[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-June-02, 09:53, said:

The lack of a question is not UI, unless one sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't; we are not told that is the case.

So, you simply assume that this player has never asked a question about a call in his life... because you are not told that he has asked questions before.

What is the more realistic assumption:
1) That the South player, just like all normal bridge players, asks for the meaning of a call from time to time.
2) That the South player is an unlikely exception to the rule and never asks about any call... ever.

Rik

[Aardv]

pran, on 2015-June-03, 00:22, said:

And could you please, as a conclusion of all this clarify: What is (in your opinion) the irregularity (and who is the offender)?

There's a prima facie case that North's pass over 1♠ was based on or suggested by UI.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-June-03, 02:24, said:

So, you simply assume that this player has never asked a question about a call in his life... because you are not told that he has asked questions before.

What is the more realistic assumption:
1) That the South player, just like all normal bridge players, asks for the meaning of a call from time to time.
2) That the South player is an unlikely exception to the rule and never asks about any call... ever.

Rik

It is only if he does not ask in order to communicate with his partner that he is committing an infraction.

[Oof Arted]

sanst, on 2015-June-02, 14:11, said:

First and foremost: you ask for a ruling but no director can make one without hearing both sides. So, whatever is posted here, is based on the facts as given by you. You stated that:

• South's double shows diamonds
  
• that it was a psych
  
• and was made to muddy the waters.
  
• That was succesful as EW therefore didn't reach a NT contract.

For argument's sake I asume the first point to be NS's agreement, though some kind of confirmation would be nice. But the second and third point don't sound true to me. I rather think that South forgot the agreement and thought it showed the majors. I can't imagine anybody bidding like that with the purpose you stated and holding the hand you gave in post #4. But, wether it was a misbid or a psych, neither is an infraction.
That EW didn't bid NT is due to E, whose hand holds five diamonds, including the ace. If that isn't good enough, what is? East could have bid 1NT, but decided to support the clubs, though these might be short. West, for some reason, thought that was a 5+ card and raised it with a rather poor hand. So, whatever damage EW suffered, if any, it was self-inflicted.

I just don't understand your assumption that South had forgotten the agreement and thought he was showing Majors

NO he had not there agreement is that a Double of a Conventional bid shows that suit. e.g. 2♣ Stayman by opps DOUBLE shows CLUB suit.

[Oof Arted]

pran, on 2015-June-03, 00:22, said:

And could you please, as a conclusion of all this clarify: What is (in your opinion) the irregularity (and who is the offender)?

The Director actually ruled that E/W had been damaged and did some silly 12 C ruling giving x % of 1NT 90 y% of 1NT 120 z% of 1NT 150

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 18:56, said:

My understanding is that this pair plays that a double of an artificial 1♦ shows diamonds, whereas a double of a natural 1♦, even if alerted, is for take out. That agreement is very common.

This sort of conditional agreement is unplayable (in the absence of UI) unless you find out whether 1♦ is natural or artificial before you double, whether at the beginning of the round or in response to an alert.

Indeed, the agreement you give is the one I have with my partner, to avoid this situation. The problem is the alerting rules. If they just had "alert if artificial"; "do not alert if natural", then there would be no need for someone to give UI by asking and then either bidding or passing. For some reason, in the UK, they add "unless it has a surprising meaning". I am not sure that a natural meaning of 1D would be surprising enough to be alertable here. A similar problem occurs if someone opens 2S which is a bad pre-empt in a minor. It gets alerted, and you have spades, but it could easily be a Lucas two or similar. Your agreement, unsurprisingly, is that double is takeout if it shows four or more spades, otherwise double shows spades. This is another example where the only method to avoid giving UI is to ask all the time or never ask. The last is not practical, and I agree with Trinidad that it never occurs.

[lamford]

Oof Arted, on 2015-June-03, 04:06, said:

The Director actually ruled that E/W had been damaged and did some silly 12 C ruling giving x % of 1NT 90 y% of 1NT 120 z% of 1NT 150

Effectively deciding there was misinformation, in that he did not believe the double of 1D showed diamonds. Presumably NS could not proved that double of a relay or similar showed diamonds by agreement.

[PhilKing]

Oof Arted, on 2015-June-03, 04:01, said:

I just don't understand your assumption that South had forgotten the agreement and thought he was showing Majors

There are a few factors that lean me towards that explanation:

1. South did not ask the meaning of 1♦. As pointed out by Aardv, just because it is alerted does not make it conventional.

2. South's hand.

3. The far-fetched nature of South's explanation. A deliberate psyche here is just so unlikely unless South is in the habit of making ridiculous bids that have a close to zero chance of success.

[pran]

Aardv, on 2015-June-03, 02:56, said:

There's a prima facie case that North's pass over 1♠ was based on or suggested by UI.

There is no case unless you can show that South by not asking about the alerted 1♦ bid sent a message to North (UI) and that this message suggested pass rather than another call by North.

I cannot see how there is any evidence here that South sent any such message.

