[BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Alain Gottcheiner agot at ulb.ac.be
Mon Nov 4 13:29:52 CET 2013


Le 31/10/2013 19:42, 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 18:52:25
>> Objet: Re: [BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>
>>> 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: 1D 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?
> no, 1K was the typo which has to be corrected to 1D!
>
> 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.
> il think most players would not expect this pass to be a penalty pass but would expect a neutral pass

'expect' is a bit strong ; after 1D p p X XX, I think an expert panel 
would be about 50%/50% on the issue on neutral vs enthusiastic.

As a matter of fact, this 'expect' thing isn't exactly what is used in 
practice ; e.g. one expects p p 1H p 3C to be some kind of raise, or p p 
p 1H 1NT to show minors, yet it is alertable if it does. And while it 
would be rather unexpected to play 1C p 2S as long spades and 13+ (I 
do), it isn't alertable. (as it doesn't change the forcing character of 
the bid).

I think the true criterion is "there is something important to be known 
now".

Best regards


   Alain


More information about the Blml mailing list