[nige1]

SBU Peebles Congress Teams qualifier (IMPS).
EW are experts. NS are unknown to my informant.
5♥X made and East called the TD at the end of play.
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.
No poll.
How would you rule?

---

[Vampyr]

It's pretty hard when there "is" an agreement, but neither partner knows what it is.

A slow double, of course, clarifies things, since it is only a very weak suggestion of penalties.

The failure to bid 2NT is very odd though, since surely "everybody" plays this as a 2-suite. Except when it is slow, when of course it is to play

[FrancesHinden]

Does 'assuming you are North's peer' include assuming that I don't know what double means?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-01, 20:21, said:

The failure to bid 2NT is very odd though, since surely "everybody" plays this as a 2-suiter. Except when it is slow, when of course it is to play

I think you meant 4NT, but South might have thought it showed the minors without realising that he could correct 5C to 5D.

[Cyberyeti]

The hesitation looks like "What the hell does double mean ?" since both partners didn't know. If that is the case can any inference be drawn as to what is suggested ?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-August-02, 05:10, said:

The hesitation looks like "What the hell does double mean ?" since both partners didn't know. If that is the case can any inference be drawn as to what is suggested ?

Well, there was once an agreement, but In any case a slow double tends not to be purely penalty. Or as in this case, not remotely for penalty.

I had the same problem as Frances, and so pretended that I was taking the place of a North who had suffered a fatal heart attack midway through the auction. I would now pass, and have a sharp word with my partner afterwards.

EDIT: would love to hear from those who imagine that Pass is not suggested over 5♥. Well, maybe they have never heard of this double being played as penalty, but I have.

[Pig Trader]

The agreement is that double is take out, even though both players have some difficulty remembering it. If a slow penalty double often suggests it be taken out, a slow take out double can often suggest it be left it. The double wasn't left in. The only action (Pass) that might be argued to have been "demonstrably suggested" wasn't the action chosen. No adjustment.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2015-August-02, 05:35, said:

EDIT: would love to hear from those who imagine that Pass is not suggested over 5♥. Well, maybe they have never heard of this double being played as penalty, but I have.

Indeed, many club players play double of 4S as penalties, with 4NT takeout. It seems that this North-South have better methods; doubling immediately is penalties, and a slow double is takeout. I recall an L&E edict that a slow double indicated that one did not want it passed, while I slow pass indicated that one did not want the auction to end. Maybe an L&E member can quote the relevant minute.

[lamford]

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

The TD read the NS convention card, which stated that the double was takeout over weak fours

The East hand looks like a strong four to me, which suggests that the double is penalties. And West's pass of 5Hx looks barking. And if 4NT would have shown any 2-suiter, why did South not choose it?

[aguahombre]

The wording of the second poll is tricky. The actual 5♥ bid must be considered among logical alternatives, because it is the call selected; and yes it could demonstrably have been suggested by the tank. However, the poll is worded asking whether the tank "does" suggest 5H. If properly worded my answer would be yes, but nothing could make me bid 5H.

The wording of the first poll is also tricky. Peer poll members choose a call, and may select other calls which they gave serious consideration. From that, it is determined whether the action chosen at the table has logical alternatives; the individual pollee does not get to decide what what the LA's are.

If I were polled, given what is written on their card, I would conclude their methods are that double is not "penalty" but most likely is directionless and card-showing, that since they have a 2-suited call the actual South hand is not possible. I would choose pass, and would consider 4nt with 2 places of play of my own.

5♥ would not even be on my radar. Not passing could demonstrably have been suggested over passing. I would rule 4♠ x to be the contract.

[blackshoe]

How does the fact that both players apparently forgot their agreement affect the ruling? Does it affect the ruling?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-August-02, 08:55, said:

How does the fact that both players apparently forgot their agreement affect the ruling? Does it affect the ruling?

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.

