Whose mistake?

[awm]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skt75hq63dk964cqj&w=sj43h4da875cat985&e=sa986ha9852dt32c7&s=sq2hkjt7dqjck6432]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auction was as follows, south dealing:

 

Pass - Pass - 1♦ - 2♦ (majors)

Double - 2♠ - Pass - Pass

3♣ - Double - Pass - Pass

Redouble - All Pass

 

Obviously this is not a good spot. Which bid was the worst, and which of N/S is to blame?

[mike777]

So many to pick from :D

I will choose 1D, if North had passed none of this would have happened.

 

Of course 3clubs and xx was hardly risk adverse bidding. The 2d bid really sucks. So many choices so little time.

[luke warm]

i choose north for not doubling 2♠ for penalty

[mikeh]

Since the vote option required picking one error out of several, I did not vote.

 

I agree with South's initial pass. North's 1♦ bid was horrible and bears little relation to bridge. Light third seat opening bids are normal, but there should be a reason for the bid, especially vulnerable at imps.

 

1 of a minor invites 4th seat to bid: the standard for overcalls is lower than for opening bids, so one should not stretch to open a short, weak minor suit in 3rd chair. One also should discount a holding such as QJ tight in ♣, and one should downgrade hands with NO aces. All told, this was a remarkably silly bid.

 

I hate the 2♦ overcall: but the poll did not ask for a vote on EW action.

 

I cannot object to South's double, since he had to show a maximum pass and he would be happy to defend if N could double.

 

North's pass of 2♠ is reasonable. Doubling would be an overstatement of values... he had none and he'd already shown more than that.

 

3♣ by South was not completely hopeless: he harboured the reasonable, but mistaken, hope that North had an opening hand to match his opening bid, and North could perhaps pull to 3♦ if he lacked a fit in ♣. His only other choices were to sell out (with pass) or make an aggressive 2N bid (my choice)

 

Up until the redouble, the only real quarrel I have was with North's opening bid: of course, my quarrel with that is vehement.

 

But it all pales compared to the ridiculous redouble. What on earth did south think was going on? He was already going to get a huge pickup if the contract made. And the fact that West doubled was a clue that maybe the contract was going down. I looked in vain for the extra ♣ cards and playing strength that the redouble announced.

 

3 very bad bids occurred. East got away with his. N-S did not.

[pclayton]

The absolute worst call was the xx. Looks like a tilt call to me.

 

Going through the actions.

 

1. South's 1st pass; agree 100%

 

2. North's 1♦. Also agree; you have heart tolerance and 1♠ knocks it out

 

3. South's double; Agree. Max pass (sort of) and would love to take a piece out of 2♥.

 

4. North's pass of 2♠. Classic 3rd seat dilemma. Pard, I'm ashamed of my opening 1♦, so I'll stay quiet. But I'd still double; pard isn't bound to leave it in; especially with a still spade and offense. If North was unpassed, I play this pass as forcing, by the way.

 

5. South's 3♣. I'd probably go quietly here and pass, even though we are vul. Pard probably has a rotten hand and you have no source of tricks.

 

6. North's pass. 100%. Happy to finally find a fit, even though its hit. Maybe we'll make it.

 

7. South's xx. Huh? Penalty? Escape? Reading too much into North's pass of 2♠?

 

8. North's pass. Just happy to end the auction and let pard play a fun one.

[luke warm]

~snip~

North's pass of 2♠ is reasonable. Doubling would be an overstatement of values... he had none and he'd already shown more than that.~snip~

this is interesting to me, mike... if you agree (and i think you do) that south's x of 2♦ said he's willing to double at least one of the majors, why isn't double the bid to make here? just curious

[awm]

I should mention that 2♠ is pretty likely to make on a crossruff. Supposing a ♠Q lead, opener wins the ♠A, ace of hearts, ruff a heart, ace of clubs, ruff a club, ruff a heart, cash ♦A, and lead another club. If north discards or ruffs low, then the ruff is trick eight. If north ruffs high, then east is left with ♠98 with only one higher trump outstanding. Leading something other than ♠Q doesn't seem to help much as far as I can tell.

