Assign the blame

[Miron]

[hv=d=n&v=e&n=sak2hakj953da5ck6&w=sj10985hq1072dkj10c4&e=sq7643hd732caqj109&s=sh864dq9864c87532]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1♥ - 2♥! - pass - 3♠

x - pass - pass - pass

 

1♥ is standard opening, we require stronger hands for 2♣

2♥ explained as 5♠ and 5 minor, any HCP

pass after 2♠ shows 0-7 HCP (and no 4+♥ fit)

3♠ explained has preemptive

 

Who has made the bad decision/bid? Why?

 

Well I mostly don't like the assign the blame topics. But in this case I really have no idea who is wrong.

 

Yes 3♠x+1.

[Guest Jlall]

South's pass is absurd so he gets almost all the blame. North could have tried 3N over 3S, or 4H over 3S, but his double should not have been passed.

[Miron]

Just one more subquestion: How do you play the double (well does it someone play as take out)?

[Guest Jlall]

Just one more subquestion: How do you play the double (well does it someone play as take out)?

card showing/takeout oriented.

[brianshark]

Dbl = "Extra points, no clear bid... do something intelligent."

 

South's pass was not intelligent, I gave him 100% of the blame. It's possibly closer to 95%, but I have no problem rounding it to 100%.

[Fluffy]

double is take/out, passing a take out double with void can only be good at the 1 level (or 2♣/♦)

 

south gets 100%. Bad luck gets the rest.

[bid_em_up]

While South's pass is clearly absurd, I will give North 25% of the blame for his X.

 

He should realize on the auction that South can hold no more than 1 spade, and yet he failed to double 2H or raise hearts. South is broke, and is liable to have no real heart fit. Even if he does have 3 hearts, the hearts will be breaking poorly after the 2H call (as they are in this case). North's hand looks strong, but has very little real defense given that he will not be taking more than 1 heart trick (if that). It also cannot stand to play a 5-2 minor fit. North can bid 3N. If he absolutely can't stand to pass, he has just enough playing strength for 4H not to be a total disaster if he bids it. Double is out of the question as far as I am concerned.

 

(I would give West 25% of the blame for not bidding 4S, if I could.) :P

[helene_t]

double is take/out, passing a take out double with void can only be good at the 1 level (or 2♣/♦)

At the one-level? Would you like to defend 1♠ doubled with the NS cards?

[Apollo81]

South's pass is absurd so he gets almost all the blame. North could have tried 3N over 3S, or 4H over 3S, but his double should not have been passed.

what he said

[pclayton]

South can't sit, although I'd bid 3N with North.

 

The cause of the disaster was the pass, not the double, so South gets the jail time.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

No ones fault.

 

South may have bid 4H, would have been better,

... of course if 3S fails -2 and 4H -1, the discussion

will most likely have a different tune.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mikeh]

North should bid 3N: it would describe his hand type, altho ideally he'd have the ♥Q (but, then, he's have a little less outside). So N's double was an error, even tho he had good reason to hope for a set via 3 rounds of trump as a start... given that we are assuming that partner would not pass the double with his actual hand type.

 

But I agree with those who say that the worst call was the pass of the double. To call it absurd is to use an underbid.

 

So both were wrong, but N's error should not have cost. Thus S gets between 90 and 100% of the blame. If this were an established partnership, and N could expect S to make a poor call under pressure, then N gets more of the blame: say 40%... for creating a situation that might result in error, when 3N would have eliminated that error potential (at the risk of other unfortunate results on different layouts).

[bid_em_up]

South can't sit, although I'd bid 3N with North.

 

The cause of the disaster was the pass, not the double, so South gets the jail time.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, Phil.

 

To me, the "cause" of the disaster (3S x'd+1) is precipitated by North's erroneous double. Without the double, South can't go wrong. :)

 

Now, what is the purpose of North's double?

 

He cannot expect South to bid 3N when holding AKx in opponents 9+ card fit.

He does not have support for either minor.

He will not sit for 4 of a minor when South bids it. He will bid 4H.

If he is going to pull whatever South bids to 4H, why not just bid it now?

In this seat, the X by North should be takeout, yet the bidding to this point and South's spade holding will indicate to South that it simply cannot be takeout. It must be penalty oriented.

 

So North's options really were either bid 3N or 4H. But double could never be correct on this holding.....and it could not be correct unless specifically intended as penalty, imo. If he intended it as penalty, then South needs to respect that and leave it in.

 

After further consideration, I'm not so sure North doesn't deserve more of the blame than I (and others) have initially assigned to him. I have almost convinced myself that he shares equally in the blame due to the X of 3S (up from 25% originally).

[pclayton]

South can't sit, although I'd bid 3N with North.

 

The cause of the disaster was the pass, not the double, so South gets the jail time.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, Phil.

 

To me, the "cause" of the disaster (3S x'd+1) is precipitated by North's erroneous double. Without the double, South can't go wrong. :)

 

Now, what is the purpose of North's double?