[StevenG]

Perhaps Nigel could tell us something about the players. A congress attracts a lot of good, experienced tournament players. It also attracts some local club players. From the description of the events, it sounds to me as though N/S are the latter, quite possibly even a casual partnership who agreed a convention card quickly.

If I am right about this, the hesitation means nothing. It also means that 4NT for North likely does not exist. If I am wrong, and the partnership do know what they are doing, then things are different.

I'd also like to know the scoring, IMPs or MPs, because that makes quite a difference.

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2015-August-02, 09:16, said:

If I am right about this, the hesitation means nothing. It also means that 4NT for North likely does not exist.

We are told in the OP that 4NT showed a two-suiter, and we should accept the finding of fact by the TD.

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2015-August-02, 10:10, said:

We are told in the OP that 4NT showed a two-suiter, and we should accept the finding of fact by the TD.

I assumed that was 4NT for South.

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2015-August-02, 10:49, said:

I assumed that was 4NT for South.

Ah, I understand. You meant in response to the takeout double. I don't think that matters, as bidding anything on the North hand is demonstrably suggested by the UI. My point was that 4NT by South seems obvious, given that the card showed that 4NT was a 2-suiter.

[FrancesHinden]

There's a major difference between 4NT by South over a 4S opening, and 4NT by North after South's double of 4S.

edit: sorry posted while lamford was posting

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2015-August-02, 11:49, said:

Ah, I understand. You meant in response to the takeout double. I don't think that matters, as bidding anything on the North hand is demonstrably suggested by the UI. My point was that 4NT by South seems obvious, given that the card showed that 4NT was a 2-suiter.

Is it? why?
There's an argument that says South gave North UI, we don't know what it suggests, but North pulled on a hand where most people passed, and lo and behold South had a hand where he would have ben delighted for North to bid.

But I can't see why a slow double on this auction demonstrably suggests bidding, in general. It hugely depends on the players involved. Considering various people I play with, a slow double shows either (i) a hand that has balanced high cards and doesn't want me to bid; (ii) a light take-out double that is desperate for me not to pass and was thinking of passing, (iii) a single or two suiter that couldn't decide between bid and double.

that's the problem with the laws - I also know which is which for the various people I play with, so I know what a slow double demonstrably suggests (which is why my partners try hard to act in tempo here, or in particular to double in tempo, and why we all obey the stop warning on this sequence). But for this pair, we have only the evidence of this one hand. And the poll doesn't help, because in my usual partnerships the one hand South can't possible have - slow double or not - is the one he actually has.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-02, 11:57, said:

<snip>But for this pair, we have only the evidence of this one hand.<snip>

I agree, but we have to make do with that. In the case of a psyche, in the most egregious of cases we can rule "red" based on one hand and adjust the score because we deem a CPU. Should it not be a similar principle here? - the combination of the double and pull is evidence of a CPU from previous experience. We have South making a slow takeout double, and North not passing with a balanced hand with an ace. Given that South had 4NT available, and on the card, that would make the double likely to be passed more often than not. A slow double suggests that South does not want the auction to end, and that is the UI. It suggests not passing with a balanced hand. One could even rule that Double was a psyche, because 4NT was available, and North fielded it by bidding 5H. But that would not be my approach. I would rule that "not passing" was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-August-02, 12:30, said:

I agree, but we have to make do with that. In the case of a psyche, in the most egregious of cases we can rule "red" based on one hand and adjust the score because we deem a CPU. Should it not be a similar principle here? - the combination of the double and pull is evidence of a CPU from previous experience. We have South making a slow takeout double, and North not passing with a balanced hand with an ace. Given that South had 4NT available, and on the card, that would make the double likely to be passed more often than not. A slow double suggests that South does not want the auction to end, and that is the UI. It suggests not passing with a balanced hand. One could even rule that Double was a psyche, because 4NT was available, and North fielded it by bidding 5H. But that would not be my approach. I would rule that "not passing" was demonstrably suggested by the BIT.

is this case egregious? what makes a case egregious? if it's not egregious, should we still rule violation of 16B3?