SBU UI

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Zelandakh]

I see some posts in this thread such as suggesting N-S were using illegal (weasel) methods and the like. Is there any evidence of that? Does the BIT really mean any more than that South forgot the agreement and was unsure? The method where X is optional and 4NT is for takeout is extremely popular in club bridge in some regions. That South did not bid 4NT seems to suggest that they were genuinely unsure about the agreements and were hedging their bets somewhat.

 

That North was unsure of the agreement is less certain. It must surely be that the assumed meaning was takeout for the 5♥ bid to have been made. If North is aware of South's tendency to forget the agreement then the hesitation surely suggests passing since it makes the optional hand more likely. Can anyone provide a strong case as to why the hesitation suggests bidding over the alternatives of suggesting passing and nothing at all? I think there is a natural tendency for knowledgeable bridge players to want to punish a hesitation in this spot because it is so easy to abuse. It might be that N-S really are abusing that but the right answer is surely to rule on the assumption that they are not cheating first while recording the case to see if a pattern emerges over time.