[campboy]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 11:12, said:

Does the combination of a CPU and an illegal agreement have a higher price than a red psyche?

If they're found to be playing an illegal agreement then they'll also get an adjustment on any other board(s) from that set on which one of them opened 1♠.

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 11:12, said:

Does the combination of a CPU and an illegal agreement have a higher price than a red psyche?

No, but if we're going to adjust and/or fine, we should be doing it for the infraction that actually occurred.

[ahydra]

gnasher, on 2013-April-12, 11:12, said:

Does the combination of a CPU and an illegal agreement have a higher price than a red psyche?

A quick flick through the WB suggests it's the same - 60/30 plus a PP.

That WB40.6 regulation is a bit weird. I once heard my LHO bid a natural 2y after a standard (1x)-1NT auction on a good ten-count; I misjudged the subsequent auction because I was expecting her to double with such values, but if that's their partnership's methods then I can hardly blame LHO for making that bid. Or perhaps more simply, what if double isn't penalty for one pair? I don't really think the WB is in a position to make an explicit statement like "you must double holding 11 HCP after p-p-1x-1NT". One mustn't field a possible psyche, but the rest is down to system/style.

ahydra

[nige1]

red psyche or what Gnasher says

[nige1]

ahydra, on 2013-April-12, 11:29, said:

A quick flick through the WB suggests it's the same - 60/30 plus a PP.
That WB40.6 regulation is a bit weird. I once heard my LHO bid a natural 2y after a standard (1x)-1NT auction on a good ten-count; I misjudged the subsequent auction because I was expecting her to double with such values, but if that's their partnership's methods then I can hardly blame LHO for making that bid. Or perhaps more simply, what if double isn't penalty for one pair? I don't really think the WB is in a position to make an explicit statement like "you must double holding 11 HCP after p-p-1x-1NT". One mustn't field a possible psyche, but the rest is down to system/style.ahydra

If double by South is non-penalty and 2♠ is the system bid on an 11 HCP hand, then North should alert it.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2013-April-12, 12:14, said:

If double by South is non-penalty and 2♠ is the system bid on an 11 HCP hand, then North should alert it.

On the actual hand, double would have been penalties. If one wanted to cock a snook at the OB and WB regulations, one could play transfers over 1NT, with double showing clubs. Following the WB regulation then makes no sense.

[Vampyr]

Was South asked why she didn't double 3NT?

[blackshoe]

I'm tired and I don't feel well, so I'm cranky. So be it.

I've seen scant evidence (only North's hand) that North may have psyched. I've seen no evidence that he did psych. I've seen, IMO, insufficient evidence to rule CPU. So I'm gonna take my cranky butt back to bed.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-12, 20:26, said:

I've seen scant evidence (only North's hand) that North may have psyched. I've seen no evidence that he did psych. I've seen, IMO, insufficient evidence to rule CPU. So I'm gonna take my cranky butt back to bed.

There are only three possibilities:
- North psyched
- NS have a concealed understanding that the North hand is a 1♠ opening
- NS have a properly disclosed understanding that the North hand is a 1♠ opening

Are you ruling it's the third of these, or are you just refusing to rule until you have more evidence?

[gordontd]

ahydra, on 2013-April-12, 11:29, said:

60/30 plus a PP.

Actually 60/30 is shorthand for 60/40 plus a PP. If this was scored in VPs, the PP would be 1/2 VP.

[gordontd]

campboy, on 2013-April-12, 11:20, said:

If they're found to be playing an illegal agreement then they'll also get an adjustment on any other board(s) from that set on which one of them opened 1♠.

I can't see any regulation that says this (though I'm loathe to question your assertion!) Even if it were true, we would only be looking for boards on which they opened third in hand.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2013-April-13, 02:31, said:

I can't see any regulation that says this (though I'm loathe to question your assertion!)

There is very little case law on illegal conventions and I am not aware of pair having an artificial adjustment for previous boards where the illegal convention was used, in England.

There was a case in Europe where a pair played a brown sticker 1NT overcall of 1C where this was not permitted. When it came to light the penalty was to (artificially) adjust on all boards where they had used* this overcall in all previous matches of the championship and that the pair could not play the next match. This may be what campboy is alluding to - or his might just be an equitable reading of the law/regulation.

* This was complicated by the fact the overcall was permitted over an artificial 1C, and so those boards were not cancelled (I think?), with the further complication about whether clubs or balanced (2+ clubs was artificial), in particular whether 3+ clubs or 4=4=3=2 was artificial.

