SBU UI

[lamford]

He has the UI that the double was slow, which may well suggest that it is "not as takeout as it should be". This suggests a pass over any LA.

BITs, particularly long ones, always suggest that the person was thinking of making an alternative bid call (corrected by the observant Trinidad). That could well have been 4NT and a glance at the South hand shows it was. I think therefore the BIT suggests that the South hand is more two-suited than it would normally be, and that suggests bidding something. If South had both minors, he would have bid 4NT. If South had both red suits, he should have bid 4NT. The hands that cause a real problem are those with five hearts and five or six clubs. If you double you risk a pass by partner on a balanced hand, even a balanced Yarborough. If you bid 4NT-5D-5H this could be ridiculous as well. We are told that there was a long BIT. People normally decide fairly quickly with a minimum takeout double or a strong balanced hand. The hand that I think is a big problem is something like Ax KQTxx x AQJxx. North-South may have been clueless, but they certainly communicated well! The BIT might have been trying to remember which hands were shown by a slow double and which by a slow 4NT.

 

However, Law 16B does say "the class of players involved using the same methods". That is the problem on this hand. No player, with 4NT available, doubles on the South hand, so we cannot find out what is demonstrably suggested.

[lamford]

Is he a peer of the actual North?

EW were experts, but NS were, er, peerless.

[lamford]

Interesting question. The slowness, and South's actual hand both suggest he forgot their agreement; and North's choice of 5♥ could have been suggested by the slowness. In fact, the choice of specifically 5♥ brings out the cynic in me which I would have to try not to let affect the ruling.

North deserved to find South with ♠K ♥Kxx ♦KQJxx ♣AKQJ, and to go ten down doubled on a trump lead and continuation, for -2900, when East has ♠AQJxxxxx ♥Tx ♦xx ♣x but then South couldn't have that hand as he would have doubled quickly.

[Trinidad]

BITs, particularly long ones, always suggest that the person was thinking of making an alternative bid.

Your axioma is false.

 

BITs, particularly long ones, almost always suggest that the person was thinking of making an alternative bid call, which may well have been pass (or double/redouble when applicable).

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

North deserved to find South with ♠K ♥Kxx ♦KQJxx ♣AKQJ, and to go ten down doubled on a trump lead and continuation, for -2900, when East has ♠AQJxxxxx ♥Tx ♦xx ♣x but then South couldn't have that hand as he would have doubled quickly.

South couldn't have had the hand he held, since he would have bid 4NT quickly. This shows how nonsensical all this theorizing is.

 

To continue the nonsense: South could have held something like

♠ Kx

♥ Qxx

♦ KQJx

♣ AQJx

 

With this hand, South would typically make a slow takeout double (or a slow pass).

 

Rik

[lamford]

South couldn't have had the hand he held, since he would have bid 4NT quickly. This shows how nonsensical all this theorizing is.

 

To continue the nonsense: South could have held something like

♠ Kx

♥ Qxx

♦ KQJx

♣ AQJx

 

With this hand, South would typically make a slow takeout double (or a slow pass).

 

Rik

Why would that hand present any problem at all? South would typically double in tempo, and be happy whatever partner chose to do, except bidding 5H on xxxx of course. Partner will know that we are relatively balanced, as we had 4NT available for a two-suiter.

 

Now, this particular South might have been trying to remember whether 4NT was takeout and Double was penalties, or the other way around!

 

Some years ago, a member of the Laws and Ethics Committee had to write to a London pair warning them that their actions (over many hands, not just one) showed evidence of illicit understanding, particular with regard to the heart suit. They seemed to disappear from the scene, and that 5H bid made me wonder if they had strayed North of the border.

[WellSpyder]

Objectively, the BIT tends to suggest either a minimum double or a big balanced hand. Either way, that would suggest pass over any bid.

I think this is an excellent point (though one might add a less than ideal shape to the alternatives of a minimum or a big balanced hand). It reminds me that I was once on an AC that had to consider what was suggested by a BIT before making a TO double of a pre-empt, albeit at the 3-level rather than the 4-level. The partner at the table chose to pass, and it was argued by some that this was the action suggested by the BIT, for much the reasons that Trinidad is pointing out. There has to be some action that isn't suggested, though......

[lamford]

I was once on an AC that had to consider what was suggested by a BIT before making a TO double of a pre-empt, albeit at the 3-level rather than the 4-level.

