[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2015-August-03, 05:56, said:

[*]He knows that the agreement is that double is takeout.

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-03, 09:48, said:

He just took out a takeout double because that is what he thinks he is supposed to do.

No. This is one of the problems with the hand.

[PhilKing]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-03, 12:16, said:

No. This is one of the problems with the hand.

I must be being a bit thick but I do not understand what you are saying (but that maybe do to the partial quotation missing the point).

[nige1]

 ahh, on 2015-August-03, 11:40, said:

I declare an interest at this point. I know all 4 players very well also the original poster and he has definitely played against all 4 regularly. E/W are a top Scottish pair who have played together for years and have played at the highest level.

I didn't play at Peebles. I don't know who the North-South players are.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-03, 13:54, said:

I must be being a bit thick but I do not understand what you are saying (but that maybe do to the partial quotation missing the point).

We disagree with you that it is normal to take out a double of 4♠ with a flat hand and a bullet. Whether we call that double "takeout" or something else, I don't know many who would venture the 5-level with the OP hand unless they thought Doubler had a two-suiter which should have bid 4nt.

[PhilKing]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-03, 15:11, said:

We disagree with you that it is normal to take out a double of 4♠ with a flat hand and a bullet. Whether we call that double "takeout" or something else, I don't know many who would venture the 5-level with the OP hand unless they thought Doubler had a two-suiter which should have bid 4nt.

I don't think it is normal to remove the double - I was stating why I thought this particular North did so, since I do not believe it was based on the UI.

[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-03, 13:54, said:

I must be being a bit thick but I do not understand what you are saying (but that maybe do to the partial quotation missing the point).

It says in the OP that North did not know what the agreement was about the double. Your comment invented the fact that he did know.

[aguahombre]

 PhilKing, on 2015-August-03, 15:16, said:

I don't think it is normal to remove the double - I was stating why I thought this particular North did so, since I do not believe it was based on the UI.

I don't know what it was based on, but it wasn't based on his hand; so, I conclude it could have been suggested by something else. The only thing left, IMO, is the slowness of the double, which might have suggested exactly what South said -- confusion about whether the two-suiter of their agreed 4nt bid could contain the red suits.

I am better placed to guess what my partner's BIT might indicate; when my actions AND partner's actual hand bear out that I might have fielded it, I lose the ruling.

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-03, 16:47, said:

I don't know what it was based on, but it wasn't based on his hand; so, I conclude it could have been suggested by something else.

So far. so good.

Now, I can see three possible "something elses":

• North doesn't know better and takes out the takeout double.
  
• North thinks the hesitation indicates a very distributional hand, and therefore (using the UI) takes the double out that he would otherwise pass.
  
• North thinks the hesitation indicates a flat hand or a minimum take out double, suggesting him to pass. He is actively ethical and bids 5♥, the LA that was not suggested.

Now, I am reasonably sure that the first one applies, but it could be either of the other two. What makes you so sure that it was the second and not the third or the first?

Rik

[PhilKing]

 nige1, on 2015-August-01, 18:58, said:

At the table, neither North not South knew what was their agreement about the double.
The TD read the NS convention card, which stated that immediately over weak 4s:
- double is takeout.
- 4N would have showed a 2-suiter.

This is just typical confusion under interrogation. An experienced E/W should never have even taken it this far, of course.

[sanst]

I'm wondering why pass is so popular. North didn't know what their agreement was, but seemingly 'take out' was somewhere in his mind. Maybe he concluded from the hesitation that south wanted to double for penalties and north took the ethical road by bidding 5♥.
It's quite easy arguing with knowledge of all hands, but N, with no psychic capabilities, was looking at just his own hand. If he had passed and 4♠ had gone one or more off, and 5♥ not making either, EW would probably also have called the director. And I'm wondering how many of those who think that 'pass' is the right call for N would then have argued that he should have bid 5♥.

[mycroft]

Well, I was one who thought "even if Pass is an alternative, I'm not passing with this hand."