[This European ruling is all from memory - posted away from my "archives" at home.]

[campboy]

RMB1, on 2013-April-13, 03:05, said:

There is very little case law on illegal conventions and I am not aware of pair having an artificial adjustment for previous boards where the illegal convention was used, in England.

Didn't we have one at the Pachabo last year? A player asked some questions about possible shapes for a 1NT opener, realised that it was illegal and got (I thought) an adjustment for that board and an earlier board in the same set where 1NT had been opened but not asked about. But I also thought it was you who gave the ruling, so perhaps I just garbled it in my head.

Certainly there was no question in that case of looking at earlier sets, just earlier boards in the same set.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2013-April-13, 04:53, said:

Didn't we have one at the Pachabo last year? A player asked some questions about possible shapes for a 1NT opener, realised that it was illegal and got (I thought) an adjustment for that board and an earlier board in the same set where 1NT had been opened but not asked about. But I also thought it was you who gave the ruling, so perhaps I just garbled it in my head.

Certainly there was no question in that case of looking at earlier sets, just earlier boards in the same set.

Oh so we did, and Colin will never forgive me.

I think that in England we would adjust for other instances against the same opponents - because those opponents can be assumed to have asked for a ruling on all boards. The TD does not investigate boards in earlier rounds.

There is nothing to stop non-offenders from telling others (in the bar at the end of the session) but the pthers may not be in time for a ruling.

[gnasher]

When you rule that a player has fielded a psych, you're ruling that the partnership has a CPU.

With a red psych, we don't give a further penalty because the presumed CPU would be illegal, so I don't think we can reasonably give a further penalty when there is an admitted CPU which is illegal.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-April-13, 01:52, said:

There are only three possibilities:
- North psyched
- NS have a concealed understanding that the North hand is a 1♠ opening
- NS have a properly disclosed understanding that the North hand is a 1♠ opening

Are you ruling it's the third of these, or are you just refusing to rule until you have more evidence?

The latter.

[cherdano]

And that's why I stopped reading the laws forum.

[blackshoe]

Because one person, in one case, wants more evidence before ruling? Okay, I'll grant you I've said it before - and I'll probably say it again. OTOH, I have given my opinion based on what evidence is available, usually starting with "if..." and people jump on it and ignore the "if". That gets a little tiresome. IAC, if you don't read the laws forum, how is it that you saw this thread?

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2013-April-12, 06:11, said:

East-West did not want to appeal (their team could not qualify) and the TD's ruling of no adjustment was accepted, but I thought it should have been ruled as a fielded red psyche.

Clearly Red.

Also silly: any sensible player doubles 1NT not just because he avoids a Red psyche, but because now if partner pulls it and they continue to 3NT it is not Red not to double.

gordontd, on 2013-April-12, 07:01, said:

Was it established that North's opening was a psyche?

I think it would be unusual for a pair to have such an illegal agreement, but as always, if actually there and ruling, we should find out what they played. If their SC says 6+ in 3rd, then that's illegal.

Ave+/Ave- and standard PP for a Red psyche

or

Ave+/Ave- for illegal agreement.

aguahombre, on 2013-April-12, 10:42, said:

For the purpose of my questions, let's assume that South fielded something.

1) Isn't your color scheme over there geared to psyches, but extended to misbids?
2) Didn't all jurisdictions relax their natural opening bid regulations for 3rd-seat favorable?
3) Aren't rulings based on coincidence unlawful, unless there is other evidence of UI or CPU?

1) Yes.
2) I don't think all jurisdictions do. The EBU does: in 3rd any 8+ is legal.
3) No. There is no law saying you cannot use coincidence.

gordontd, on 2013-April-13, 02:31, said:

I can't see any regulation that says this (though I'm loathe to question your assertion!) Even if it were true, we would only be looking for boards on which they opened third in hand.

The case Law comes from the Blackpool Year End Congress, where my friends Stephenson/Matthews were playing two systems, as they do when it is legal. They played this throughout the Swiss Pairs and got stopped during the second match of the Swiss Teams. When they said it was legal, the TDs pointed out it was only legal in 8 board stanzas. The Swiss Pairs had been 8 board stanzas, the Swiss Teams was 7 board stanzas! The TDs gave them Ave- on every board in the first two matches.

The EBU L&EC stated that the TDs should not have looked at the earlier match, and should only have given them Ave- on boards where they had opened the bidding. They also some time later changed the 8+ requirement to 7+.