[blml] An EBU L&E decision.

[Gampas at aol.com]

In a message dated 29/10/2007 16:06:41 GMT Standard Time, swillner at nhcc.net  
writes:

>I'm afraid the facts weren't clear to me.  Was the issue a  failure to 
>alert or failure to give a full explanation in response to a  question?
 
>Alerting is, of course, a matter for the SO, but I'd be surprised if an  
>uncommon negative inference changes the requirement from announce" to  
>"alert."  Explanations, however, are a matter of Law, and negative  
>inferences are always supposed to be included.  Leaving them out  won't 
>often cause damage, but when damage occurs, it should be  redressed.
 
Grattan gave details of the full ruling, which can also be read at
_http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm_ 
(http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/publications.htm) 
selecting Appeals 2005, as I know some mail servers garbled the  presentation.
 
The basis of the appeal was that there was a failure to alert the  3H bid, 
although the AC decided it was alertable, but another  BLML member also felt 
that "transfer" was insufficient explanation for a bid  which showed 5+ hearts, 
but systemically, in principle, denied 6+ hearts in  a non-invitational hand.
 
However the L&E decided to overrule the AC, and to amend the alerting  
requirements so that negative inferences were no longer alerted, and they made  no 
comment about the inadequacy or otherwise of the answer  "transfer". Under 
current rules the 2D bid would be announced as  "hearts" and no alert would be 
required for a later competitive 3H bid.
 
Similarly, an auction 1C-(1H)-2C-(2H)-3C is not now alerted if 2NT would  
have shown a weaker 3C bid. This might well be on the convention card as "we  
play good-bad 2NT in many situations", but will the average player know which  
they are likely to be? All ethical pairs would have routinely alerted both bids  
here, and now should not do so. Another example is (2H) - Dble - (Pass) - 3C 
is  again not alerted whether or not you are playing Lebensohl. Or (1NT) - 
Pass  -(2H!) - Pass - (2S) - Pass - (Pass) - Double - (Pass) - 3D does not get 
alerted  if you could have bid 2NT as two places to play.
 
Many of the opponents of "alert negative inferences the opponents are  
unlikely to expect" argue that nearly every bid becomes alertable. I don't  agree. 
Perhaps the clause should read that players should alert "a bid whose  meaning 
is likely to be SUBSTANTIALLY altered by other agreements the opponents  are 
unlikely to expect".
The current method increases the difficulty of average players in  
understanding the auctions of strong players.