Assign the blame - minus 590

[pclayton]

IMPs, short matches, no one vul

 

[hv=n=sahktxxdj9xxxcxxx&w=sq8xxxxhxdakqckxx&e=skjxxhj9xxdxxcxxx&s=sxxhaqxxdxxxcaqjt]399|300|[/hv]

 

West....North....East....South

1♠......Pass......1N......dbl

2♠......3♥......3♠......4♥

4♠......dbl......all pass

 

1. 1N is forcing

2. 3♥ shows some values, since 2N is good/bad

 

E/W's actions are little suspect, and N/S might have made a bigger deal out of the hand if the event meant anything.

[Free]

I don't actually see what the problem is... Normally EW should reach 4♠ anyway, and doubling NV contracts doesn't gain much, so the imps you lost are due to the Dbl.

[jtfanclub]

Hardly an expert, but...

 

Looks to me like the problem is that North thought South's 4♥ bid showed extra values, while South just meant to compete. So the fault is South's if he violated agreement, North's if he didn't. With my regular partnerships, it's all South's fault- the sandwich double promised 4 hearts, so he has nothing extra to bid 4♥ with.

[luis]

50%, both 4♥ and the dbl are bad.

[flytoox]

4H is wrong, dbl is right in my opinion. North's hand is defensive, and dont pd go to 5 lvel, so he is kind forced to dbl to stop pd going higher.

[whereagles]

I think both misbid. Prolly 50% each, as luis said.

[mikestar]

50% each--South's 4H is an overbid, but why is North doubling?

 

The E/W bdding is a bit wierd, but doesn't affect the result here--I would expect them to have ten trumps on this sequence, though I'd place them 7-3 instead of 6-4 (which makes the double less attractive).

[TimG]

I don't see anything suspect about the EW bidding. It is not uncommon to go through a forcing NT with primary support for partner's major when responder's hand is very weak, I've done it with five-card support. And, I've seen it done even when not playing a forcing NT.

 

South's 4♥ bid seems a bit off the wall, he has what he said he had when he doubled. But, north has no reason to expect defending will be any better than bidding 5♥. The singleton spade, primary honor in hearts, and long side suit are all offensive values. If south has a big balanced hand, he can double himself.

 

Can I assign 75% to north and 75% to south?

[Fluffy]

Both should be Blamed, but the 4♥ is not so bad bid compared with double.

[paulhar]

3H merely competed, 4H was bid on the same values that double showed. Double stated that North thought the hand could be beaten with pard holding a real 4H bid - not totally unreasonable. There are many that 'always bid 4S over 4H' with a spade fit, if this was one of those, North should expect a lot from 4S doubled.

[Guest Jlall]

north 0 %....south Xed and then bid a game with nothing, he gets the blame

[mishovnbg]

No blame - just real competitive bridge. If you change K♣ and K♠, what to say about 3-2 ♥, then poll will be "Who miss double for 500" B)

Misho

[pclayton]

Thanks all for the responses. The blame is all over the board on this one, which I guess isn't surprising. North had 51.4%.

 

I was South here. Here's my thoughts:

 

1. The initial double seems normal. I'd rather consult partner at the 2 level than the 3 level if it comes around to me after 2♠ - pass - pass.

 

2. I wasn't fond of my partner's 3♥. We hadn't talked about responsive doubles behind the bidder (do you play them here?), but if a double is available, I like it better. I think 3♥ should be reserved for hands like: xx, Kxxxx, AQxx, xx (at a minimum). Here, 4♥ needs only one of two hooks. Take out the Q♦ and it looks like a 2N call.

 

3. I took the push to 4♥. We seem to have a balance of the deck, and game looks odds-on with the presumed 9 card fit and lack of spade duplication.

 

4. After this hand was played, he doubled because he thought we were in a forcing pass situation. But its academic; I'm doubling myself if it comes back around to me.