[helene_t]

I don't think the hesitation constrains us. It could easily be a hand that was on the edge of doubling 3♦ for penalties, in that case the hesitation could be discouraging but it might not be, and it could also suggest a bit of extras. Anyway, pass is not an LA, it's between 3♥ and 4♥, and I don't think the hesitation suggests one over the other.

I think I bid 4♥ as I am afraid that 3♥ doesn't encourage enough and may suggest a weak hand with 6-2 in the majors or some such.

Obviously I should have shown my heart support before.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2022-September-05, 04:58, said:

I don't think the hesitation constrains us. It could easily be a hand that was on the edge of doubling 3♦ for penalties, in that case the hesitation could be discouraging but it might not be, and it could also suggest a bit of extras. Anyway, pass is not an LA, it's between 3♥ and 4♥, and I don't think the hesitation suggests one over the other.

I think I bid 4♥ as I am afraid that 3♥ doesn't encourage enough and may suggest a weak hand with 6-2 in the majors or some such.

I'm not in a hurry to judge a choice of 3♥ / 4♥, but for different reasons.

As TD I would first try to establish what the agreement about West's double is. If it shows support and something like his actual hand then things get more interesting and a poll is in order. But if as seems likely it was just a misbid (I have one partner who will occasionally pull this stunt due to decades of 4 card majors) then he has to get into the auction now, and I'm not in a hurry to hang him or his partner whatever he chooses. Yes a poll would probably establish that 3♥ is an LA and is less suggested by the BIT than 4♥, but they don't have to have an illegal agreement for him to figure out that 3♥ will both go unpunished and reach the same result (so in a sense, 4♥ is the "ethical" bid now).

I hope and imagine they are not playing Reverse Weasel, if that is an illegal agreement whereby a deliberate BIT denies extra values (even the descriptions of Weasel seem to have disappeared from the web, although it is still widely played). In any case this is not a hand that nails them for this or even an intentional BIT, IMO.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2022-September-06, 09:20, said:

I'm not in a hurry to judge a choice of 3♥ / 4♥, but for different reasons.

As TD I would first try to establish what the agreement about West's double is. If it shows support and something like his actual hand then things get more interesting and a poll is in order. But if as seems likely it was just a misbid (I have one partner who will occasionally pull this stunt due to decades of 4 card majors) then he has to get into the auction now, and I'm not in a hurry to hang him or his partner whatever he chooses. Yes a poll would probably establish that 3♥ is an LA and is less suggested by the BIT than 4♥, but they don't have to have an illegal agreement for him to figure out that 3♥ will both go unpunished and reach the same result (so in a sense, 4♥ is the "ethical" bid now).

I hope and imagine they are not playing Reverse Weasel, if that is an illegal agreement whereby a deliberate BIT denies extra values (even the descriptions of Weasel seem to have disappeared from the web, although it is still widely played). In any case this is not a hand that nails them for this or even an intentional BIT, IMO.

The double is standard takeout, I don't know if they were a regular partnership but they were experienced players. The double would be completely normal playing 4 card majors, so I wonder if this was a scratch partnership playing 5M when the doubler normally plays 4.

There would be more interesting implications if they were playing 4M as I would suggest the hesitation now suggests at least 5 hearts.

[Douglas43]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-06, 10:22, said:

The double is standard takeout, I don't know if they were a regular partnership but they were experienced players. The double would be completely normal playing 4 card majors, so I wonder if this was a scratch partnership playing 5M when the doubler normally plays 4.

There would be more interesting implications if they were playing 4M as I would suggest the hesitation now suggests at least 5 hearts.

I think the auction strongly implies that partner has 5 hearts anyway? Not 4 spades, no more than 3 diamonds, unlikely to have 4 clubs. Might be 3=4=3=3 or maybe 3=4=2=4 and outside the 1NT range, but if playing 4cM/weak NT I'd probably double 2♥ as "extras" with that.

Having seen the comments above I would still vote for 3♥ as the bid not implied by the hesitation

[Cyberyeti]

 Douglas43, on 2022-September-06, 23:40, said:

I think the auction strongly implies that partner has 5 hearts anyway? Not 4 spades, no more than 3 diamonds, unlikely to have 4 clubs. Might be 3=4=3=3 or maybe 3=4=2=4 and outside the 1NT range, but if playing 4cM/weak NT I'd probably double 2♥ as "extras" with that.

Having seen the comments above I would still vote for 3♥ as the bid not implied by the hesitation

This is the whole point, 3♥ is the bid not suggested by the hesitation, but this is what the hesitator (with a heap) wants you to bid.

For the rest of your comment above depends whether X is good hand or good hearts (3433 was what I was thinking of).

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 00:01, said:

This is the whole point, 3♥ is the bid not suggested by the hesitation, but this is what the hesitator (with a heap) wants you to bid.

For the rest of your comment above depends whether X is good hand or good hearts (3433 was what I was thinking of).

If East has a true heap then they do not have a bridge reason for the hesitation. This is the basis for playing Reverse Weasel rather than the more easily penalised Weasel.

[AL78]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 00:01, said:

This is the whole point, 3♥ is the bid not suggested by the hesitation, but this is what the hesitator (with a heap) wants you to bid.

