[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Eric Landau]

On Oct 26, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Guthrie wrote:

> [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.

I don't claim to follow the vagaries of the ever-changing ACBL alert  
rules, but I'd be very surprised if this example were correct;  
regardless, I would expect an "actively ethical" player to alert such  
a pass.

There may be some confusion.  Playing support doubles as originally  
devised (i.e. merely differentiating between three- and four-card  
raises), passing carries negative inferences (a hand unsuitable for  
any raise) that do (and should) not, per the ACBL policy, require an  
alert.  But these days many users of support doubles demand a double  
with any hand including three-card support, so that a pass  
systemically guarantees at most two cards in partner's suit.  That  
sure sounds like an artificial agreement, not a mere negative  
inference.  Indeed, this strikes me as an excellent example of the  
not-so-easy-to-define difference between them.

[OT: Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the rationale behind  
the "mandatory" support double; I don't get it.]

> [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.

That, OTOH, is an inappropriate example for the ACBL, where routine  
negative doubles are considered "standard" and are not alertable (and  
penalty doubles in ordinary negative double situations are).   
Beginners are routinely taught and play negative doubles and  
understand (or at least have learned by rote) that they must pass  
with a strong hand that would otherwise double.  Unlike support  
doubles, this is routine, everyday stuff, hardly a surprise to  
"ordinary players" with any experience beyond their kitchen tables.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net