[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 28/10/2007 20:55:41 GMT Standard Time,  
gesta at tiscali.co.uk writes:

>The corollary is that the prior disclosure requirements  should
>be adequate and sufficiently enforced to provide a fair  backdrop.
 
I can accept this. It was the main point made by Richard Hills  who felt that 
the appeal committee missed the point and that the explanation  "transfer" 
was incorrect and should have been "transfer, but if it is a six-card  suit, it 
will have values, as 3H would be pre-emptive". I expect that  explanations 
will normally be more succint than that, so full disclosure will  rarely occur in 
practice.
 
In the case in question the L&EC decided that the "degree of  unexpectedness" 
of the fact that 1NT-3H would be pre-emptive was insufficient  for an alert 
of the 3H bid in the actual auction. The original AC decided that  the fact 
that 1NT-3H was pre-emptive would be unexpected, and the fact that  bidding 3H on 
the following round now showed a hand with six hearts, and, either  four 
spades, or more values, should have been explained to the opponents by an  alert 
or by a fuller explanation instead of transfer. Hands that were weak with  six 
hearts were excluded, and this was known to the opponents but not to us. The  
AC made a clear error in missing that the hand opposite the doubler could have 
 bid 2H to show a good raise, so they wrongly concluded that North would be  
forced to guess more, because we were not played Lebensohl. (If the  transfer 
had been completed, then 2NT would be Lebensohl, while 2NT should be  natural 
when it is not).
 
It seems that the old wording that required one to alert a bid whose  meaning 
was affected by other agreements the opponents were unlikely to expect  was 
spot on, and the new wording is just wrong.  But the L&EC thinks  otherwise, 
and we appoint them to decide on these issues in England. It seems  that the 
change in the requirements for an alert has its opponents, and it might  be worth 
the L&EC addressing this issue again before the next Orange Book. I  shall 
put up a thread on IBLF to see if there is support for this  view.