[mycroft]

Without a snapdragon agreement, do they have a "card-showing" agreement for the double? If so, this looks like a perfect time for it. If North passes, East will pull, obviously, and 5C should be reached (so +500). If North bids 3H, I think East will likely still bid, and again +500 (they may only get +100, but this is the NOS, so they get the benefit of the doubt, and 4C is reasonable).

I sort of understand High/Low doubles (at least, if they're like Negative Free Bids), but North's argument is specious, if High-Low Doubles is the only thing on the front of the card. It certainly isn't obvious to "everybody" what that means, and especially what that means for non-double auctions. It's as if I wrote in the "Things to know" box about "Asking bids: Alpha, Gamma, Epsilon; accepting transfer or bidding singleton is Beta" and then arguing that they should know that 2S unAlerted doesn't show spades.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-28, 07:55, said:

You seemed to be advocating that EW invent an agreement they did not have. If West had a bid that showed 5C and 2S, I suspect he might have used it with two aces, and I strongly suspect he might have mentioned it in the later debate.

No, I would not want them to invent an agreement that they did not have, but as we learn later most third division Norwegian players seems to have been taught Snapdragon in their first-year biology classes. I agree that I phrased it poorly, and should have said "If West had genuinely claimed he would have doubled, even if just take-out, with correct information, then I would be more inclined to believe him, rather than his claim that he would have bid 2S." I think most pairs would play that double was takeout here, even if not specifically discussed, showing clubs with spade tolerance. What other meaning could it have - Lightner?

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-April-28, 11:08, said:

No, I would not want them to invent an agreement that they did not have, but as we learn later most third division Norwegian players seems to have been taught Snapdragon in their first-year biology classes. I agree that I phrased it poorly, and should have said "If West had genuinely claimed he would have doubled, even if just take-out, with correct information, then I would be more inclined to believe him, rather than his claim that he would have bid 2S." I think most pairs would play that double was takeout here, even if not specifically discussed, showing clubs with spade tolerance. What other meaning could it have - Lightner?

I agree with your reformulation. (Though after a recent thread on doubles in the EBU I might hesitate to say 'takeout, what else could it mean' in any moderately complex auction - more likely to automatically alert and mumble about values).

Did I really insist on driving to slam with a 3 count? When was that? I do hold pretty poor cards, so I'm prone to action faced with a few pictures, but 3 points...

[bluejak]

I think the failure to weight the score terrible. That means that the TD is 85+% sure how the auction would go without the infraction, including that he is sure that West would bid 2♠. Of course a snapdragon double is more reasonable, but he did not say he was going to call that, did he?

While I think some adjustment credible - even though I doubt it is right - this 100% stuff cannot be right.

What do I think of your regulation? Terrible. I loathe the presumption that you have to remember things so you will know when opponents break the rules by not alerting. The only advantage of such a regulation is to encourage people not to alert correctly.

[ggwhiz]

Once again kudos to E/W for making their case on actual agreements rather than inventing snapdragon on their card before going to committee.

They do deserve an adjustment and a weighted one seems right.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-28, 11:34, said:

Did I really insist on driving to slam with a 3 count? When was that? I do hold pretty poor cards, so I'm prone to action faced with a few pictures, but 3 points...

As I recall you were asking if there was any alternative to 4S after (uncontested) 2D(multi)-2H-2NT(some strong balanced)-3H-4H on something like Jxxxx Qxx x xxxx, but the hand is from memory. I recall that you had few supporters, but I think you were actually suggesting that you had to pass because of the lack of alert, so it was not the case of driving to slam. I was also a bit too sarcastic about it, and I think this caused jallerton to suggest that I had insulted everyone, which was a bit unfair.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-April-28, 16:24, said:

As I recall you were asking if there was any alternative to 4S after (uncontested) 2D(multi)-2H-2NT(some strong balanced)-3H-4H on something like Jxxxx Qxx x xxxx, but the hand is from memory. I recall that you had few supporters, but I think you were actually suggesting that you had to pass because of the lack of alert, so it was not the case of driving to slam. I was also a bit too sarcastic about it, and I think this caused jallerton to suggest that I had insulted everyone, which was a bit unfair.

Now I remember (but nothing about insults).

I used to be over-sensitive to this sort of situation - I think Bluejak is the only one who is sensitive any more.

I've since been educated by dburn and Blackshoe to just bid with some logic and table feel, and leave it to oppos and the TD.
Condescension reigns, but well intentioned and I think I will take the advice.

More seriously, the pair in the post you refer to were clearly hopeless, and the idea (the Bluejak Hypothesis) that poor old
zero points partner was desperately bidding hearts to end the auction, met few adherents on high-powered BBO, but all too credible,
in the real world IMO.

But Bluejak is now on his own, I'll go for 4S, and hope the Director called isnt... Do TDs really do polls of ten people? I don't believe a word of it.