[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-April-24, 07:07, said:

On the one hand we have an "agreement" that is verbal and not in the system notes. On the other, a possible de facto "agreement" based on a hidden partnership understanding. Why should we assume that one of these "agreements" is more valid or enforceable than the other? Neither is in the system notes.

If south had based his 4♠ call on MI, I would have more sympathy...

They may well have two conflicting agreements: the written one that double is action, and the implicit one that West sometimes intends it as penalties. Nobody is arguing that one agreement takes priority over the other, and nobody is arguing that there was damaged caused by MI.

The point is that East had UI, and the UI told him which of these two agreeements applied.

Quote

How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

He knew that there was UI from West's out-of-tempo double, he had heard the double explained as showing " high ODR" and he could see what East had when he passed it.

There's no suggestion in the original post that South knew or alleged anything else when he called the director.

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on 2012-April-24, 07:10, said:

5♣ would be a suggestion to play there because responder might have long clubs. Playing a natural system with limited openings, do you think

1♥ pass 4♥ 4♠
dbl* pass 5♣

is a slam try?

It would be "I'm bidding 5♥ anyway, lead a club not a heart v 5♠" if I bid it, not sure if this is standard. Edit : so I couldn't bid 5♣, but was thinking more generally

But I certainly wouldn't put clubs into the auction as a playable suit now, if I was going to do that, I'd make a fit bid the previous round.

[c_corgi]

billw55, on 2012-April-24, 07:07, said:

I'm going to take a different route here.

On the one hand we have an "agreement" that is verbal and not in the system notes. On the other, a possible de facto "agreement" based on a hidden partnership understanding. Why should we assume that one of these "agreements" is more valid or enforceable than the other? Neither is in the system notes.

If south had based his 4♠ call on MI, I would have more sympathy. How did south even know he had any claim at all on which to base a director call? Did he know something about the E-W "agreements" and if so where did he get that information.

Presumably East explained the verbally agreed meaning of the double. I see no reason not to consider this agreement valid: East has made anti-self-serving statements at every opportunity, it seems unlikely they are not true.

[aguahombre]

c_corgi, on 2012-April-24, 07:37, said:

Presumably East explained the verbally agreed meaning of the double. I see no reason not to consider this agreement valid: East has made anti-self-serving statements at every opportunity, it seems unlikely they are not true.

So, that means East admits to choosing from alternatives a pass suggested by the UI. All that is left, then, is for the TD to adjust from 4SX to something else.

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2012-April-24, 07:20, said:

He knew that there was UI from West's out-of-tempo double, he had heard the double explained as showing " high ODR" and he could see what East had when he passed it.

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

So I saw no reason that from the south's point of view, the fast double should be suspicious, nor east's pass of it.

But yes, I see that east may have UI here. Does the fast double suggest penalty? Perhaps .. hard to be sure.

I suppose if west had doubled in tempo, east would still be faced with a choice of which "agreement" to follow, but could now do either thing in clear conscience?

[ahydra]

Did anyone ask East why he passed the X? (perhaps he took a view he could collect 800)

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG, given that even if partner gave him a trick he's still down 800?

ahydra

[gnasher]

ahydra, on 2012-April-24, 08:26, said:

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG

It was prior to the alleged infraction, so that appears to be irrelevant.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-April-24, 08:24, said:

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

I don't know about you, but when I find myself in 4♠x I always find out what the double meant. Anyway, I don't really see the relevance of this: South asked for a ruling under Law 16, so we rule.

Quote

I suppose if west had doubled in tempo, east would still be faced with a choice of which "agreement" to follow, but could now do either thing in clear conscience?

Yes. Obviously, he should also disclose the implict agreement ("It means x but he sometimes forgets."), and the two-way meaning has to be permitted by the RA.

[CSGibson]

If I have a history of forgetting my agreements, it is much more likely that I have done so with a fast action than a considered one - fast actions are reflexive, and my history of forgetting suggests that our agreement is not reflexive for me. Therefore the UI from the out-of-tempo X strongly suggests passing over bidding on. On the other hand, if E makes a slam try, I cannot imagine W cooperating with what have to be wasted spade honors no aces and 4-3-3-3 shape, so I'd rule 5H making.

