[Oof Arted]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-June-02, 05:39, said:

Was it? The fact that south doesn't have what he apparently showed does not necessarily mean that it was a psychic bid. Did south actually intend to show diamonds, or the unbid suits (ie the majors)?

Oh yes as the 1♦ is conventional used to ask for further information from partner.

South decided to Muddy the waters by doubling a Conventional Bid to show that suit, which is what N/S play.

No he was not trying to show the majors, that is not what they play.

[WellSpyder]

 pran, on 2015-June-02, 08:56, said:

the 1♦ bid was alerted and therefore was artificial in some way!

Not where I come from. It might be entirely natural, but non-forcing, for instance. Or it might be natural and forcing, but showing at least 7 cards in the suit! Or......

[Aardv]

 pran, on 2015-June-02, 08:50, said:

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.)

Severe trouble? Any director who penalises South for asking for information he needs about an alerted call should find a different game to ruin.

 pran, on 2015-June-02, 08:56, said:

If South doesn't ask then North may (of course) ask why the 1♦ call was alerted, but he is also allowed (without asking any question at all) to base his explanation of the double on the sole fact that the 1♦ bid was alerted and therefore was artificial in some way!

"Therefore" is wrong. We're told that the Blue Book applied to alerts: it specifies that "a bid must be alerted if it: (a) is not natural; or (b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning."
So the alert of 1♦ did not have to mean that it was an artificial bid.

 pran, on 2015-June-02, 08:50, said:

So what was the alleged irregularity?

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.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 08:37, said:

Under Law 16, the fact that South has or hasn't asked a question is UI to North.

Law 16 states: "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert <snip>"

Now I am aware that it says "for example", but it specifically lists alert or failure to alert, but omits "a failure to ask a question". If South asks sometimes and does not ask on other times, then he is illegally communicating. If he never asks, then he is not conveying UI. Just as if he always asks.

There is an interesting situation when someone overcalls 2C, Aspirin, Aspro, or whatever, over 1NT. It is alerted but I bid 3NT without asking. If I never ask before bidding 3NT I am conveying no UI. If I sometimes ask, I am.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 08:49, said:

North needn't find out if North is going to make the same call either way

You are the one who is joking now. That is illegal communication to indicate that I don't need to find out because the call's meaning makes no difference to me.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 09:23, said:

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.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-June-02, 08:50, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 05:39, said:

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?

[Aardv]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-02, 10:09, said:

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.

[blackshoe]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 10:24, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

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-2C
2D. 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.

[WellSpyder]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-02, 10:09, said:

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!

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-02, 10:35, said:

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.

[sanst]

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?

[Oof Arted]

 sanst, on 2015-June-02, 12:47, said:

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 ♣)

[sanst]

 Oof Arted, on 2015-June-01, 12:36, said:

---

Result 3♣-2

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 diamonds
  
• that it was a psych
  
• and 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.

[billw55]

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.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-02, 11:09, said:

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.

[Aardv]

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♦.

 lamford, on 2015-June-02, 09:53, said:

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.

[pran]

 Aardv, on 2015-June-02, 18:56, said:

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♦.

 lamford, on 2015-June-02, 09:53, said:

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)?