 

Obviously -470 is a better result than the -1000 likely from 3♣XX, but I think blaming the failure to double 2♠ for the result is a little weird... unless you think south should bid 2NT over partner's penalty double, or that -470 is somehow the best result reasonable on the board.

[mikeh]

~snip~

North's pass of 2♠ is reasonable. Doubling would be an overstatement of values... he had none and he'd already shown more than that.~snip~

this is interesting to me, mike... if you agree (and i think you do) that south's x of 2♦ said he's willing to double at least one of the majors, why isn't double the bid to make here? just curious

I hate doubling partscores into game. S is a passed hand, thus his double, although it suggests defending and doubling, does not announce ownership of the hand: it does not create a force. North is invited to double in a co-operative manner. Had S been unpassed, the double would create a force, but I would still pass. BTW, I would NEVER be in this position even in 3rd seat, and I would need to be on very serious drugs to have opened the N hand in 1st or 2nd, so the discussion of what I would do then is meaningless.

 

As it is, I have very good ♠ and I would certainly double if I had a semblance of an opening hand. But I do not: I have a horrible, horrible hand. I have precisely NO Aces: and aces are often the key to making or breaking this kind of contract.

 

Put it another way, I see as much risk of their making their contract as I do of their going 2 down. If this was a chance to score +500, I am just going to be happy that my ridiculous opening bid got me +200 on a hand that might well be passed out at the other table.

 

BTW, for anyone thinking of doubling 2♠, what are you leading and how are you beating this contract? See what I mean about the power of the Aces... they hold ALL of them, and they have some singletons as well!

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I dont like the opening bid and I dont like the

Pass of 2S.

 

If you double 2S and they make it, to bad,

but blame it on your opening bid.

 

South, probably feeling partners Pass was

forcing, bid 3C.

I dont understand the redouble, ... maybe

he believes his partners opening bids are

stronger, but they got you already.

 

Marlowe

[Fluffy]

There are decisions (opening, not opening, looking for penalties, even redoubling 3♣). And there is a mistake: not doubling 2♠ wich parner asked you to do.

[Elianna]

I find it curious that many people think that the main mistake was not doubling 2s. For those people: When you put most of the blame on the person not doubling a cold contract, I think that you're just a little off base.

[Al_U_Card]

This is the classic 2-edged sword dilemma. On this hand, all are making "questionable" bids that have a chance to work out well or badly. That is the nature of competitive auctions these days. Whatever your "criteria" for making bids (the 2D on a 5-4 piece of crap that lucked out big-time) or opening lite (read scruffy) in 3rd seat are; stick to them diligently and then at least you will be able to determine whether or not those methods suit your partnership. Flip-flopping around is for dying fish, as they say.....

[mikeh]

Doubling 2♠ 'because partner asked you to' is an abdication of your responsibility to think at the table.

 

Partner did not actually 'ask' or 'tell' you to do anything of the sort. He described his hand to you and asked you to THINK.

 

I don't know about your partnerships, but in mine we try to avoid doubling unbeatable part-scores at imps. And I am not engaged in after-the-fact analysis. I made my first post on this hand long before looking at how the hand played.

[pclayton]

It should be noted that if East is the expected 5=5=?=? and RHO is the expected 2=1=?=? that the Q♠ lead nips 2♠ -1. Certainly NOT a good reason to double, mind you.

[mikeh]

It should be noted that if East is the expected 5=5=?=? and RHO is the expected 2=1=?=? that the Q♠ lead nips 2♠ -1. Certainly NOT a good reason to double, mind you.

The ♠Q lead would be unlikely to work: an alert declarer would note that it was led out of turn and bar a trump lead

[luke warm]

I find it curious that many people think that the main mistake was not doubling 2s. For those people: When you put most of the blame on the person not doubling a cold contract, I think that you're just a little off base.

well we know now that the contract is cold, but that smacks of resulting to me.. your partner opens (true, in 3rd), you have a 12 count, your rho made a 2 suited bid, you woudn't mind x'ing one of the suits, so you x the artificial bid to clue partner in - about what?

