[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2015-June-03, 11:39, said:

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]

 Oof Arted, on 2015-June-02, 12:53, said:

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:

 pran, on 2015-June-03, 06:24, said:

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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 00:57, said:

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:

 Aardv, on 2015-June-03, 05:23, said:

...
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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 02:59, said:

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]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-June-04, 03:18, said:

-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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 04:09, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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,

Quote

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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 06:28, said:

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.

Quote

(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]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-June-04, 07:38, said:

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]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-04, 08:01, said:

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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 06:28, said:

(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]

 pran, on 2015-June-04, 06:28, said:

...
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

EBU White Book said:

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.

[Cyberyeti]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-June-04, 07:38, said:

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]

Result: 3♣-2

---

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]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-June-04, 09:36, said:

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?

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-04, 09:43, said:

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.

Quote

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]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-04, 09:43, said:

[...]
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