[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Wayne Burrows]

On 25/10/2007, gesta at tiscali.co.uk <gesta at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>

> Appeals Committee's decision
>
> Our reading of OB 5.2.1(c) indicated that 3(c) is alertable.
>
> If N was in full possession of the facts we believe that she might not have bid 3NT but would have done so much of the time.  Because N/S do not play Lebensohl N would have had to guess more often here.
>
> We do not agree that N is required to ask to receive information here.  If she asks and then passes, S would be under ethical strain.
>

This seems correct to me given.  I am not so sure about the
percentages which were 85% for 3NT and only 15% for 3H.

>
> L&E comment:
>
> It is clear from the large percentage of the table score included in the weighting by the Appeals Committee that there is a plausible argument that N was not damaged.  However, the L&E has concluded on balance that no adjustment at all should have been made because the 3H bid did not require an alert.
>
> From N's perspective the likely strength for W's 3H ranged from merely competitive to positively invitational.  The fact that a purely pre-emptive hand was excluded could perhaps have been inferred from W's decision to bid again.  The third basic alerting rule in the present Orange Book requires an alert if a call is "natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect".  The degree of unexpectedness of the actual methods in use in this case was not sufficient to require an alert.
>

This seems wrong to me.  If there is a regulation that says that a bid
needs an alert because it is 'affected' by other agreements and there
is no qualification then the bid needs an alert and it is wrong for
any body - director, appeal committee or national body - to
subsequently rule otherwise.  The laws require that the director be
bound by the regulations.  That means that he is not empowered to make
up exceptions.  Similarly the appeal is bound by the regulations -
they have the same powers as the director and are not entitled to
overturn the director on a point of law.  An appeal to the national
body (I am not sure if that is what happened here - it may have just
been a review of the appeal committee's decision) cannot rule contrary
to the laws and regulations.  It seems they can or at least should be
able to overturn the director on a point of law.  Nevertheless the
regulation here appears unambiguous and the bid requires an alert
since it is affected by other agreements.

The low percentage (high percentage) as the L&E committee correctly
note reflects that in this case there was little damage.  That is the
correct approach once you have a regulation that requires a bid to be
alerted.

Wayne