[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Grattan Endicott]

Grattan Endicott
grandeval at vejez.fsnet .co.uk
[also gesta at tiscali.co.uk]
*************************
"A finished product is one that
has already seen its better days."
                 {Art Linkletter}
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] An EBU L&E decision.


> 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.
>
>
+=+ The 2006 Orange Book contains six pages of rules on alerting,
comprising about 250 lines of type. I am unconvinced that the
effort to provide this amount of detail achieves any useful object
(antecedent to play, that is - it may provide a point of reference
subsequent to play in contentious situations). I do notice that 5G3(l)
contains an oblique reference to a non-forcing 3H response to 1NT,
but to now I have failed to identify where the alerting rules deal
directly with the 3H response. It does look to me as though the
2006 OB alerting requirements are a study in themselves, for many
players, in all probability, considerably more arduous than their
preparation of a system, especially in relation to what constitutes
an 'unexpected meaning'.
       I am wondering in what manner it is to be disclosed that "the
fact that bidding 3H on the following round now showed a hand
with six hearts, and, either four spades, or more values" (sic). Is
this information not such as to appear on the convention card (at
least sufficiently to draw attention to the existence of special
inferences)? I pass no judgement on this except to infer a measure
of surprise - or as it may be confusion.
                                                 ~ Grattan ~   +=+