Richard HILLS richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Wed Nov 6 03:29:24 CET 2013


Sven Pran:

>This situation can probably best be described by a discussion among Norwegian
>directors some 30 years ago. We ended up with the (ridiculous) conclusion that all
>doubles of low level bids should be alerted whether they were for penalty or for
>takeout because the understanding would always be unexpected for some players!
>That conclusion of course never reached the regulation.

Richard Hills:

No, that attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" by the Norwegian Directors was flawed.

The ABF Pre-Alert regulation follows the guiding principle laid down by Herman
De Wael (what would beginners using their national methods think was normal and
usual?), with the ABF Pre-Alert regulation repeatedly using the key word "unusual".

The vast majority of players in ABF-land are aware of two ++usual++ forms of the
Stayman convention ("Simple" and "Extended"). So under the ABF Pre-Alert
regulation it is not an infraction if a recent arrival to Australia from Norway is not
pre-alerted about the unexpected (unexpected for this Norwegian only, not un-
expected for her Aussie partner) use of Extended Stayman by her opponents.

Best wishes,



Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.  DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988.  The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au.  See:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20131106/e7f45687/attachment.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list