As far as I can figure out from this thread North held:

K 8 5
A 5 4
Q 8 3
T 7 5 3

You assert that North's pass after West 1♠ was an infraction of Law 16B1 but you fail to state alternative calls which he should have chosen if he takes South's double to show either:

1: Diamonds (i.e. the alerted 1♦ bid is taken as artificial)
2: Both majors (i.e. the alerted 1♦ bid is taken as not artificial)?

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2015-June-03, 03:57, said:

It is only if he does not ask in order to communicate with his partner that he is committing an infraction.

That is true, but his not asking is UI to partner.

And this "non asking" occurs more often than you think. I once had a real nice example as a player: LHO opens a strong 1NT, my partner bids 2♥ (DONT). I alert, but no questions are asked. RHO doubles. I ask what the double means and hear "take out". I raise to 3♥. It goes pass-pass to RHO who now asks what 2♥ meant. I explain: "hearts and spades". She now bids a confident 3♠, immediately alerted by LHO. I ask again and the answer is: "asks for a spade stop".

So, the first round responder showed spades by not asking and on the second round she asked for a spade stop by asking first. And indeed, she had a game force with 4 small spades.

Fortunately, the TD was experienced enough to recognize that both the non-question and the question were UI.

Rik

[Aardv]

pran, on 2015-June-03, 04:24, said:

There is no case unless you can show that South by not asking about the alerted 1♦ bid sent a message to North (UI) and that this message suggested pass rather than another call by North.

I cannot see how there is any evidence here that South sent any such message.

As far as I can figure out from this thread North held:

K 8 5
A 5 4
Q 8 3
T 7 5 3

You assert that North's pass after West 1♠ was an infraction of Law 16B1 but you fail to state alternative calls which he should have chosen if he takes South's double to show either:

1: Diamonds (i.e. the alerted 1♦ bid is taken as artificial)
2: Both majors (i.e. the alerted 1♦ bid is taken as not artificial)?

You've overlooked this:

Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 09:23, said:

...
North's hand seems to have been Kxx Axx Qxx 10xxx. I think it's normal at white to bid 2♦ with that, and I suspect that North's pass was influenced by UI contrary to Law 16. I would consider an adjustment to 2♦X.

(I needn't answer your (2). North must take South's double as showing diamonds, in accordance with their partnership agreements.)

Oof Arted, on 2015-June-02, 04:13, said:

...the 'Double' by South was Phsycic...

If I'm persuaded that South's double was a genuine psyche, then I need to rule whether North's pass made it Red or Amber, as defined by the White Book*. If Red, then I award an artificial adjusted score and a PP. I'd talk to the players, and consult if possible, but my first thought is that 2♦ is the obvious and normal call, so it's a Red psyche.

*I'm assuming that if the Blue book was in force, so was the White book.

[StevenG]

Oof Arted, on 2015-June-03, 04:01, said:

NO he had not there agreement is that a Double of a Conventional bid shows that suit. e.g. 2♣ Stayman by opps DOUBLE shows CLUB suit.

Did he know that 1♦ might be natural? This will shock the cognoscenti here, but in 22 years of club and tournament bridge, I've never met Walsh. In fact, because I've seen it mentioned countless times on these boards, but never bothered to look it up, I assumed it was some foreign thing, essentially unknown in this country.

[pran]

Aardv, on 2015-June-03, 05:23, said:

You've overlooked this:

No, I didn't overlook, I was able to reconstruct North's hand exactly from the informasion in post #4

Aardv, on 2015-June-03, 05:23, said:

(I needn't answer your (2). North must take South's double as showing diamonds, in accordance with their partnership agreements.)

In included this alternative because so many seem to argue that South may have "understood" the 1♦ bid as natural in spite of the alert.
However, I have all the time been satisified that South (again because of the alert) had no reason for asking as it was sufficient for his partnership understanding that the alert made the 1♦ artificial for the purpose of understanding South's double.

Then we also have the undisputable fact from seeing South's hand that either we have a genuine psyche or a genuine misbid from South and the lack of question from South conveys itself no information on which it was.

Aardv, on 2015-June-03, 05:23, said:

If I'm persuaded that South's double was a genuine psyche, then I need to rule whether North's pass made it Red or Amber, as defined by the White Book*. If Red, then I award an artificial adjusted score and a PP. I'd talk to the players, and consult if possible, but my first thought is that 2♦ is the obvious and normal call, so it's a Red psyche.

*I'm assuming that if the Blue book was in force, so was the White book.

Would you have accepted the PASS from North if South had asked about the 1♦ bid and then doubled? (assuming that the answer implied the 1♦ bid in this position does not "promise" a Diamond suit.)

[campboy]

StevenG, on 2015-June-03, 05:29, said:

Did he know that 1♦ might be natural? This will shock the cognoscenti here, but in 22 years of club and tournament bridge, I've never met Walsh. In fact, because I've seen it mentioned countless times on these boards, but never bothered to look it up, I assumed it was some foreign thing, essentially unknown in this country.

