your ruling

[Aardv]

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:

 

...

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.)

 

 

...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]

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]

You've overlooked this:

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

(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.

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]

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.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67648-should-we-alert/

[gordontd]

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]

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]

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]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2h(!)2n(!)p3c(!)p3n(!)ppp]133|100[/hv] 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.

[lamford]

It sounds here like I think everybody's trying one on.

It sounds here that EW haven't got a clue how to bid. Why did West not bid 1NT at his second turn? Why did East not bid 1NT at his second turn? Why did West raise to 3♣?

 

And we are not told that EW asked about the double of 1♦ during the auction. I would like to give 40% to both sides, but I guess I can't.

[sanst]

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 ♣)

That's a highly inadequate answer. At least you should tell what strength, forcing or not, wether it says something about major suits etc. Further info from opener could mean anything and everything, from shoe size to what he had for breakfast. All right, it would have something to do with the cards he holds.

[pran]

Neither Aardv nor anybody else seems to have bothered about this question:

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.)

so I repeat:

 

Would PASS from North be acceptable if South had asked about the alerted 1♦ bid before he doubled, instead of just doubling?

 

The relevant part of the actual auction was:

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ (!) - X

1♠ - PASS -

[Aardv]

Neither Aardv nor anybody else seems to have bothered about this question:

 

so I repeat:

 

Would PASS from North be acceptable if South had asked about the alerted 1♦ bid before he doubled, instead of just doubling?

 

The relevant part of the actual auction was:

1♣ - PASS - 1♦ (!) - X

1♠ - PASS -

 

I saw no need to repeat myself, but since you insist:

 

...

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.

 

(It makes no different if it's a misbid rather than a psyche.)

[pran]

Is it really so difficult to answer just "yes" or "no" to a plain and simple question?

[WellSpyder]

Is it really so difficult to answer just "yes" or "no" to a plain and simple question?

-1

 

Looks a pretty clear answer to me! It is not a plain and simple question, it is a judgment question, and Aardv gives a clear steer as to what his judgment is likely to be, while leaving his options open since presumably if actually called to make such a judgment as a TD he would consult first.

[pran]

-1

 

Looks a pretty clear answer to me! It is not a plain and simple question, it is a judgment question, and Aardv gives a clear steer as to what his judgment is likely to be, while leaving his options open since presumably if actually called to make such a judgment as a TD he would consult first.

Now look:

North is free to call whatever he likes so long as his call is not based on concealed partnership understanding or unauthorized information received.

 

CPU has not been a question here so we have to look at possible UI.

 

The only source for UI is North's interpretation on whether South asked or did not ask about an opponent's bid after it was alerted as North's (legal) interpretation on South's double of this bid depends on whether the alerted bid was artificial or not.

 

So far we have a clear answer that because South did not ask about the alert he has given extraneous information suggesting that North should PASS at his next turn to call (an assertion that I strongly question).

 

However I have not seen any clear answer that North would be free to call whatever he selected if South had indeed asked about the alert. On the contrary I can only understand the posts from Aardv that North still is under UI constraints and that his PASS also then would be a violation of Law 16B1.

 

Is asking about an alerted call before making your next call an irregularity?

Is not asking about an alerted call before making your next call an irregularity?

 

If the answer to both these questions is "yes" then how are the players supposed to behave when opponments alert?

 

If the answer to either or both questions is "no" then what exactly is the irregularity in this case?

[WellSpyder]

Now look:

North is free to call whatever he likes so long as his call is not based on concealed partnership understanding or unauthorized information received.

Agreed.

CPU has not been a question here so we have to look at possible UI.

Not agreed. If South has psyched his double and North's subsequent bidding appears to allow for that, then there is evidence of a possible CPU, and that is exactly what aardv has been saying.

The only source for UI is North's interpretation on whether South asked or did not ask about an opponent's bid after it was alerted as North's (legal) interpretation on South's double of this bid depends on whether the alerted bid was artificial or not.

Agreed.

So far we have a clear answer that because South did not ask about the alert he has given extraneous information suggesting that North should PASS at his next turn to call (an assertion that I strongly question).

 

However I have not seen any clear answer that North would be free to call whatever he selected if South had indeed asked about the alert. On the contrary I can only understand the posts from Aardv that North still is under UI constraints and that his PASS also then would be a violation of Law 16B1.

