your ruling

[Oof Arted]

[hv=pc=n&w=sat62hkq3djt6ca42&e=s74ht9da9752ckj98&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c(could%20be%20short)p1d(Alerted%2C%20not%20asked%20about)d(not%20alerted%20because%20it%20shows%20that%20suit%20over%20conventional%20bid)1sp2cp3cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Result 3♣-2

Edited June 1, 2015 by barmar
convert to diagram

[pran]

EAST WEST

 

♠ A1062 ♠ 74

♥ KQ3 ♥ 109

♦ J106 ♦ A9752

♣ A42 ♣ KJ98

 

 

 

Bidding

 

West 1♣(announced could be short)

North Pass

East 1♦ Alerted (not asked about)

South Double (not alerted as per Blue book as it shows that suit over a 'Conventional' bid)

 

West 1 ♠

North Pass

East 2 ♣

South Pass

 

West 3 ♣

 

All Pass

 

3 ♣ -2

 

Who summoned the Director and what was the alleged irregularity?

[chrism]

What is the alleged irregularity? When was the director called?

(Edit: cross-posted with pran)

[Oof Arted]

What is the alleged irregularity? When was the director called?

(Edit: cross-posted with pran)

 

 

East called the Director as you guessed the 'Double' by South was Phsycic.

 

♠ QJ93

♥ J8762

♦K4

♣ Q6

 

This was a Teams match and South decided that his 'Double' would cloud the Waters somewhat.

 

And it worked keeping the Opps out of NT which was bid and made at the other table.

 

But as a 'Phsyc' is a perfectly legitimate ploy why should the TD give a split ruling or even consider it.

[campboy]

Did North lead a diamond?

[Aardv]

Why was 1♦ alerted?

[pran]

East called the Director as you guessed the 'Double' by South was Phsycic.

 

♠ QJ93

♥ J8762

♦K4

♣ Q6

 

This was a Teams match and South decided that his 'Double' would cloud the Waters somewhat.

 

And it worked keeping the Opps out of NT which was bid and made at the other table.

 

But as a 'Phsyc' is a perfectly legitimate ploy why should the TD give a split ruling or even consider it.

So far I see no irregularity and consequently no reason for any adjustment

 

Did North lead a diamond?

How does that matter?

 

Why was 1♦ alerted?

How does that matter?

[WellSpyder]

the 'Double' by South was Phsycic.

 

♠ QJ93

♥ J8762

♦K4

♣ Q6

Was it? The fact that south doesn't have what he apparently showed does not necessarily mean that it was a psychic bid. Did south actually intend to show diamonds, or the unbid suits (ie the majors)?

[Aardv]

Why was 1♦ alerted?

 

How does that matter?

 

It matters because North is supposed to assume and West is entitled to assume that South knows the meaning of 1♦.

 

I'm sceptical that South was psyching; I suspect he doubled for take-out, and would have asked first if he wanted to double to show diamonds.

[lamford]

It matters because North is supposed to assume and West is entitled to assume that South knows the meaning of 1♦.

Under which Law? South has no obligation to ask before doubling. He is entitled to assume that the alert means that the call falls into an alertable category. He cannot "communicate" by sometimes asking and sometimes not, but asking and then passing can convey UI. If South asked and the answer was, surprisingly, "non-forcing" and South now passed, he might indicate that he would have doubled an artificial one diamond to show diamonds. Asking every time is the only way to avoid giving UI on occasion.

 

But I agree that South intended double as takeout.

[pran]

It matters because North is supposed to assume and West is entitled to assume that South knows the meaning of 1♦.

Sorry?

What reason do you have for asserting this? Apparently South had sufficient information about the 1♦ bid in that it was alerted.

I'm sceptical that South was psyching; I suspect he doubled for take-out, and would have asked first if he wanted to double to show diamonds.

If South had asked about the alerted bid in order to make it clear that he showed Diamonds then that would have been a most questionable action (to say the least). He had sufficient information (the alert) to expect his double to be understood as showing Diamonds.

 

However, even if South had intended his double to be for majors he has in case just misbid and not acted improperly in any way. So what? A simple misbid is no irregularity and I see no other irregularity here?

[wank]

did you know the norwegian word for gullible has been taken out of the dictionary?

[WellSpyder]

He had sufficient information (the alert) to expect his double to be understood as showing Diamonds.

Please tell me you are joking! Surely it isn't legal to take advantage of alerts in this way? Supposing oppo are playing Walsh, and alert in this position because this natural 1♦ bid denies a major (unless holding a stronger hand). Now I can show diamonds, too, provided I don't ask about the alerted 1♦ bid??

[pran]

did you know the Norwegian word for gullible has been taken out of the dictionary?

Which dictionary? We still have it in the Norwegian.

[Trinidad]

He cannot "communicate" by sometimes asking and sometimes not, but asking and then passing can convey UI.

As can not asking and bidding... which is more relevant to this thread.

 

Rik

[Aardv]

It matters because North is supposed to assume and West is entitled to assume that South knows the meaning of 1♦.

