicated  
examples if you think the average player would know all this. 

I was  trawling through the 2004 and 2005 L&E minutes trying to find the 
reasons  for the radical change but could not do so; maybe bluejak or woubit can 
advise  when this amendment was voted on at the EBU L&E and if there is a 
minute  about it perhaps explaining the thinking of the L&E."

Nobody chose to  reply to this question on the IBLF.

One aspect of the decision with which  I disagreed was the following:

"Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would  have had to guess more often 
here."

I was asked by the panel at the time  what 2NT would have been by South and I 
replied "natural". It would appear (from  the comment and the appeal 
decision) that the panel did not notice that South  could have bid 2H to show a good 
diamond raise. This is about equivalent to not  realising the Spurs goal at Old 
Trafford two years ago was six feet over the  line. And the chairman of the 
panel is regarded by many, including me, as one of  the very best. It may be 
that the panel would have increased the % adjustment to  N/S if it had realised 
that 2H would have shown a good diamond  raise.

Various comments have been made on this hand; indeed it is in the  Appeals 
2005 booklet on the EBU site. Both East and West commented on the hand  in an 
official EBU booklet (East without mentioning he was one of the players),  but 
North and South were not invited to contribute. BLML member Richard Hills  
expressed surprise at the fact that one or more of his fellow contributors were  
at the table.

I am more concerned about the change of alerting rules,  which seems to have 
taken place without substantial discussion (if there was it  is not minuted). 
I think it is correct that an alert should be made for a bid  whose meaning 
"is affected by other agreements that your opponents are unlikely  to expect". I 
would argue that the degree of unexpectedness that 1NT-3H would  have been 
pre-emptive IS enough, but I can live with the alternative  interpretation. It 
seems very similar to the alerting of doubles when you play  negative free 
bids, which was the subject of the IBLF thread.

Paul  Lamford