karlson Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 [hv=d=n&v=n&n=skthaktxxdqxcakxx&s=shxxdaktxxxcjt9xx]133|200|Scoring: IMP1♥ 1♠ X 3♠3NT 4♠ p pX p p p[/hv] Assign the blame for +100 instead of +920. Also for +430 (south was planning on passing) if east had stayed quiet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Why does this look so familiar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have a policy that has worked well. Anyone who makes a negative double with shape more extreme than 4-5 or 5-4 (occasional exceptions for 10 cards if weak) gets the blame in ATB problems. I don't even think hard after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOL Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Making a negative double is beyond terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I have a policy that has worked well. Anyone who makes a negative double with shape more extreme than 4-5 or 5-4 (occasional exceptions for 10 cards if weak) gets the blame in ATB problems. I don't even think hard after that. There is much to be said for this policy. Really, how can this be an issue? South's bidding on this hand was abominable. He represented his hand as a 3-2-4-4 or 2-2-(4-5) 7 count. 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.