It's a question of trust-I

[gombo121]

Аn Xmas club teams.

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=12&a=1c(12-15%20BAL%20or%2016+)p1d(0-7)1n(15-18%20BAL)d(16+)pp2cd(BIT%2C%20%7E%2020s)p2hp3hppp]133|100|agreed BIT before second double by North[/hv]

 

North hand contains 17PC in 4441 distribution, South hand has 2PC in 3433 distribution, 3 hearts plays for 7 tricks for NS, clubs would have played for 9 tricks for EW.

 

W summons TD after the end of the deal and states that BIT before the second double suggested that it is for take out rather than for penalties. NS insists that they definitely play doubles in this position for take out.

 

There is no CC (and conditions of contest does not require CC if that matters). Doubles are not alertable in this jurisdiction.

All players are good and experienced. No questions was asked during the bidding but up to the second double the bidding is very standard and nobody has any doubts about its meaning. As for the second double, field would divide about 50/50 between takeout and penalties.

 

What would you do? Do you think the task would be any easier if TD were summoned before the end of the bidding?

[Vampyr]

I think that these conditions are impossible. It is too late with respect to the OP case, but for future I would fix this:

 

conditions of contest does not require CC

 

and this:

 

Doubles are not alertable in this jurisdiction.

[campboy]

Even if the BIT suggested that North was unsure of the meaning of double, I don't see why it would suggest that he came to one conclusion rather than the other.

[iviehoff]

It is unlikely that a CC, even if available, would say clearly what such a double means. And it isn't unusual for a jurisdiction to say that both ordinary take-out and ordinary penalties are unalertable meanings of such a double.

 

What we have here, as far as we can tell, is that N doubled for take-out, and S took it as take-out. EW allege that if N had doubled in tempo, it would have been for penalties. But there is no evidence of this. It is very difficult to demonstrate that UI has been abused in such a situation, unless you can point unequivocally to the same pair using the same double to mean penalties on other occasions. The TD has no choice but to say "no evidence of any infraction". Calling him earlier would make no difference.

 

Certainly UI can be abused as EW allege. Using hesitations to change the underlying meaning of bids is sometimes called "cheating", so accusing people of it is dangerous, and EW might actually have to be warned. Though it is easy to be confused over this. It is different from the situation where someone takes out partner's hesitant penalty double: then we need no evidence of inconsistent behaviour: it suffices that there was an unclear decision, and we judge that the player failed to bend over backwards to avoid using the UI, and adjust the score if taking out was not clear, without any worry about causing major upset over cheating worries.

[mycroft]

I would have to be shown good evidence of this agreement where, after a double that has been passed for penalties (whether it's for takeout or otherwise), a subsequent double is not for penalty. I'm sure it's possible - and in fact, with several PDI systems or forcing pass continuations, it's obviously the best way to play - but I'd need some evidence (and a coherent explanation of how N would have "doubled for penalty").

 

Having said that, whatever the double means, 20 seconds means "I'm not certain about this, do what you think is right." - effectively, it's a forcing pass in a situation where they might not have a forcing pass :-). Also, if it really were obviously, system-notes-mentioning takeout, it wouldn't take 20 seconds to double with classic shape after 1NTx was pulled (unless you worried that partner would leave it in with 2=4=2=5-to-the-8, say).

 

Again, judgement that we, or at least I, away from the table and the opponents, can't exercise sanely. I guess I'm voting "need more info."

[mrdct]

NS insists that they definitely play doubles in this position for take out.

Unless there is a very good reason not to believe them, I would take this as fairly clear evidence of a partnership agreement that first double show values, second double is takeout and subsequent doubles are penalties which I think is the standard expert treatment in this sort of auction.

[mycroft]

Okay, fine - although I don't guarantee that that XXX agreement is immutable on partner's pass. But assume so.

 

Next question - what were you thinking about?