Who is most to blame for the bad contract?

[mikeh]

North should make a neg double. For real players it can be done with 3S.

That's silly.

 

This is definitely NOT a hand on which to play a moysian, with the 4 card trump suit getting tapped. Nor a micro-moysian.

 

Now, if the partnership agreement were that double is the systemic call, denying 4 spades, we wouldn't see this auction posted.

 

It is perfectly proper to point to this hand as a strong reason why double should be used in this manner.. indeed, I use it this way in a partnership with a 'real' bridge player... but that is not the point.

 

My answer is that North is heavily to blame.. I was close to saying 100%.

 

North can bid 2♦ if he wants to create a force.. yes, this should show 5+ cards in the suit, but if partner raises, the short hand gets tapped (assuming a moysian). Meanwhile, it buys time later for 2 or 3♥. It isn't perfect, but it's practical.

 

Alternatively, North can pass and then, over the anticipated reopening double, bid 2♥ (or take other strength showing action over other developments). This risks a silly result when partner can't reopen because (as an example) he has a flat hand with Hx(x) in hearts.

 

It's a tough hand...

 

Certainly, south could pull, but a pull of 3N should be a slam try, and it is (to me) an open question whether S is worth a slam opposite a partner who rates to hold 2 heart stoppers, and thus somewhat less elsewhere... where the cards will be pulling full weight. In fact, having seen the S hand as part of the problem, I can no longer say whether I would have bid over 3N.

 

I would suggest that future questions like this be addressed with 2 questions: the N had at the point of the overcall, and the S hand (maybe under a different login name so we don't all guess they are opposite hands) after 3N. Then you'd get unbiased answers.