[blml] Alerting Rules

[Stefanie Rohan]

Yes. The note in the Orange Book was added as a reference to this case. The 
author of the Orange Book, who is not subjected to any oversight, disagreed 
with the ruling and decided to add this specific example so as to change the 
rules to suit his preference, even though a very high-quality AC, chaired by 
perhaps the UK's finest AC Chairman, had decided that the bid should be 
alerted.

In addition, the author of the Orange Book (and, of course, of the Appeals 
Booklet) knew perfectly well that the appealing pair did not care about the 
result on the hand itself, but was concerned that the bid in question be 
ruled alertable.

Cheers

Stefanie Rohan


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules


> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>