 

that you think the hand is yours, that you think they're in trouble, that if partner can double one of the two suits, you have the other (or both)... maybe *this* time it didn't work, but how would you normally send those signals? btw, how does north know 2♠ x'd is a cold contract, taking into account the things partner's double supposedly meant?

 

i think the same goes for mikeh's "I don't know about your partnerships, but in mine we try to avoid doubling unbeatable part-scores at imps." ... while it's true he made his comments prior to the complete view, it's also true that he didn't know the part score was "unbeatable" ... it seems to me that the only reason for not doubling is because partner might be upset with the opening bid's defensive values... but if that's the case, north should bid (assuming pass is forcing, which is an assumption i won't make) now or should not have opened in the first place

 

i agree with fluffy that partner did ask us to x ... i also agree with mike that he didn't *order* us to... but i still think that doubling their 7 card fit when we have over half the deck might just possibly work out better in the long run

 

fwiw, i'd have led a low spade...

[han]

I dislike the 1D opening bid.

 

South's double is fine.

 

I think that pass by north is also fine, but I agree that Elianna's comment smacks of resulting (I like this expression Luke).

 

3C by south seems fine again, but redouble? WHAT?

[Al_U_Card]

I dislike the 1D opening bid.

 

South's double is fine.

 

I think that pass by north is also fine, but I agree that Elianna's comment smacks of resulting (I like this expression Luke).

 

3C by south seems fine again, but redouble? WHAT?

which one :o , smacks ;) or resulting :lol: ? The fact that they have a magic hand just means that they are lucky.....but luck can be good or bad so...dbl 2S and lead a S, I say

[Al_U_Card]

Again, I realize (or at least was taught at Swiss teams) to never double a 2 level contract into game unless I was sure of a 2 trick set......in my hand! MP gives me a more jaunty disposition so perhaps prudence at IMPS is better...

[Fluffy]

I find it curious that many people think that the main mistake was not doubling 2s. For those people: When you put most of the blame on the person not doubling a cold contract, I think that you're just a little off base.

I don't care if it makes or not, I don't base my judgement on single results, 24 HCP combined with missfit do well defending with 6 trumps at the 2 level.

[awm]

I was north on this hand. I can understand why people don't like my 1♦ opening bid. My justification was as follows:

 

(1) I have length in both majors, so we are fairly likely to have a major suit fit. It wouldn't surprise me if the par result on this hand was +110 our way because of this, and if I pass and the board passes out (which may not happen, but is possible) then I think lose 3 imps is the most likely result.

 

(2) I am well-placed to pass any bid partner makes, with a reasonable chance of making. I agree that my hand is bad, but that's no reason to think we can't make 1♥, or 2♣ opposite a five card suit and 9-11 points.

 

(3) I don't expect partner to go crazy with the double card, given that we are unfavorable (wrong color to penalize), it's IMPs (wrong scoring for speculative partscore doubles), and all I did was open in third seat.

 

(4) I don't hold with the philosophy that a third seat opening is a "virtual command to lead my suit if we end up defending." My partners usually make good leads and I trust their judgement of whether to lead my suit or not. I understand that some very good players disagree with me on this (and would also point out that many of the top Italian pairs play very few lead directional bids or doubles, so I am definitely not alone here).

 

I'll note that opposite my partner's actual hand, we can probably make 2NT (and also a heart partial if hearts weren't 5-1).

 

What really troubles me is the plurality of people who blame not my light opening, but the failure to double 2♠ for our result. My judgement here was that 2♠ would probably make, and looking at the actual hands my judgement was dead on correct. Telling me that I should robotically double 2♠ is informing me that I am not allowed to use judgement which I think is somewhat offensive and a rather poor way to play bridge. Remind me not to partner anyone who thinks this way.

 

I should note that my partner did in fact blame my failure to double 2♠ for the result, saying that a double should be "automatic." I guess I am not a good enough player to understand that I should penalty double cold partscores into game at IMPs.

