Fluffy Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk10hkxxdcakjxxxxx&w=sqjxxha98xxxdkqxc&e=saxxxhqxda109xcq10x&s=s9xxhj10djxxxxxcxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP W - N - E - S1♥-3NT-X-psps-ps[/hv] After the ♥Q was led and ducked all North needed was ♣2-1 for +750, alas!, not today, and that turned out -1700 instead, anyone to blame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 South 100%West 100%North 50%Bad luck 200% Explanation:- South passes the dbl with that junk? Was he sleeping or something?- West has an obvious ♥Q overtake and shift.- North for being guillable. With his hand, he should never have trusted South's pass.- Bad luck: doh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 You gave north the LEAST?!?!?! good grief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 You gave north the LEAST?!?!?! good grief! If you read his post Josh, you will see that he is being facetious. 3NT is inventive, but leaving it in after the double is foolish. South should take part of the blame for not having the Q of C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 6, 2007 Report Share Posted June 6, 2007 You gave north the LEAST?!?!?! good grief! If you read his post Josh, you will see that he is being facetious. 3NT is inventive, but leaving it in after the double is foolish. South should take part of the blame for not having the Q of C. I'm still not seeing it.... makes sense since I have no sense of humor whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 North 1000%, South 0%. Btw, if clubs had been 2-1 defenders wouldn't have started with a passive defense, they would have started their aces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 I can't imagine why North would duck the opening lead! Eek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 I can't imagine why North would duck the opening lead! Eek. I think Fluffy meant West ducked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? I'd be 'mildly' concerned looking at a side void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about. Yeah, I never have a friggen clue how the partner of the doubt is supposed to know when to run when he has a little something. Call me crazy, but it's when I have doubt about my contract that I would rather not play it redoubled, even when partner thinks it will make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 3N sucks but could work, but sitting the double out with the north hand is complete and utter suicide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 North 1000%, South 0%. Btw, if clubs had been 2-1 defenders wouldn't have started with a passive defense, they would have started their aces. West had no cleu where ♣Q was when he ducked first trick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 3N sucks but could work, but sitting the double out with the north hand is complete and utter suicide This maybe means that you should always double this kind of 3NT, a bad lead or a bad switch might lead to a disaster, but then this won't happen in 4♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 North was on the next great narcotic of our time. What on earth could East be doubling a vulnerable 3NT bidder on? East knows that North's long, strong minor suit isn't going to run. North should be aware of this too and get the BLEEP out of there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 3N sucks but could work, but sitting the double out with the north hand is complete and utter suicide This maybe means that you should always double this kind of 3NT, a bad lead or a bad switch might lead to a disaster, but then this won't happen in 4♣. No this is not the case. Bridge is more complicated than poker. It's not "if he is going to fold 100 % of his hand range in this spot obv I should always raise." If you "always" double north may have 9 toppers like hes supposed to and 3 suits stopped or all the suits stopped. South may have a good hand redouble to tell partner not to run. It's not like north will always have a void in a suit, a non running anchor suit, and only 8 toppers if his suit did run. Just because I advocate north running with this hand does not mean I would always run. Besides talking about a theoretical psyche of a double is prety useless when trying to decide what to do at the table. No one psyches this double. North made a bad bid and then was stubborn and refused to run even when faced with a HUGE number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? I'd be 'mildly' concerned looking at a side void. North doesn't have a doubt redouble. North has a 4♣ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 North 1000%, South 0%. Btw, if clubs had been 2-1 defenders wouldn't have started with a passive defense, they would have started their aces. West had no cleu where ♣Q was when he ducked first trick Yes but if LHO doubles and doesn't lead an ace, there is a good chance he has a stopper in all suits (i.e., without a stopper in some suit he might start with an ace). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcLight Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 What should North have overcalled? 2♣? Double, then bid some number of clubs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbird97 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 I cannot give South any heat for passing. What if Pard had Q of clubs? As for North, I know I do not have solid clubs and it is generally a good rule to trust your opps in these types of auctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted June 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Besides talking about a theoretical psyche of a double is prety useless when trying to decide what to do at the table. No one psyches this double. Not talking about psyche, nobody is gonna double with a yarborough, but many 10 balanced can rate for it, singleton Q on his suit can can be enough also, loses for doubled game making ain't so bad when you will get several hundreds on other hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about. LOL; who cares what North is worried about. South is looking at a near yarb and pard shows doubt? On other hands, perhaps we can't diagnose a problem, but here its evident to pull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 Wow; how about a nice doubt-showing redouble by North? That would be baaaad IMO. South has no idea what North is worried about. Yeah, I never have a friggen clue how the partner of the doubt is supposed to know when to run when he has a little something. Call me crazy, but it's when I have doubt about my contract that I would rather not play it redoubled, even when partner thinks it will make. Well, are you really going to use the blue card to play here? Seems piggish to me. Even if the redouble is 'vague', it generally means "I have a problem with one of the off suits, can you help"? Isn't this better than no agreement whatsoever? If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps. Even at IMPs, the IMP scale discounts mega disasters like redoubled down 4. Assuming that the other table plays a partial, there's about a 6 IMP difference between -1100 and -2200. So it still makes sense to play the xx as doubt showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 3N sucks but could work, but sitting the double out with the north hand is complete and utter suicide This maybe means that you should always double this kind of 3NT, a bad lead or a bad switch might lead to a disaster, but then this won't happen in 4♣. No this is not the case. Bridge is more complicated than poker. It's not "if he is going to fold 100 % of his hand range in this spot obv I should always raise." If you "always" double north may have 9 toppers like hes supposed to and 3 suits stopped or all the suits stopped. South may have a good hand redouble to tell partner not to run. It's not like north will always have a void in a suit, a non running anchor suit, and only 8 toppers if his suit did run. Just because I advocate north running with this hand does not mean I would always run. Besides talking about a theoretical psyche of a double is prety useless when trying to decide what to do at the table. No one psyches this double. North made a bad bid and then was stubborn and refused to run even when faced with a HUGE number. This reminds me of a hand in the Daily Bulletin last year. In the Open Pairs, Itabashi doubled 3N with AKQJ and out. Of course they ran, but had an easy 9 tricks after the suit was cashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 If you are playing for total points, redoubles like this are a bad idea. It could take you a month to make up for a loss like this. At MPs, redoubles like this are 1000% clear. Why should they talk you out of your best contract, and why can't we probe to see if pard can help a little? You always aren't going to get these right, but the xx at least helps. Using the blue card for blood is MOST useful at total points.The non-linearity of the IMPs scale, and the discrete nature of the MP scale, make redoubling for business less useful. When every point counts, that's the time to make them regreat the fact... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.