Is Walsh 1♦ even alertable? It certainly wasn't under the old OB.

[helene_t]

OB 2012:

5G2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:
....
- c2: A 1♥ or 1♠ response to 1♣ that may conceal longer Diamonds: for example, as in ‘Walsh’ responses.

But GordonTD (who is probably the chief authority on this issue) thinks that it isn't alertable anymore: http://www.bridgebas...hould-we-alert/

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2015-June-03, 06:37, said:

Is Walsh 1♦ even alertable? It certainly wasn't under the old OB.

No, nor is Walsh 1♥ or 1♠. The intention was to distinguish what are essentially natural bids from transfer responses, which are alertable.

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-June-03, 04:40, said:

That is true, but his not asking is UI to partner.

And this "non asking" occurs more often than you think. I once had a real nice example as a player: LHO opens a strong 1NT, my partner bids 2♥ (DONT). I alert, but no questions are asked. RHO doubles. I ask what the double means and hear "take out". I raise to 3♥. It goes pass-pass to RHO who now asks what 2♥ meant. I explain: "hearts and spades". She now bids a confident 3♠, immediately alerted by LHO. I ask again and the answer is: "asks for a spade stop".

So, the first round responder showed spades by not asking and on the second round she asked for a spade stop by asking first. And indeed, she had a game force with 4 small spades.

Fortunately, the TD was experienced enough to recognize that both the non-question and the question were UI.

In the example you give, the person is trying to communicate by not asking. That I agree is an infraction.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-June-03, 04:08, said:

Indeed, the agreement you give is the one I have with my partner, to avoid this situation. The problem is the alerting rules. If they just had "alert if artificial"; "do not alert if natural", then there would be no need for someone to give UI by asking and then either bidding or passing. For some reason, in the UK, they add "unless it has a surprising meaning".

That "some reason" is presumably because they realized that the primary purpose of alerts should be to warn opponents that they might not understand your bid, and they should ask if they need to know the details. The old "alert all artificial calls" rule didn't serve this purpose as well (Stayman was alerted, and probably few people ever asked).

[mycroft]

---

No questions were asked during the auction. Before I led, I asked what dummy had shown with her sequence. It was Lebensohl, of course, and "showed a game raise with a heart stopper". And sure enough, that's what she had. "Does it show anything about spades?" "No."

Of course, we were playing transfer overcalls of NT in direct seat. It's amazing what you can do if you don't ask.

(Also, of course, declarer had sufficient spade stop. Yes, I'm still annoyed at this one, almost 20 years later.)

Yep, this never happens.

But having said that, in the original case:

1) Get a better explanation from East of "asking for more about partner's hand". That's clearly incomplete, and may in fact cause things to be different in law if not in fact (and, assuming N/S knew E/W's system as well as they claim to, may explain some of the "obvious" decisions below). But we can assume it's an artificial relay, and shows...what? It's a club raise provided they actually have the suit? Strength?
2) Find out whether South knew 1♦ was conventional. Especially because "the cards speak", and they say otherwise; this will require some convincing. Doesn't mean I can't be convinced, of course.
3) Find out why North didn't Alert the double (likely "he knew it was conventional as well"; but find out. A "takeout" double of a natural 1♦ call would also be not Alertable; and North may not know the regulations well).
4) Find out why North didn't raise with a clear blocking raise, if he knew 1♦ was conventional and double showed diamonds. Also: poll to see if it truly is a clear blocking raise.
5) Decide if I'm going to adjust on anything.

If it is made clear to me that everyone knew what that 1♦ meant and knew that everyone knew, then no law was violated, and the result was a successful bidding assault. It's just that there is *so much* that arouses suspicion that I'm going to investigate things. In the EBU, we'll have to look at traffic-lighting the psychic or the misbid (whatever we decide it is), as well.

It is clear that no matter what happened, E/W were properly informed of N/S agreement (even if by sheer luck), so there's no ruling based on MI (unless N/S actually have an implied understanding based on whether they ask or not). There may be a ruling based on use of UI, or CPU (traffic-light rulings for Fielded Psychics/Misbids are CPU rulings in disguise); but I can't see a straight MI ruling.

I would investigate whether E/W are one of those pairs that play "if we confuse 'em with our system, and get a good score, that's a win; if we confuse 'em, and they get a good score, we look to the TD", too. There might easily be a split-and-weighted score coming.

(It sounds here like I think everybody's trying one on. I don't. But enough pairs that do play these games, deliberately or otherwise, exist that I have to check.)

[aguahombre]

I am self-imposing upon our partnership the following protocol:

After any alert during the 1st round of bidding, the person next to act must

1) Say, "Please explain."
2) Listen to the explanation as if he/she cares.
3) Proceed.

After any 1st-round announcement, the player next to act must proceed in the same manner as if a skip-bid warning had been given....listen to the announcement as if they care, and briefly pause before calling.