 

Sorry?

What reason do you have for asserting this? ...

 

Under which Law? ...

 

Under Law 16, the fact that South has or hasn't asked a question is UI to North. (But the answer to any question he asked is of course AI.)

 

Apparently the N-S agreement is that the meaning of South's double depends on whether 1♦ is natural or artificial. If South asks, then doubles, North knows what 1♦ means and knows that South knows, so he can and will interpret the double accordingly. That's the alerting and explanation system working as it should.

 

If South doesn't ask, then doubles, North is not allowed to use South's non-question to interpret the double. It follows that if he doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret the double accordingly.

[barmar]

If South doesn't ask, then doubles, North is not allowed to use South's non-question to interpret the double. It follows that if he doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret the double accordingly.

Who is "he" in that last question, South or North?

[Aardv]

Who is "he" in that last question, South or North?

Sorry, if North doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret South's double accordingly. (North needn't find out if North is going to make the same call either way.)

[pran]

Please tell me you are joking! Surely it isn't legal to take advantage of alerts in this way? Supposing oppo are playing Walsh, and alert in this position because this natural 1♦ bid denies a major (unless holding a stronger hand). Now I can show diamonds, too, provided I don't ask about the alerted 1♦ bid??

Taking advantage of alerts this way?

 

An alert is a warning to opponents that the alerted call has features which the opponents might want to investigate further with question(s). But there is no obligation for opponents to ask.

 

If South here had asked and then doubled he would most likely have found himself in severe trouble for calling his partner's explicit attention to the fact that his double was based on opponents' confirmation that the alert indicated an artificial call. (We no longer use the term "conventional" in the laws.)

 

As this case has been described (when at last we got a description) South was apparently satisfied (because of the alert) that the 1♦ call was artificial for the purpose of understanding his double (according to his partnership understandings). His actual hand corroborates a suspicion that he deliberately psyched but it is also possible that he just misbid, neither of which is illegal. However we have no indication that North in any way used unauthorized information in the auction or play.

So what was the alleged irregularity?

[pran]

Under Law 16, the fact that South has or hasn't asked a question is UI to North. (But the answer to any question he asked is of course AI.)

 

Apparently the N-S agreement is that the meaning of South's double depends on whether 1♦ is natural or artificial. If South asks, then doubles, North knows what 1♦ means and knows that South knows, so he can and will interpret the double accordingly. That's the alerting and explanation system working as it should.

 

If South doesn't ask, then doubles, North is not allowed to use South's non-question to interpret the double. It follows that if he doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret the double accordingly.

 

If South doesn't ask then North may (of course) ask why the 1♦ call was alerted, but he is also allowed (without asking any question at all) to base his explanation of the double on the sole fact that the 1♦ bid was alerted and therefore was artificial in some way!

[Oof Arted]

Was it? The fact that south doesn't have what he apparently showed does not necessarily mean that it was a psychic bid. Did south actually intend to show diamonds, or the unbid suits (ie the majors)?

 

 

Oh yes as the 1♦ is conventional used to ask for further information from partner.

 

South decided to Muddy the waters by doubling a Conventional Bid to show that suit, which is what N/S play.

 

No he was not trying to show the majors, that is not what they play.

[WellSpyder]

the 1♦ bid was alerted and therefore was artificial in some way!

Not where I come from. It might be entirely natural, but non-forcing, for instance. Or it might be natural and forcing, but showing at least 7 cards in the suit! Or......

[Aardv]

If South here had asked and then doubled he would most likely have found himself in severe trouble for calling his partner's explicit attention to the fact that his double was based on opponents' confirmation that the alert indicated an artificial call. (We no longer use the term "conventional" in the laws.)

Severe trouble? Any director who penalises South for asking for information he needs about an alerted call should find a different game to ruin.

 

If South doesn't ask then North may (of course) ask why the 1♦ call was alerted, but he is also allowed (without asking any question at all) to base his explanation of the double on the sole fact that the 1♦ bid was alerted and therefore was artificial in some way!

"Therefore" is wrong. We're told that the Blue Book applied to alerts: it specifies that "a bid must be alerted if it: (a) is not natural; or (b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning."

So the alert of 1♦ did not have to mean that it was an artificial bid.

 

So what was the alleged irregularity?

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.

[lamford]

Under Law 16, the fact that South has or hasn't asked a question is UI to North.

Law 16 states: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert <snip>"

 

Now I am aware that it says "for example", but it specifically lists alert or failure to alert, but omits "a failure to ask a question". If South asks sometimes and does not ask on other times, then he is illegally communicating. If he never asks, then he is not conveying UI. Just as if he always asks.

 

There is an interesting situation when someone overcalls 2C, Aspirin, Aspro, or whatever, over 1NT. It is alerted but I bid 3NT without asking. If I never ask before bidding 3NT I am conveying no UI. If I sometimes ask, I am.

[lamford]

North needn't find out if North is going to make the same call either way

You are the one who is joking now. That is illegal communication to indicate that I don't need to find out because the call's meaning makes no difference to me.