[BLML] Alerting a BOOT [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Sven Pran svenpran at online.no
Mon Nov 4 15:20:50 CET 2013


Alain Gottcheiner
> >> 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".

[Sven Pran] 
And the criterion in Norway is precisely that: If it is not alerted you should assume that the bid shows the named suit and nothing else so if 1H p 3C shows some kind of raise in hearts instead of just showing clubs then of course it must be alerted. And if 1H 1NT shows minors instead of showing a no-trump hand then that one must also be alerted.

WTP?



More information about the Blml mailing list