 

He cannot expect South to bid 3N when holding AKx in opponents 9+ card fit.

He does not have support for either minor.

He will not sit for 4 of a minor when South bids it. He will bid 4H.

If he is going to pull whatever South bids to 4H, why not just bid it now?

In this seat, the X by North should be takeout, yet the bidding to this point and South's spade holding will indicate to South that it simply cannot be takeout. It must be penalty oriented.

 

So North's options really were either bid 3N or 4H. But double could never be correct on this holding.....and it could not be correct unless specifically intended as penalty, imo. If he intended it as penalty, then South needs to respect that and leave it in.

 

After further consideration, I'm not so sure North doesn't deserve more of the blame than I (and others) have initially assigned to him. I have almost convinced myself that he shares equally in the blame due to the X of 3S (up from 25% originally).

LOL; by this logic, the 'cause' of the debacle is the opening bid. If North never opens, then his side never gets into trouble.

 

North is right to take a call over 3♠ in spite of partner passing the Michaels call. Double isn't horrible, at least compared to a pass. His partner rates to be short in spades and might have heart support or a very long minor (especially in light of the fact that 3 of a minor of a Michaels call is generally a one round force). It also avoids an imperfect 3N call.

 

3N is a nice call IMO. But to sit for either a double or 3N with 3 trump and a void in the enemy suit looks rich to me.

[Miron]

Just one further question:

What if you know that this double is penalty. Do you pass or bid 4♥?

[mikeh]

Just one further question:

What if you know that this double is penalty. Do you pass or bid 4♥?

4♥... if he has AKQJ of ♠s I apologize

[hotShot]

Just one further question:

What if you know that this double is penalty. Do you pass or bid 4♥?

If south knows that double is penalty, than I change my vote from 75% south to 100% south.

 

East promised 5 ♠ and west has to have 4+♠ to jump to 3♠. So opps have at least 9♠. East promised a 5 card minor and you hold card in the same minor, so you know that west and north are short in that suit. North honors in that suit are wrong sided or will be ruffed by west. East won't have more 3 cards in th other 2 suits. So North high card tricks won't get more than 1♥, 1 in wests minor, 1-2 in the other minor and perhaps 1-2♠. So if you are lucky 3♠ is down 1-2. And your hand is of no help.

On the other hand you know that N/S must have 8-9 ♥'s and probably a fit in the other minor, because north will have 3-4♠, 5+♥, 0-2 of easts 5 card minor and 2+ of the other minor. So your side is closer to making 4♥ than bringing down 3♠.

[Free]

North doubles for takeout (which is wrong imo, 3NT is better) and South passes the takeout double with a triple fit (partner should have the other suits, or something very similar). Both are wrong, but South really messed this up imo. 10%-90%

[the hog]

You need MORE to open 2C. What? 37HCP?

South passed a t/o x. 100% to blame. Btw Nth/Sth cant make 3NT.

[HeartA]

South's pass is absurd so he gets almost all the blame. North could have tried 3N over 3S, or 4H over 3S, but his double should not have been passed.

Justin said what I want to say.

[Walddk]

North's double is for take-out, so South should have taken it out. Perhaps he thought that opener had a stack of spades when he looked at his own void. No excuse though.

 

North might have tried 3NT or 4♥ instead, but he can't be blamed for doubling. So South gets all of it for committing one of the biggest sins in the game: passing a take-out double.

 

Roland

[brianshark]

It seems that the nature of the problem suggests that North/South had an agreement that the double was not take-out but penalties. So South's not as bad as having passed a take-out double. Perhaps I will refine my original blame ratio...

[Fluffy]

double is take/out, passing a take out double with void can only be good at the 1 level (or 2♣/♦)

At the one-level? Would you like to defend 1♠ doubled with the NS cards?

not on this deal helene, sometimes it is better -680 than -1400, althou with void it is quite hard, but with balanced yarboroughs look at the vul!

[Walddk]

Just one further question:

What if you know that this double is penalty. Do you pass or bid 4♥?

Then I will give them both 100% for having that agreement. It's all a matter of frequency. The opponents have at least nine spades between them, so what is more likely: North has a penalty or a take-out of 3♠? It's rhetorical, no need to reply.

 

If this is indeed your agreement, Miron, then tell us what North would do with a much more frequent hand like ...

 

♠

♥ AKJxx

♦ AJxx

♣ Axxx

 

Yes, it would be nice to penalise them when you have ...

 

♠ AKQ10

♥ AKxxx

♦ Kx

♣ xx

 

but you never have that hand on this auction.

 

Roland

[Miron]

We have no agreement for this bidding.

The closest meaning is probably penalty oriented double (but not strictly penalty).

IMHO, I think that there is no difference for South bidding against t/o or penalty double (Actually North - with high probability - cannot have hand that defeats 3♠ when South has fit and both five cards in minor).