[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[also grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
******************************************
"The intellectuals' chief cause of anguish
are one another's works."
                 ~ Jacques Martin Barzun.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Landau" <ehaa at starpower.net>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision.


>> [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.
>
+=+ A non-alert may be taken to deny a meaning such as would
be alertable. So the presumption, surely, is that players who know
what is alertable are not misinformed when there is no alert of a
call that is not alertable. To my mind, therefore, the question is how
clearly the alerting regulation is expresseed.
       The corollary is that the prior disclosure requirements should
be adequate and sufficiently enforced to provide a fair backdrop.
       The Director/AC should be cautious in non-alert situations not
to suggest too readily that a player should 'have protected his own
back' when there is no particular reason to find it strange that there
is no alert.
                                                    ~ G ~   +=+