[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-June-01, 08:18, said:

My point is precisely that "promising" should not be an identical criteria to "requiring an alert". I am sure that even SB would accept that the suggested meaning of Pass would qualify as a potentially unexpected meaning, which at the end of the day should really be the measure for when an alert is required.

The Blue Book in the UK states (for not requiring an alert):
( c ) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

Given that the hand could be a Yarborough, the pass does not "convey" values. If they had the word "usually" then I would agree with you. And I agree completely that the intention is that such a pass should be alerted!

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-June-01, 05:25, said:

Indeed, promises can be broken, but someone playing that Pass is either 12-15 balanced or any Yarborough would not systemically be "promising" values. Therefore "not artificial". Therefore "no alert".

Isn't that why such passes are considered a HUM, and usually prohibited entirely? It's not that it promises 12-15, but it could have that much, in addition to the normal meaning of a hand too weak to open.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-June-02, 10:58, said:

Isn't that why such passes are considered a HUM, and usually prohibited entirely? It's not that it promises 12-15, but it could have that much, in addition to the normal meaning of a hand too weak to open.

Yes, that is my interpretation of "A Pass in the opening position shows at least the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, even if there are alternative weak possibilities". So, you can play Pass is 9-11 or a Yarborough, as SB now does, but not Pass is 12-15 or a Yarborough. Unless HUM are allowed. When they are allowed, the definition of "artificial" in the Laws means that the pass is not considered artificial and not alerted, however.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-June-03, 07:24, said:

When they are allowed, the definition of "artificial" in the Laws means that the pass is not considered artificial and not alerted, however.

Whether they're alerted depends on the RA's alert regulations, not whether the Laws defines it to be artificial. There's nothing prohibiting an RA from requiring alerts for natural bids (e.g. strong 2's are alertable in ACBL).

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-June-03, 12:22, said:

Whether they're alerted depends on the RA's alert regulations, not whether the Laws defines it to be artificial. There's nothing prohibiting an RA from requiring alerts for natural bids (e.g. strong 2's are alertable in ACBL).

In the EBU, the following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings:
( c ) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

It does not say how many values have to be conveyed, or whether those values have to be guaranteed systemically.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-June-03, 14:58, said:

In the EBU, the following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings:
( c ) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

It does not say how many values have to be conveyed, or whether those values have to be guaranteed systemically.

What does it mean for a call to "convey" something other than it's part of your systemic agreements? But I agree that the case where it shows two possibilities, only one of which includes values, does not "convey values".

Outside of HUM, this doesn't usually come up with opening passes. But it's not uncommon for a player to have more values than they've previously shown, but no good bid available. This usually comes up in competitive auctions -- you'd normally show your extra strength with a NT jump, but you don't want to do that without a stopper in the opponent's suit, so you end up passing.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-June-04, 11:42, said:

I agree that the case where it shows two possibilities, only one of which includes values, does not "convey values".

This would be my ruling too if pass was 9-11 or a Yarborough. I think if Pass showed a weak NT or a Yarborough, however, I think the opponents should be informed before the round, but I cannot find any law requiring it. I would say the CC should clearly state on the front that Pass will usually be a weak NT. If it is forcing, but can include a balanced Yarborough, it is alertable, as its forcing nature is unexpected.