This is all too deep for me. I have no idea why partner hesitated, but it is irrelevant as I automatically ignore such hesitations anyway so I just bid 3♥. If playing 5CM I would have supported hearts with a cue bid first time round.

[Cyberyeti]

 AL78, on 2022-September-07, 02:32, said:

This is all too deep for me. I have no idea why partner hesitated, but it is irrelevant as I automatically ignore such hesitations anyway so I just bid 3♥. If playing 5CM I would have supported hearts with a cue bid first time round.

I felt this was a clear 4♥ bid but 3♥ WAS a logical alternative, hence without the hesitation I would bid 4♥, with it I'd bid 3♥ as I wouldn't keep 4♥ if it was right. Partner could easily have had x, AKQxx, xxxx, QJx for example.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 04:12, said:

I felt this was a clear 4♥ bid but 3♥ WAS a logical alternative, hence without the hesitation I would bid 4♥, with it I'd bid 3♥ as I wouldn't keep 4♥ if it was right. Partner could easily have had x, AKQxx, xxxx, QJx for example.

And with the hesitation, you know 3♥ is probably going to be raised to 4♥ anyway, so why take risks with a Taliban TD.
That was my point above, as TD I have no choice but to accept 3♥ but it doesn't necessarily smell of roses.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2022-September-07, 06:39, said:

And with the hesitation, you know 3♡ is probably going to be raised to 4♡ anyway, so why take risks with a Taliban TD.
That was my point above, as TD I have no choice but to accept 3♡ but it doesn't necessarily smell of roses.

As TD you don't HAVE to accept 3♥, if you can find no decent bridge reason for the hesitation, and clearly (as it did) it could work in your favour and you could know that it might, then you can be ruled against. On this particular hand you could argue there was a bridge reason with hearts that good you might consider doubling 2♥.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 07:40, said:

As TD you don't HAVE to accept 3♥, if you can find no decent bridge reason for the hesitation, and clearly (as it did) it could work in your favour and you could know that it might, then you can be ruled against. On this particular hand you could argue there was a bridge reason with hearts that good you might consider doubling 2♥.

I can hit East's hesitation with a small PP if I consider it unduly slow play and with a bigger one if I retain it was intended to convey UI. But if West previously underbid and Pass is not an LA, then 3♥ is the book bid for West to avoid being ruled against, even if East is likely to raise it to game. Even if I poll and find that everyone thinks like mikeh that 4♥ is the only LA (and it's not going to happen) then it's hard to pin anything on 3♥, especially by someone who already misbid in the same hand.

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 07:40, said:

On this particular hand you could argue there was a bridge reason with hearts that good you might consider doubling 2♥.

Is that really what Opener's double means in East Anglia?

[pescetom]

 Douglas43, on 2022-September-06, 23:40, said:

Having seen the comments above I would still vote for 3♥ as the bid not implied by the hesitation

So would I too.
That's why as TD I would not be in a hurry to poll in the first place, to avoid hanging mikeh but not SB.
I concede that this is at the limit of TD exercising judgement.

[Cyberyeti]

 Gilithin, on 2022-September-07, 09:16, said:

Is that really what Opener's double means in East Anglia?

I think you'll find a lot of people will never have discussed it, but I think it's a default unalerted meaning. East Anglia not entirely relevant, opps' (not from East Angia) auction

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-07, 09:33, said:

I think you'll find a lot of people will never have discussed it, but I think it's a default unalerted meaning. East Anglia not entirely relevant, opps' (not from East Angia) auction

I am somewhat surprised. I can imagine playing the double as 3 spades, or as a SNT double, but playing it to show really good hearts and any strength (penalty?) would never occur to me as a viable option.

[Cyberyeti]

 Gilithin, on 2022-September-07, 09:44, said:

I am somewhat surprised. I can imagine playing the double as 3 spades, or as a SNT double, but playing it to show really good hearts and any strength (penalty?) would never occur to me as a viable option.

It's not something you would agree specifically, but I've known a number of partnerships have a blanket agreement that "if a bid is undiscussed, default to the unalerted meaning", and a double of a suit bid artificially shows the suit.

[blackshoe]

Not sure why there should be only one unalerted meaning. Maybe in England, but elsewhere?

[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2022-September-09, 12:09, said:

Not sure why there should be only one unalerted meaning. Maybe in England, but elsewhere?

In England double of a suit bid naturally is takeout, double of an artificial suit bid is pens below 3N.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2022-September-09, 12:09, said:

Not sure why there should be only one unalerted meaning. Maybe in England, but elsewhere?

In many countries (following WBF principles) only very unusual meanings of double require alert without screens.
Things like takeout or penalty (even at low level) do not.

[thepossum]

I think people are overthinking and my answer would have been along the track of what many people have said
Remind me to avoid East Anglia in future

But my confidence has been reinforced by the number of people who went for the simpler more obvious bidding options

But for the record my bid would have been 3H - not sure if we get to 4H - I too would have considered the 3D cue

As for hesitation I regularly hesitate while thinking or not knowing what to do - there is no questionnable information issue there is there?