That is a little different, and a slow double might suggest the player was wondering whether 4m is non-leaping Michaels. I don't buy this strong balanced hand argument, or light take out double argument, certainly not at the four level. At the three level, the choice might be between double and 3NT, but at the four level there is only Double (or Pass), especially playing 4NT for takeout. We are told here that Double was "after agreed long hesitation". That suggests a major problem, not a choice between a couple of reasonable options.

[blackshoe]

If what constitutes a LA depends on the class of players involved and the methods of the partnership, and these players are 1) in a class by themselves and 2) totally clueless, then there are no LAs.

[lamford]

If what constitutes a LA depends on the class of players involved and the methods of the partnership, and these players are 1) in a class by themselves and 2) totally clueless, then there are no LAs.

I am sure you will find some peers to poll if you search hard enough. “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

― George Carlin

[nige1]

Both TD and AC ruled: result (5HX=) stands. "South doubled for take-out and North took out. What's the problem? :) " (AC member).

[PhilKing]

Unless one plays reverse hesitations, South's bit suggests that he has neither a takeout double nor a two-suiter.

 

Since that makes pass more likely to be a winning option, pass is call suggested by the BIT. As it happens, South held neither a strong balanced hand nor a slightly off-shape double - he had a distributional two-suiter. But it would be absurd to hang North for making a bid that happened to work out well - it's not as if he worked that out from the hesitation, subconsciously or otherwise. He just took out a takeout double because that is what he thinks he is supposed to do.

[barmar]

BITs, particularly long ones, always suggest that the person was thinking of making an alternative bid.

I don't go into the tank during the bidding very often. But when I do, it's not usually because I was deciding between calls. More often, I think it's because I'm unsure of our agreements, or I'm considering making a call that doesn't fit neatly into our agreements and I'm unsure if partner will understand it as I intend. In the first case I'm taking time rummaging through my memory; in the second case, I'm trying to think if there are any other calls that might fit and are less likely to confuse partner.

[ahh]

This topic is a good example of why the internet fora can be a hard world . We forget that when we post problems here for all to comment on that we are dealing with REAL people and comments are made that if read by those real people can cause great hurt . All the experts will have a view of what should happen at the table in a top class game but 95% of bridge is not played in that hallowed arena and many people go to play bridge to have fun, meet people and do the very best that they can which is not the same as doing the very best that international class players will do . I have no trouble at all with us all slaughtering the experts who can stand up for themselves but to pour derision on the inexperienced players / new players to congress bridge / elderly players past their best / youngsters with no leaned disciple / etc etc etc is not helpful.

 

 

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 . N/S are club players and it does not surprise me to learn they had methods but both forgot them (i suspect more likely 1 was worried that the other would forget if they bid 4NT what it meant ) that is what club players do all the time and most of the time you get a good score from them . When you get fixed learn to live with it , it is part of the price you pay for playing in mixed standard events . Live with it or stop playing except in games where everyone is expert or better still as perfect as you want them to be .

 

Bridge is a game of errors we all make them . The inexperienced players make different mistakes to experts . It is the cost of learning . Club players feel intimidated by good players and for no logical reason do bizarre things that experts will not . That is unfortunate but true . Please try to remember that whatever their ability in bridge they still have feelings and avoid hurtful comments that you might not say to their face as they may well be reading this.

 

Jim Hay

 

PS you can say what you like about this post or me I have a thick skin .

[aguahombre]

I don't go into the tank during the bidding very often. But when I do, it's not usually because I was deciding between calls. More often, I think it's because I'm unsure of our agreements, or I'm considering making a call that doesn't fit neatly into our agreements and I'm unsure if partner will understand it as I intend. In the first case I'm taking time rummaging through my memory; in the second case, I'm trying to think if there are any other calls that might fit and are less likely to confuse partner.

I extend your thoughts one step further. I know partner's tanks are 99% for the purpose of remembering an agreement correctly, then using it. And, thus it is easy for me to just assume she finally got it right.

 

This has not always worked to our benefit.

[Vampyr]

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

 

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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":

1. North doesn't know better and takes out the takeout double.
   
2. North thinks the hesitation indicates a very distributional hand, and therefore (using the UI) takes the double out that he would otherwise pass.
   
3. 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]

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♥.