[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."
 
>dcrc2h at hotmail.co.uk wrote: No it doesn't. This is in the section on  calls 
that >"players should NOT alert".
 
You are right and I misread it. Mea Culpa! That was partly as I was  
expecting a similar wording and location to the predecessor of the Orange  Book which 
was the one on which the appeal at Brighton 2005 was based. That  was:
 
"5.2.1 You must alert a call if
(c) it is natural, but its meaning is  affected by other agreements which 
your opponents are unlikely to expect."
 
So ... the Laws and Ethics Committee has now moved 5.2.1 (c) into the  
non-alertable category, almost agreeing that the decision of the AC in Appeal 1  
from Brighton 2005 was correct, but not what was desired. 
 
On balance I think that the the L&E are correct, as there  clearly is great 
difficulty reaching agreement on what the opponents are likely  or unlikely to 
expect. Someone wanting to know about alternative bids that limit  a hand 
type, pattern or strength can ask. Of course there is a danger of  conveying UI 
from the questions, a problem alleviated by screens. I  suppose one can ask 
partner to leave the table before interrogating RHO, but  like Hawkeye or 
goal-line technology, some will see this as interrupting the  flow of the game.
 
Paul