[c_corgi]

ahydra, on 2012-April-24, 08:26, said:

Am I the only one considering that S's 4S might be a bit WoG, given that even if partner gave him a trick he's still down 800?

ahydra

It looks closer to automatic than WoG to me!

[barmar]

billw55, on 2012-April-24, 08:24, said:

I reread the OP just to be sure. It does not say that there was any inquiry or explanation about the double at the table. Perhaps there actually was, but this was not stated.

True, although without knowing the agreement I wonder what justification South would have for saying that East should have pulled the double.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2012-April-24, 09:14, said:

Yes. Obviously, he should also disclose the implic[i]t agreement ("It means x but he sometimes forgets."), and the two-way meaning has to be permitted by the RA.

I agree with the first part, but "forgetting" is surely not an agreement. It is covered by "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." That does not require the deviations to be deliberate. Law 40 also states, earlier, "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." The player can therefore forget as much as he wants, provided it is fully disclosed. I cannot agree that all "forgets" are a two-way meaning, and I have never seen an agreement being permitted provided it is never forgotten. Perhaps it should be with Ghestem.

I don't agree that they would get to slam, as East has ruled out slam on the first round, and he is only being asked whether to go to the 5-level. So 5H = gets my vote.

[barmar]

So you don't think that "then form a part of the partnership's methods" makes the two-way meaning a "special partnership understanding" that the RA can disallow?

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2012-April-24, 10:08, said:

I don't agree that they would get to slam, as East has ruled out slam on the first round, and he is only being asked whether to go to the 5-level. So 5H = gets my vote.

I can't find where someone has suggested they might get to slam, but maybe I just missed it.

However, would X KXXXX KXX KQX meet the "high ODR" definition within their agreements?

[AlexJonson]

barmar, on 2012-April-24, 10:23, said:

So you don't think that "then form a part of the partnership's methods" makes the two-way meaning a "special partnership understanding" that the RA can disallow?

You seem to imply that forgetting can be forbidden, and therefore it can be automatically penalised. In the EBU we are close to that with fielding misbids, but not quite there.

[joostb1]

shevek, on 2012-April-23, 19:44, said:

The problem for EW is the meaning of double.
Systemically it means "I have high ODR, I'm happy to be at the 5-level."
It's a good method but West forgot, quickly.

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

[billw55]

joostb1, on 2012-April-24, 14:17, said:

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

ODR = offense-defense ratio. I think.

It describes the relative worth of a hand for declaring versus defending. So "high ODR" would describe a hand with values that are much more useful declaring than defending.

Here, the point is that east, armed with the knowledge that west has a high ODR, should be choosing to declare rather than defend.

[shevek]

No skip bid warning in Australia, seems irrelevant here anyway.
When the director polled 4 of East's peers, all would remove an in tempo double, reaching 5♥, not 6. So 650 awarded.

Whether East should remove this style of double is a moot point. An aim of raising a limited 1M opening to game on a wide range of hands is to catch the opponents speeding, accepting the occasional 4 IMP loss for +500.
The point being that

♠x ♥KJxxxx ♦Jxx ♣Kxx or

♠Ax ♥KJxxxx ♦Kx ♣xxx

will also double 4♠, these admittedly are very specific.

Still, the quick double seems to suggest that passing is likely to be right and East can hardly claim that passing is indicated, in the face of peer pressure. System users are few & far between.

[billw55]

As an aside, is such an agreement wise? It seems to essentially bar a penalty double at the four level.

[sfi]

billw55, on 2012-April-25, 06:29, said:

As an aside, is such an agreement wise? It seems to essentially bar a penalty double at the four level.

The idea is that an 8-12 count that has already denied 4 spades (not sure that was in the original post) will never have a penalty double with partner being so ill defined. So you use it to show a hand that wants to compete but does not want to get in the way of partner's ability to double for penalties.