[blml] Alerting Rules

[Guthrie]

[Paul]
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.

[nige1]
EBU alerting rules are hard to remember. Few players get them right 
except in the simplest cases. For example do you alert partner's bids 
in the following common auctions...

[1] 1H (X) P Where partner passes with rubbish but also passes with a 
strong hand and heart tolerance?
[2] 1H (2C) P Where partner passes with rubbish but also passes with a 
strong hand that wants to penalize 2C?
[3] 1H (2C) X where the double promises at least four spades?
[4] 1H (P) 3H Weak, pre-emptive?
[5] 1H (1S) 3H Weak, pre-emptive?
[6] (1H) P (1N) X Where the double is takeout of 1S?
[7] 1H (X) XX (1S); X (2C) X Where partner's double is penalty?
[8] (1N) P (2H "spades") P; (2S) X Where partner's double is take-out?
[9] 4N Opening bid asking for specific aces.

If you get any wrong, you are in good company. Even EBU tournament 
directors sometimes get them wrong.

Now for something completely different...

King George puts hive in hat to mount hobby horse...

If the rules were changed so that you disclose departures from a 
standard system, then you would have to learn another (useful 
playable) system but..
[A] You would avoid having to learn disclosure rules that, 
effectively, define a local (unplayable) system.
[B] Disclosure rules could become simple clear and universal.