[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-04, 09:43, said:

The OP asked "your ruling?" (it's in the title of the topic). We have an ongoing argument, but we don't seem to have consensus on the question. The simple answer to this question is "there is (as of the original post) insufficient data to make a ruling". Somebody did say that, somewhere on page two, I think.

Ok, here's my attempt at this question. Suppose we accept that South's double was indeed psychic. I don't think the UI that South didn't ask suggests much at all, since presumably he assumed the alert meant it was artificial. But was the psyche fielded? I don't think North's pass is particularly unusual, and IMO the psyche was fielded if he didn't lead a diamond, and not fielded if he did.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2015-June-04, 10:34, said:

Is that really true? I thought someone quoted that it's alertable if it's either artificial or has an unexpected meaning. For instance, it could show diamonds with an unusual strength range; that would still be natural, but alertable.

It's theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone plays a natural-but-alertable meaning here.

[chrisuk]

to answer a couple of questions in this topic my partner and I play all doubles of an alerted diamond in this position as showing diamonds as the original poster stated, my double was asked about and my partner answered as per our agreement.you ask did I psyche or was it a miss bid, as the diamond in this case was an asking bid which may contain diamonds I decided to try and keep my opponents guessing as to where they should play and to answer do we ever ask in this situation we have found that by not asking we are not influenced by UI and yes we do look at the opps CC before play

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-June-04, 10:34, said:

You can change your settings to show 40 posts/page, then it's only 2 pages of discussion.

Is that really true? I thought someone quoted that it's alertable if it's either artificial or has an unexpected meaning. For instance, it could show diamonds with an unusual strength range; that would still be natural, but alertable.

Yes it would. Does anyone, anywhere, have that agreement?

[Oof Arted]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-04, 16:15, said:

Yes it would. Does anyone, anywhere, have that agreement?

Is that not what the EBU 'Blue Book' states, which Gordon TD seemed to skirt around ???

[FrancesHinden]

Oof Arted, on 2015-June-05, 04:28, said:

Is that not what the EBU 'Blue Book' states, which Gordon TD seemed to skirt around ???

Not sure what your point is.
Yes that is what the Blue Book says. After all, wouldn't you feel a bit miffed if the auction started 1H P 2C P P and you discover that 2C was natural and non-forcing? Or if RHO opened 2H, you overcalled 2S and then found that 2H showed at least 5-5 in the majors?

Blackshoe's point is that doesn't think anyone actually plays 1C P 1D as 'natural but with an unexpected meaning'

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2015-June-04, 16:15, said:

Yes it would. Does anyone, anywhere, have that agreement?

I do not play 1♣ - 1♦ unusually but I do play 1♦ - 1♠ as natural and non-forcing in one system, so it might not be such a stretch as you think.