 

It's also interesting to me that for all the people who pointed out how awful my opening bid was (lots of slow cards, no controls), no one mentioned that the same holds of the double of 2♦. Partner has slow cards in both minors; is this really a hand where we should be defending a doubled major suit partscore opposite a major two-suiter? If you "upgrade" my hand to a real opening bid, most of the times we get 2♠X for 300 we'd also have made 3NT. I'd prefer a simple 2NT call (or a 2NT after the double) to the actual auction partner embarked on.

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

One interesting idea is what Garozzo currently plays: after a 3rd seat opening, and partner makes a card-showing XX (or here, double of Michaels), then opener's pass over RHO's action denies a full opening. All full openings must call. After handling charges, pretty good I think.

 

Later,

Dan

[P_Marlowe]

Hi Awm,

 

just one point, to a certain extend already made by Dan:

 

The partnership needs to discuss, if the double

creates a forcing pass situation.

This is probably standard, if the Dbl is made by

an unpassed hand, but the partnership also has

to discuss, if forcing pass is on, if the Dbler is

a passed hand, and if you want, if it is a 3rd seat

opener.

 

If the pass by opener is forcing:

You are allowed to use your judgement, but you have

to take into account, that pass says, that the partnership

is better of playing on the 3 level, because partner cant

bid 2NT missing a stopper.

People who dbl 2S also use their judgement, saying we

are fixed, lets hope for the best.

 

If the pass by opener is non-forcing, then 3C is a terrible

bid and responder should probaly pass, because there is no

other sensible bid.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[han]

Adam,

 

You say you find some of the reactions offensive, but I don't understand this. You start a thread asking people to choose the worst bid, and when the plurality chooses your pass you are offended? Keep in mind that players of all levels react and vote here, and they should as it is a great learning experience to think about these hands. Usually the outcome of a poll is less valuable than the motivations given by some of the posters.

 

 

Although I agree with you that pass by you is better than double, I disagree with some of the other points you make. While opening 1D with the north hand is very unattractive to me, I think that the double of 2D is automatic. What other call do you suggest? South does have a really bad 12-count, but still, redouble is the only way to announce values with this hand. I also find it hard to blame the 3C call, it is tough to pass out 2S when they seemingly have a fit and you have the balance of strength. Of course, the redouble is insane. (please take no offense South)

[awm]

My point was, it is very strange to ask which bid was the worst mistake and to be told by a plurality that the worst mistake was not doubling a cold partscore into game.

 

It's like asking "whose fault was it that the company went under?" and getting a response of "it's your fault, because you didn't embezzle money from the company coffers." How could a decision that was correct, as the cards lie be to blame for a poor result? If I had actually doubled 2♠ and gotten the result of -470, and posted this same question, would I be told "no one was to blame, you just got fixed?"

 

Suggesting that I should double a contract that I think will make, and that actually does make, and that a failure to do so is primarily to blame for a result, seems really off-base to me. Perhaps "offensive" is a bad choice of words, but I reiterate that I wouldn't want to partner anyone who blames bad results on my failure to double cold partscores into games at IMPs. And from your standpoint... would you rather play with someone who often penalty doubles making partscores into game? Or would you rather have a partner who exercises caution and good judgement in these situations? Evidently a lot of people would rather the partner who doubles making contracts. Weird.

 

Honestly I think there's a lot of blame to go around on this hand. I would've opened partner's cards. I can definitely understand the view that passing my hand would be better than 1♦. I would've bid 2NT over 2♦ on partner's cards. Given the auction up to that point, I would've bid 2NT and not 3♣ on partner's cards. Perhaps when 3♣ doubled came to me, I should've bid 3NT (which might go undoubled, and probably fails by only one trick). Partner's redouble is basically a failure to play bridge in my view, and is totally ridiculous... but perhaps I should pull that to 3NT. Basically, I think N/S made only one call in this auction which was absolutely, unequivocally correct. Only one call where the main alternative would have lead absolutely, irretrievably to a terrible score. And that one good bid in this entire awful mess was the pass of 2♠. And yet this is the bid most people pick as the "biggest mistake."