[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Guthrie]

[Jerry]
I too would like to hear some explanation why, for it seems wrong to
me.   This lack of a need to alert when negative inferences exist is
also present in the ACBL, including the the Oct 2007 Bridge Bulletin.
The quote is "In general, inferential calls do not require an Alert
[sic]." The example there is a pass when support doubles are in effect
showing at most two of partner's suit.  Valuable information received,
but not given to the opponents.

[nige1]
I agree with Paul and Jerry that negative inferences are often 
critical and the law should facilitate rather than prevent their 
disclosure. For expert pairs, the most common negative inference is 
that when partner opens and RHO overcalls, a pass is virtually 
forcing. Because, he plays negative doubles, advancer's pass includes 
strong hands with length and strength in RHO's suit. Even if the 
opener has a weak opener he *must* conventionally reopen, unless he 
too has opponent's suit.

The pass is *never* alerted but, although there is a definite logic to 
this method, the idea that a pass can conceal such a strong hand will 
come as a surprise to some ordinary players.