Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Mon Nov 4 13:22:57 CET 2013

Le 31/10/2013 18:22, ROCAFORT Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Sven Pran"<svenpran at online.no>
>> À: "Bridge Laws Mailing List"<blml at rtflb.org>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 31 Octobre 2013 17:46:08
>> Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>> 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.

Absolutely right ; but in the case I mention there is nothing to know 
and they tell me it's still alertable on the strange pretext that 2D was 
artificial. This logic, if there is any, I can't understand.

More information about the Blml mailing list