There are possible UI constraints, whether South asks or doesn't ask, but I don't think aardv or anyone else is arguing that there would be relevant UI constraints in this case if South had asked. But that doesn't affect the CPU issue, of course.

Is asking about an alerted call before making your next call an irregularity?

Is not asking about an alerted call before making your next call an irregularity?

No, of course not. Giving UI is not an irregularity,

If the answer to either or both questions is "no" then what exactly is the irregularity in this case?

There may not be one. But if UI has been used to influence a call, or if there is a CPU, then of course there has been an irregularity. So the TD will still want to consider these possibilities.

[pran]

Good.

 

I see we agree in all essentials.

 

The fact is that no irregularity has been shown but that there is a certain suspicion (which I do not share) of CPU in this case.

 

(You cannot rule that there is CPU if South has psyched and no CPU if not! CPU is a question of what information is exchanged, not which cards a player holds.)

 

I might (if the double according to partnership understandings promised a fair hand with least 5 Diamonds) have asked North why he didn't bid 2♦ over 1♠ by West. However, North's hand isn't necessarily one I would be fighting with for the best part score in an IMP-scored match where everybody seem to have stretched their values.

 

My ruling (same as before): No irregularity, no adjustment.

[WellSpyder]

I see we agree in all essentials.

We do?? You have been able to ignore the UI issue since you posed the hypothetical question of how people would view the situation if South had asked about the alert of 1♦. But since be didn't do this, you can't use people's answer to your hypothetical question as a way to gauge agreement about the appropriate ruling in the actual case.

 

(You cannot rule that there is CPU if South has psyched and no CPU if not! CPU is a question of what information is exchanged, not which cards a player holds.)

While that makes a lot of sense in terms of pure logic, I'm not sure it is an accurate summary of how the issue is dealt with in practice - probably because a) no-one ever complains about a fielded non-psyche and b) there is much less chance of damage if the non-psycher doesn't actually hold the hand his partner has illegally allowed for.

[aguahombre]

no-one ever complains about a fielded non-psyche .....

I am on your side in this thread (That would worry anyone).

 

However, there are a whole lot of people who complain about fielded misbids. Despite efforts to stifle the concept of coincidence (a deviation by one and then a compensating deviation by the other guy) --- these cases continue to breed suspicion, director calls to no avail, and recorder forms.

 

There may be no "rule of coincidence". We have that parroted to us any time someone brings this up. But the phenomenon of coincidence after a misbid or deviation is quite real, and often related to convention disruption matters addressed by B. Wolff.

[WellSpyder]

I am on your side in this thread (That would worry anyone).

 

However, there are a whole lot of people who complain about fielded misbids. Despite efforts to stifle the concept of coincidence (a deviation by one and then a compensating deviation by the other guy) --- these cases continue to breed suspicion, director calls to no avail, and recorder forms.

Fair point. I confused the issue by using non-psyche here as shorthand for both non-psyche and non-misbid. It is quite possible to bid on the assumption that partner hasn't got what he has shown, even when he actually has. Mostly you do that at your own risk, but if you do this because he has a tendency to psyche or misbid in this situation then you actually still have a CPU of a sort even if the U was missing on this particular occasion....

[campboy]

(You cannot rule that there is CPU if South has psyched and no CPU if not! CPU is a question of what information is exchanged, not which cards a player holds.)

You certainly can rule that there is sufficient evidence of a CPU if South has psyched/misbid, but insufficient otherwise. Indeed, it is difficult to see how you can ever rule there is a CPU based on North's actions alone, since CPU has a P in it.

[Aardv]

...

The fact is that no irregularity has been shown but that there is a certain suspicion (which I do not share) of CPU in this case.

 

(You cannot rule that there is CPU if South has psyched and no CPU if not! CPU is a question of what information is exchanged, not which cards a player holds.)

...

 

The EBU disagrees with you

 

Red Psyche

...

If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

[pran]

It is quite interesting to notice how this thread has developed

from: "What is the irregularity? - no cause for adjustment"

through: "North violated Law 16B1 because South gave him UI (suggesting PASS) by not asking about the alerted bid"

to: "North/South must have a CPU since North called PASS over the 1♠ bid by West".

 

Sorry folks. To me this looks like a fishing expedition trying to justify a questionable ruling rather than investigating facts before making a ruling.