If I *know for a fact* (as I do in some of my partnerships) that [Edit: double of] 4♠ is penalty, then pass is the *only* alternative. If I can't remember, then I know that doubles are takeout, and I take it out. Why is 4♠ different from 4♥? (Answer: traditionally, double was the only way to get out at the 4 level in spades with combined cards, so double is takeout. After 4♠, you can't get out at the 4 level anyway, so why not?)

The long tank actually would lead me to believe in the hand South actually had - She knew that double was takeout, but was afraid without clubs; she knew 4NT was two suits, but I bet she thought "minors" instead; what do I do? She might also have been concerned about partner passing with a suitable hand only to have only one or two defensive tricks.

I do have concerns. Naive me, however, I don't see "immediate double is penalty, double after a suitable pause is takeout, delayed double is 'takeout, but something's wrong'." And I go back to my original statement: unless this is known penalty, it's takeout. Unless I have a penalty double, I take out partner's takeout doubles. If I just took out a penalty double, it's my fault, I forgot. If she just made a penalty takeout double and I took it out, that's her problem.

[lamford]

 mycroft, on 2015-August-04, 15:46, said:

The long tank actually would lead me to believe in the hand South actually had <snip>

I thought the long tank suggested a hand with both rounded suits. However, even accepting your view, I would expect to adjust. And although the poll has only 20% thinking that the tank suggests bidding 5H, it asks the wrong question. It should ask "could the long BIT have demonstrably suggested bidding something other than Pass".

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-August-06, 08:27, said:

It should ask "could the long BIT have demonstrably suggested bidding something other than Pass".

I don't think this is the right way to poll. I think you ask them each what they think it suggests. Then you take the aggregate answers, and that's what it demonstrably suggests.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-August-06, 09:38, said:

I don't think this is the right way to poll. I think you ask them each what they think it suggests. Then you take the aggregate answers, and that's what it demonstrably suggests.

I don't think that is right. More than one call could be demonstrably suggested. In this case, I argue that both 4NT and 5H could be demonstrably suggested by the BIT. Your method would work fine if the Law said "is demonstrably suggested".

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-August-06, 09:43, said:

I don't think that is right. More than one call could be demonstrably suggested. In this case, I argue that both 4NT and 5H could be demonstrably suggested by the BIT. Your method would work fine if the Law said "is demonstrably suggested".

The poll responders can give multiple answers if they're not sure.

My point is that it's the director's job to determine "could be", based on the results of a poll that asks "is", rather than expecting each respondent to come up with all the possibilities themselves.

[barmar]

As an analogy, if you're doing a poll before an election, and you want to determine who is likely to win, you don't ask "Who do you think will win?", you ask "Who would you vote for?"

[mycroft]

If you notice, I started by saying "I ain't passin' unless it's known penalty." And I got burned for it last night - I didn't conceive that 1♠-p-4♠-X was penalty (as opposed to DSI), played the converter for the trumps and went 500 with 790 on the table. So at least I'm consistent.

I think you can effectively argue in some cases that "action was demonstrably suggested over inaction" as opposed to "well, none of the calls are demonstrably suggested over others - or perhaps all of them are suggested over each other" and say "Pass was an LA, Action was demonstrably suggested over pass, Pass is required" without defining *which* action.

I agree that you poll based on the definitions: "what would you do?" and "what would you be thinking of?" and "why?" and very possibly, if possible, "what do you do" and "what would you be thinking of" a round ago to try to queer the "what is the TD looking for with these questions?" bias. *Then*, you look at the answers and use them to help determine if there are LAs, and demonstrably suggested. But that doesn't stop us from saying "action was suggested over pass", or "whatever the hesitation meant, we know it means that defending undoubled can't be right, and since double allows partner to clarify his hesitation, that's not allowed."

[StevenG]

We have had a reply from a good player who knows the N/S pair. We know that they are the class of player who will take out a take-out double. I'm not sure why this debate is continuing.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-August-06, 09:55, said:

As an analogy, if you're doing a poll before an election, and you want to determine who is likely to win, you don't ask "Who do you think will win?", you ask "Who would you vote for?"

The correct analogy is to poll the electorate and ask them "who could win?". In this country, the answer to that would have been Conservative and Labour. Most thought that "no overall majority" was the most likely, and many voted UKIP, knowing that they could not win.

[blackshoe]

"None of the above is acceptable."