[blml] Alerting Rules

[Gampas at aol.com]

The current issue of the EBU Orange Book requires an alert for:

"(l)  Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative 
possible calls  that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable category. For 
example,  see (c)(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3H bid in the auction 
1NT (pass) 2D  (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not be alertable just because the 
partnership plays a  3H response to 1NT as pre-emptive."

A similar rule exists in the ABF  regulations:

"3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless  they are 
self-alerting), viz. 

<snip>
 
(b) The bid is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements,  
which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: 
•A natural NT  overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a 
stopper in the  overcalled suit. 
•A jump raise of opener’s one level bid which may be weak  or pre-emptive. 
•A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or  forcing e.g. 1D - 
2D forcing. 
•The rebid in a canapé sequence where the  second suit may be longer than the 
first. 
•A 1H opening which denies holding  4+ spades.
 
(It goes on to clarify that at the end of the auction, the declaring side  
should explain any special nuances and ...)
 
These explanations may occasionally need to include negative inferences,  
such as hand types partner probably does not have for his bidding."
 
The perceptive member will notice that the EBU Orange Book tagged  on this 
example:
 
"Also the 3H bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2D (dbl) pass (3D) 3H would not  
be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3H response to 1NT as  
pre-emptive."
 
Some will notice that this was as a result of an appeal at Brighton 2005,  
which can be found on the EBU website under publications, where the decision of  
the AC (that the 3H bid in this auction was alertable) met with ridicule and  
disdain. The relevant sentence prior to that appeal was as follows: (about 
which  bids to alert)
 
c) it is natural but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your  
opponents are unlikely to expect.
 
The producer of the Orange Book decided that this very sensible clause  
should go, and inserted the example above where a 3H bid should not be alerted.  
But is this right? Clearly the fact that the pair plays 1NT - 3H as pre-emptive  
is unlikely to be expected by the opponents (A survey of 10 strong pairs at  
Brighton this year found only one pair playing these methods but an  American 
friend tells me the method is more popular if 1NT is 10-12.) The 3H bid  in 
the quoted auction (or in any similar auction) therefore excludes many  hands 
that are weak with six hearts, and virtually all hands that are weak with  seven 
hearts, and this information can be crucially relevant to the  opponents 
deciding whether to compete further. So, while the 3H bid itself still  means the 
same thing - namely competitive with hearts - its meaning IS  affected by 
other agreements (it is competitive with hearts but not likely to be  weak with 
six or seven hearts).
 
Our appeal (by myself and my partner), was solely on a point of  principle 
when the TD ruled that 3H should not be alerted. Our score was, I  recall, 
around 50%, so we had no real interest in any adjustment. Several  players 
condemned the AC roundly, with adjectives such as pettifogging,  ridiculous, mad being 
used freely. The AC was, in my view, exactly right, and I  respected their 
opinion about the percentage of the time my partner would have  bid 3NT. The 1NT 
opener was a former World Junior Champion and his partner a  current National 
Champion, so they should have known the alerting  regulations.
 
Let us say that the auction goes 1NT - (P) - 2D - (P) - 2H - (P) - P -  
(Dble) and the doubler's partner gets into a 4-3 spade fit, and drifts  one off, 
whereas the opponents were in a 5-2 heart fit, also going one off. The  backroom 
lawyer is undeterred and is ready for them. He knows that the  opponents 
would always break with four trumps (in fact he probably knew this  before 
balancing), and now calls the director and quotes the following alerting  rule, word 
for word, almost like the Lords Prayer:
 
(You should alert:)
(f) The completion of a transfer that denies four card support (which is  
shown by 
some other bid), since this shows something specific.
 
He argues that if he had known that they could not have a nine-card fit, he  
would not have protected, as the chances of a 5-2 fit would have gone up.
 
The TD is reluctantly forced to find in his favour, as there was an  
infraction. But this is what I regard as a "miserable, pettifogging abuse of  
process", not the AC ruling in the Brighton 2005 case.
 
And I also think it was very poor form for the publisher of the Orange Book  
to specifically include an example which an AC decided was alertable, 
indicating  that it is not alertable. Also inviting the pair ruled against to comment  
in the 2005 Appeal publication on the EBU site was poor procedure as well  
IMHO.
 
Sorry if I have bored you to tears!
 
Paul