[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

..P..2♦(1).X(2).2♥(3)
.3♦...4♥....5♦....P
..P....5♥.....P.....P
..X....P......P.....P

---

(1) Flannery (5+ hearts, 4+ spades, 11-15 pts)
(2) Explained when asked later in the auction as "takeout"
(3) Explained when asked later in the auction as "2+ hearts, no interest in higher things"
(Calls 1-3 were all alerted.)

During the auction NS asked further questions about the first double. North wanted to know what East would do with a good diamond suit, and West said "bid diamonds, I suppose".

NS are both very experienced players, but are a new partnership. EW are certainly not novices, and seem to be an experienced partnership. They don't play Flannery, but they are familiar with the convention (which is very uncommon in England).

West led ♦3 to the king; East returned a club to the ace in dummy; ♥Q was run to the ace; West now led ♠8.

South went up with dummy's ace, expecting East to have ♠K1074 for his takeout double, trying to avoid a two-trick defeat, and so went one off when he could have made the contract. When it turned out that West had the spades, he called the director, claiming to have been misled by the explanation.

How should the TD rule?

[jdaming]

how is he going to get back to south to hook the K♠ (other than the K♥)? Is he saying he would have hooked the 9?

[campboy]

Did West really just say "takeout"? It clearly wasn't takeout of diamonds, so I would expect North to ask for further explanation, especially as he is very experienced.

[jallerton]

As North has shown two specific suits, then the term "take-out" sounds as though it is suggesting partner takes out into one of the other suits. Here North has shown both majors and the "take-out" bidder has both minors. What is the problem?

If West had described the double as "take-out of hearts" then N/S could reasonably expect East to have shown 3+ spades, but that was not the explanation.

[Echognome]

jdaming, on Apr 19 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

how is he going to get back to south to hook the K♠ (other than the K♥)? Is he saying he would have hooked the 9?

Perhaps a more normal way to make it would be to hook the spade. Cross to the ♥K. Repeat the finesse of the K. Cash the ♠A and ruff a spade with dummy's last trump. Then ruff a minor suit, draw trumps, and claim.

Still, I think the crux of the matter is the explanation given. Jeffrey's view of "takeout of both majors" is certainly one view, but "takeout of hearts" is another. I can't imagine anyone believing "takeout of diamonds", but I guess you'd have to ask.

[Cascade]

Despite his experience south needs a lesson in what "takeout" means.

[campboy]

Echognome, on Apr 19 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

Still, I think the crux of the matter is the explanation given.  Jeffrey's view of "takeout of both majors" is certainly one view, but "takeout of hearts" is another.  I can't imagine anyone believing "takeout of diamonds", but I guess you'd have to ask.

The explanation did not in any way suggest that East would be longer in spades than hearts. If North thought it did I think law 21A applies. Why should it be "takeout of hearts" rather than "takeout of spades" anyway? The former may be a superior method, but each is equally consistent with the explanation (and IMO less consistent than "takeout of both").

[vigfus]

Table score stands
East is not obliged to hold some specific cards or length in spades.

[MFA]

As it is presented, there is very little meat on this case. It's just too bad for south that he misguesses the spades - we can't save him. Result stands.

Edit: South was declarer.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on Apr 19 2010, 03:25 PM, said:

As North has shown two specific suits, then the term "take-out" sounds as though it is suggesting partner takes out into one of the other suits. Here North has shown both majors and the "take-out" bidder has both minors. What is the problem?

If West had described the double as "take-out of hearts" then N/S could reasonably expect East to have shown 3+ spades, but that was not the explanation.

NS claimed that it is fairly common to play a double of 2♦ as takeout of hearts (they cited a number of well-known partnerships who do this), and that they had given EW plenty of opportunity to give a full explanation of their methods (short of specifically asking for clarification of whether it shows or denies spades), but that EW had failed to do so, despite having an agreed defence to Flannery.

What I don't understand is why NS stopped short of asking specifically about spades, if they knew this was a crucial point. What possible harm could there be in asking "does the double promise spades, or just the minors?" I ruled that NS did not do enough to protect themselves, and had no reason to suppose that East had promised spades, so the table score should stand.

This one went to within a hair's breadth of an appeal, but the request was withdrawn at the last minute.

[jeremy69]

NS are being truly remarkable here. They have received an explanation. 4H6 of the Orange Book defines "take out" in case there is any worry about the description. It maybe that a number of other players have a more specific defence but so what? Pity it didn't go to appeal because the withheld deposit would have paid for a round of drinks at the end.
I think the TD was spot on here.

[mycroft]

Well, in the land of Flannery, I would expect what I play to be standard:

X=D or big
2H=t/o of H
2S=NAT (or t/o of S)
2NT=minors

delayed double as one would expect.

but if I show a hand with 4=5 majors, and someone says takeout, especially in the EBU with their interesting (to Leftpondian eyes) definition of the unmodified word "takeout", I see no reason why they would assume spades over just minors. Sounds to me like "that's our defence, so it must be what they play too" thinking - which is fine if it's dixon v. multi in England, or the above Flannery defence in Canada (though still possibly wrong), but much more likely to be wrong where nobody plays your convention.

[bluejak]

I agree with jallerton.

I am afraid that the knowledge that some people play something - which surprises me, but never mind - does not alter the fact that he was not told it was takeout of hearts, so was not misinformed.