[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-August-02, 13:15, said:

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

I think there is no doubt about the LA to 5H that is less successful, which is Pass. I think we just have to decide whether "bidding" rather than "passing" is demonstrably suggested by the UI, under Law 16. As Frances states, in regular partnerships what is suggested would be clearer. Here we do not have previous hands of the pair to go on. We just have one hand where South doubled slowly instead of bidding 4NT, and North bid 5H anyway instead of passing. We should try to decide whether that suggests that the BIT suggested in this particular partnership that North take it out, and whether North would have passed if South had doubled in tempo. It is impossible to poll, as we would have to find some Souths who would double on that hand instead of bidding 4NT.

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-02, 03:26, said:

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

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

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.

 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?

I too would like to know the answer to Blackshoe's question.

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

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.

The incident occurred in the qualifying stages of the congress teams (IMPS). My informant tells me that the NS players were unknown to him.

 FrancesHinden, on 2015-August-02, 11:53, said:

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

I'm told the card referred to immediate actions over a pre-empt, not to advancer's actions.

I'm editing the original post to clarify some of this.

[Vampyr]

It does not matter that much that South forgot the agreement, unless one wants to rule fielded misbid. North is the one who has UI. He doesn't know what the double is; well the hesitation at the very least obviously shows that South considered other options.

A friend of mine who is a seriously good player passed and said it was routine; he didn't consider any other options. Of course his opinion was unchanged after the BIT, but here it is pretty obvious that the BIT informed North's decision.

[StevenG]

 Vampyr, on 2015-August-02, 17:48, said:

A friend of mine who is a seriously good player passed and said it was routine; he didn't consider any other options.

Is he a peer of the actual North?

[Trinidad]

 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?

Absolutely not.

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

- 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.

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

Your reasoning that the BIT must have suggested a twosuiter since that was what South held, is circular.

What do you suggest an ethical North would do?

• He knows that the agreement is that double is takeout.
  
• 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.
  
• North decides to take the ethical route and bids 5♥.

By coincidence, this turns out to be the correct action on this hand, since this time partner doesn't have what the UI suggested most (i.e. a big balanced hand or a minimum), but a two-suiter.

You cannot use the circular reasoning of:
I don't believe in coincidence.
Therefore, North would probably use the UI.
Therefore, South's BIT will have suggested a hand that fits the 5♥ bid better than the double does.
Therefore, North used the UI.

Now, let's put all theory aside and get real. This North was not so much ethical. He was simply clueless. The BIT didn't mean anything to him. By accident, he took the ethical actin of not passing. And, by accident, he got lucky. Tough luck for EW.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2015-August-03, 05:56, said:

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]

 StevenG, on 2015-August-03, 00:47, said:

Is he a peer of the actual North?

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

[lamford]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-02, 09:14, said:

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]

 lamford, on 2015-August-03, 06:21, said:

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]

 lamford, on 2015-August-03, 07:03, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2015-August-03, 08:06, said:

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]

 Trinidad, on 2015-August-03, 05:56, said:

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]

 WellSpyder, on 2015-August-03, 08:29, said:

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]

 blackshoe, on 2015-August-03, 08:48, said:

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]

 lamford, on 2015-August-03, 06:21, said:

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]

 barmar, on 2015-August-03, 10:36, said:

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.