lamford Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 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.The lack of a question is not UI, unless one sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't; we are not told that is the case. And if 1D was alerted because, as someone suggested, they were playing Walsh, then it would be ludicrous to bid 2♦ on this hand, knowing that diamonds are 4-1 or even 5-0. It could have been, from North's point of view, that South thought they were playing T-Walsh, and did not ask, but then finds they are playing Walsh. Not asking because you think you know is certainly not an infraction, whether it transpires you were right or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 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.)Nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 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.Why would you assume a player would cheat? Or are you saying he doesn't know that purposely asking first if he wanted to show diamonds is cheating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardv Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Why would you assume a player would cheat? Or are you saying he doesn't know that purposely asking first if he wanted to show diamonds is cheating?I'm saying that in practice some players think of asking only if they want to show diamonds. Anyone who's played an alertable 1♦response can confirm that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm saying that in practice some players think of asking only if they want to show diamonds. Anyone who's played an alertable 1♦response can confirm that.You can't legislate thinking, you can only legislate actions. Personally, the first time a player asked "because he has diamonds" and then doubled, I would warn him against doing so. The second time, I would give him a PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Unlike Sven, I would like to know why 1D was alerted, and it might matter. The East response seems natural, as is his rebid which on my planet from way back in the 60's suggested 5-4 in the minors with 6-9 points. From there, we can assume the 1S bid was up-the-line style hence no 1NT rebid. Now, Opener with a brain would bid 2D for the 5-3 fit over 2C. 1C-1D (x)1S-2C2D. Perhaps Opener's contention is that he would have bid 2D if he wasn't convinced by the Double that the Diamonds were splitting 5-0 against -- but what is his excuse for the 3C bid?? Anyway, do they really require alerts of 1-level takeout doubles and no alert of a 1-level penalty double in the EBU? I doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Why would you assume a player would cheat? Or are you saying he doesn't know that purposely asking first if he wanted to show diamonds is cheating?If I wanted to show diamonds and didn't know why 1♦ had been alerted then I would certainly have asked first - and no, I don't know that that is cheating. Pran seems to think that if I want to show diamonds and don't know why 1♦ has been alerted then it is OK not to ask first, so partner will know that I have assumed the 1♦ bid is artificial, even if it actually isn't. I thought that I did know that that was cheating! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 You can't legislate thinking, you can only legislate actions. Personally, the first time a player asked "because he has diamonds" and then doubled, I would warn him against doing so. The second time, I would give him a PP.Insufficient. Asking about an alerted call at one's turn to bid needs more than that to become censurable. You would also have to have evidence that he asked so that he could show diamonds in that matter and that he would intend it as takeout if he didn't ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanst Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm just wondering about the jurisdiction where this happened and wether there was a CC. If there should have been a CC, EW are certainly to blame and there would not be a discussion about asking or not about the 1♦ bid. Why was it alerted, anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted June 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 I'm just wondering about the jurisdiction where this happened and wether there was a CC. If there should have been a CC, EW are certainly to blame and there would not be a discussion about asking or not about the 1♦ bid. Why was it alerted, anyway? See post 21 It was alerted as it was an asking bid for further info from 1♣ opener Which was satated to be 'Possibly short ♣) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanst Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 [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♣-2First 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 diamondsthat it was a psychand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 No infraction, no damage, and no adjustment. Maybe an eyeroll for east, who (if we believe him) apparently does not think that ♦A9752 is a good enough holding to venture a NT call when an opponent has shown the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Insufficient. Asking about an alerted call at one's turn to bid needs more than that to become censurable. You would also have to have evidence that he asked so that he could show diamonds in that matter and that he would intend it as takeout if he didn't ask.I did say "because he has diamonds". I would not be just assuming that's the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardv Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You could have an agreement that a double of an alerted 1♦ always shows diamonds, then there would be no problem here. I've never heard of anyone actually having that agreement. 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. If you always find out at the beginning of the round, your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. If you always ask (or consult their convention card), your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. The knowledge that you've done neither of these things is UI to partner. Therefore he must always act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. The lack of a question is not UI, unless one sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't; we are not told that is the case. And if 1D was alerted because, as someone suggested, they were playing Walsh, then it would be ludicrous to bid 2♦ on this hand, knowing that diamonds are 4-1 or even 5-0. It could have been, from North's point of view, that South thought they were playing T-Walsh, and did not ask, but then finds they are playing Walsh. Not asking because you think you know is certainly not an infraction, whether it transpires you were right or not. It follows that if opponents are playing Walsh, North must act on the basis that South knew that 1♦ was natural. And if 1♦ was artificial, as it was, North must act on the basis that South knew that likewise. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 You could have an agreement that a double of an alerted 1♦ always shows diamonds, then there would be no problem here. I've never heard of anyone actually having that agreement. 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. If you always find out at the beginning of the round, your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. If you always ask (or consult their convention card), your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. The knowledge that you've done neither of these things is UI to partner. Therefore he must always act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. The lack of a question is not UI, unless one sometimes asks and sometimes doesn't; we are not told that is the case. And if 1D was alerted because, as someone suggested, they were playing Walsh, then it would be ludicrous to bid 2♦ on this hand, knowing that diamonds are 4-1 or even 5-0. It could have been, from North's point of view, that South thought they were playing T-Walsh, and did not ask, but then finds they are playing Walsh. Not asking because you think you know is certainly not an infraction, whether it transpires you were right or not. It follows that if opponents are playing Walsh, North must act on the basis that South knew that 1♦ was natural. And if 1♦ was artificial, as it was, North must act on the basis that South knew that likewise. And could you please, as a conclusion of all this clarify: What is (in your opinion) the irregularity (and who is the offender)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardv Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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. RikIt is only if he does not ask in order to communicate with his partner that he is committing an infraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 diamondsthat it was a psychand 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted June 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 150Effectively 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 5A 5 4Q 8 3T 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)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted June 3, 2015 Report Share Posted June 3, 2015 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.