ATB (team style)

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skjt972hkdqj86cj6&w=s63hq654d95ckt984&e=s4hat9832dk72caq5&s=saq85hj7dat43c732]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The auctions are my guess but at a table E/W played in 4♥x making (1♥-x-3♥-3♠-4♥-x-all pass) and at the other 4♠x making (1♥-Pa-3♥-3♠-4♥-4♠-Pa-Pa-x-all pass). Which table did worse? What auctions could have led to these results?

[cherdanno]

So now we are asked to assign blame for auctions that we are supposed to guess? Think this belongs in the uninteresting bridge hands forum.

[Phil]

Table 2 EW didn't do a lot wrong except agree to play with their teammates.

 

They got to their thin game and and didn't find the -1 sac in 5♥ when there was a surprise double fit.

 

Table 1 NS did everything wrong. The second double is weird and the final pass with ♠KJTxxx is flat out bizarre.

[jdonn]

LOL

[mtvesuvius]

LOL

This seems to be the best analysis so far.

[hanp]

Cherdanno nailed the analysis.

[helene_t]

I think the worst mistake was the South who doubled 4♥ and his/her p who then thought it was a 100% penalty dbl and didn't bid the obvious 4♠.

 

In the other room it appears that EW had a misunderstanding about the strength of 3♥. But even opposite a limit raise I am no fan of East's double.

[mich-b]

Assuming the auctions were as you suggested , by far the worst bidding was North's in table 1, who failed to bid the obvious 4♠ , in spite of being given 2 chances to do so.

[OleBerg]

Assuming the auctions were as you suggested , by far the worst bidding was North's in table 1, who failed to bid the obvious 4♠ , in spite of being given 2 chances to do so.

Well, it is definately bad, but the worst is the double of 4♥. 11 hcp, one of them likely to be wasted, we have already made a T-O double, and yet we double again???