your ruling

[Cyberyeti]

no-one ever complains about a fielded non-psyche

 

 

Not true, I stopped playing with a partner who blatantly fielded two of my non-psyches at a time where I did psyche a fair bit.

[blackshoe]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj93hj8762dk4cq6&w=sat62hkq3djt6ca42&n=sk85ha54dq83ct753&e=s74ht9da9752ckj98&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c(could%20be%20short)p1d(Alerted%2C%20not%20asked)d(not%20alerted%20because%20it%20shows%20diamonds%20because%20of%20the%20alert)1sp2cp3cppp]399|300|Result: 3♣-2[/hv]

 

Facts in evidence:

 

1. EBU jurisdiction (it's in the title bar).

2. The NS agreement wrt the double is that it shows diamonds.

3. South doubled "to muddy the waters". (It's unclear whether this is actually a fact, or just the opinion of the OP). (Post #21)

4. The director 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". (Post #45).

 

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.

 

Four pages of discussion on a simple ruling? Ridiculous. Also, it should not take 45 posts to extract from the original poster pertinent facts about the case. I'm tempted to split the topic, and move all the back-and-forth jabbering to a new topic in "Laws and Rulings", but for the moment at least I'll leave it all here.

 

The discussion has revolved around whether North had unauthorized information from South's failure to ask a question, and whether South illegally attempted to communicate with North by not asking. As I understand EBU regulations, there can be only one meaning of a call that does not require an alert. If an alert is made, then, the only thing opponents are entitled to infer is that the call does not have the meaning that does not require an alert. In this case, that means that the alert of 1♦ conveys that the bid is not natural. NS have the agreement that a double of an artificial (i.e., not natural) bid shows the suit bid. So South's double shows diamonds. South doesn't have diamonds. Did he psych? A psych is a deliberate and gross distortion of high card strength or suit length. It seems to me south call grossly distorts his diamond length. Was it deliberate? Yes, point 3 above so indicates (assuming it is a fact). So until we find out that point 3 is opinion rather than fact, we base any ruling on the derived fact that south psyched. Is this legal? In general yes (White Book 1.4.1, last paragraph).

 

Was south illegally attempting to communicate with North (Law 73B1)? I see no evidence of that. So he didn't ask. That's not evidence of a violation of 73B1. If it's evidence of anything it's that he knew from the alert that East wasn't showing diamonds.

 

Did the fact that south didn't ask convey UI to north? I don't buy it. Everybody at the table should have been able to infer that East wasn't showing diamonds from the fact of the alert.

 

So it appears that there was no infraction. That suggests the table ruling was incorrect. Aside from that "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b} below." (Law 12B1). 12C1{b} says "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." The argument here is that EW would have got to some number of NT absent the double. Personally, I doubt that. I suspect that absent the double EW would have bid exactly as they did with it. So even if there was an infraction, there was no damage.

 

The thorny question "how do you minimize the potential for UI when the opponents alert a call?" would be better served with its own topic — in the laws and rulings forum.

[blackshoe]

Not true, I stopped playing with a partner who blatantly fielded two of my non-psyches at a time where I did psyche a fair bit.

Yes, but did you complain? B-)

[barmar]

Four pages of discussion on a simple ruling? Ridiculous.

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

The discussion has revolved around whether North had unauthorized information from South's failure to ask a question, and whether South illegally attempted to communicate with North by not asking. As I understand EBU regulations, there can be only one meaning of a call that does not require an alert. If an alert is made, then, the only thing opponents are entitled to infer is that the call does not have the meaning that does not require an alert. In this case, that means that the alert of 1♦ conveys that the bid is not natural.

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.

[pran]

[...]

So it appears that there was no infraction. That suggests the table ruling was incorrect. Aside from that "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{b} below." (Law 12B1). 12C1{b} says "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." The argument here is that EW would have got to some number of NT absent the double. Personally, I doubt that. I suspect that absent the double EW would have bid exactly as they did with it. So even if there was an infraction, there was no damage.

[...]

Thanks

[campboy]

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]

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]

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]

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 ???

[Finch]

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]

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.