[blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[John Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Gampas at aol.com>
To: <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]



>
> In the Brighton case, the opponents knew that the responder could not 
> have a
> weak hand with hearts - the responder drew attention to that fact in the
> post mortem when the defence had slopped a trick - and that information 
> was
> clearly relevant to the opponents at the time in a competitive auction, 
> and
> therefore should have been indicated by an alert. Those who say 
> "everything  should
> be alerted then because of negative inferences" are completely missing 
> the
> point.

I am by no means always in accord with Paul, I find him a bit over-picky, 
but in this case, failure fully to disclose has damaged the non-offending 
side and the offenders could have known this'd be the case. I don't actually 
give a damn about the mechanism for full disclosure, but if it needed to be 
done by an alert then one should have been given, or a pre-opening lead 
statement should be made.  I find it impossible to play bridge if my 
opponents are in the dark as to my side's agrrements.  john

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