[BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Fri Nov 1 13:03:21 CET 2013


Not to argue with Harald, but I would (of course) bid my normal answer to the takeout double if I have a decent bid that can help partner. Pass by me would mean that I have no good answer and that the doubler (partner) is probably best served by selecting his own bid himself.

 

Consequently I don’t see any reason for alerting the pass in this situation?

 

Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] På vegne av Harald Berre Skjæran
Sendt: 1. november 2013 09:19
Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Emne: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

 

I disagree with Sven here.

 

A pass over (1x) X (XX) that is a penalty pass of 1x is unusual in the extreme. If not alerted, the meaning would be very surprising to the opponents. I don't think this one is really defined in our alert regulations. But I, for one, would always alert such a pass (if I ever played it).

 

 

 

2013/10/31 Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>

> ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre
> > De: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>

> > Because I am astonished by a requirement to alert a PASS that means
> > nothing other than willingness to play in the contract specified by
> > the last bid (if
> > any) and reluctance to make any call other than pass. (I believe this
> > has always been the fundamental definition for "PASS" as a natural
> > call?)
>
> even with such a pass, an alert may be necessary: 1K x xx pass if pass is an
> agreement by this pair to show willingness to play 1D redoubled (something like
> KQ1094), and not a mere neutral call, it needs to be alerted. i am not fond of
> detailed lists of calls to be alerted, there are too many exceptions and
> unforeseen situations. i prefer a simple: alert every time you think opponents
> should better know an agreement they might otherwise misread.
> jpr

[Sven Pran] I fully agree with the principle that an alert shall be a signal to opponents: "You might probably want to ask for an explanation!". But isn't the meaning "I am prepared for an ALL PASS to end this auction" the most natural meaning of PASS that exists?

I suppose there is a typo in your example and that you meant "willingness to play 1K redoubled? If that is exactly what the PASS means then I see no reason for alert. If however the partnership agreements is that PASS here suggests takeout to 1D then of course the pass must be alerted.




_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml





 

-- 
Kind regards,
Harald Berre Skjæran 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131101/9d2830b5/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list