bbf teams -470

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj87hj3dqj653ct7&w=sqt9hkt5d82caq963&n=s4haq42dakt97cj54&e=sa6532h9876d4ck82&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1nd2sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

1n=10-12

X=penalty

 

Lead ♦Q

 

Is there anything here you would have done differently?

[frank0]

If your bidding method include showing ♥+♦ it's better to use it than to X with marginal. Especially when you are short in ♠. If you X with short spade, they usually run to ♠ and preempt you out from bidding.

[nigel_k]

I agree with frank0 and in general you shouldn't lighten your initial actions just because they do. But I understand double if you have no way to show hearts and diamonds. It was quite unlucky that you have so much in diamonds and 2♠X would be pretty good if North's minor suits were 3-5 instead of 5-3. Also, it looks like maybe the contract is down one if you keep playing diamonds, giving a ruff and discard on the third round, but there could be a line I have missed.

[jillybean]

Over their weak nt we were playing X=penalty and all other bids transfer, so no ability to the 2 suits.

 

I missed the optimal defense,,

http://www.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands.php?traveller=5146-1333907972-10854700&username=jillybean

[hrothgar]

If your bidding method include showing ♥+♦ it's better to use it than to X with marginal. Especially when you are short in ♠. If you X with short spade, they usually run to ♠ and preempt you out from bidding.

 

Kathryn and I aren't a regular partnership and don't have firm agreements regarding a 10-12 NT.

 

Art and co were nice enough to prealert this, at which time Kathryn and I agreed

 

X = penalty

2♣ = majors

2♦ = Hearts

2♥ = Spades

2♠ = Clubs

2N = Diamonds

 

The only alternative to double would have been transferring to Diamonds and then reversing into Hearts.

I didn't think that the hand was nearly strong enough for that...

[quiddity]

The only alternative to double would have been transferring to Diamonds and then reversing into Hearts.

I didn't think that the hand was nearly strong enough for that...

 

I thought the original double was ok, but I wouldn't sit for 2S-X!

[jillybean]

I thought the original double was fine, I was wondering about my double.

[Phil]

Remember something about defending weak NT's. You want to double 1N or the runout if its clear, but the main goal is getting to a playable spot and not head-hunting. Sometimes that means getting to 3N ourselves.

 

With that in mind, I'd probably transfer to 2♦ as N. We have values for competing since we aren't getting involved with a 9 count. We should be able to handle most follow-ups.

 

I wouldn't like it very much if my partner pulled to 2♠ over the double.

[rmnka447]

There's no assurance that 2 ♠ will go down if you Dbl it. You have a lousy 8 HCP opposite about maybe an average 13-14 HCP. Also, you know that the opponents have at least a 7 card fit. So pass the 2 ♠ bid.

 

Now if partner reopens with a Dbl showing extra values, you can convert to a penalty double.

 

In this hand, partner is likely to reopen with a 3 ♦ bid and you will be delighted.

[benlessard]

The 1st double is normal. I think the 2nd double is slightly too greedy (2 trumps tricks but not much else). I expect 2S undoubled to be the normal spot since north doesnt have enough to make a 2nd double.

[paulg]

The only alternative to double would have been transferring to Diamonds and then reversing into Hearts.

I didn't think that the hand was nearly strong enough for that...

I appreciate the problem of an irregular partnership, but with hindsight I think that transferring and then bidding hearts is fine with this hand. This sequence should essentially be limited by the failure to double and would be my preference in a regular partnership playing these methods.

 

Given the circumstances I think it would be tough to be overly critical of either double. Things don't work out occasionally.

[hrothgar]

I appreciate the problem of an irregular partnership, but with hindsight I think that transferring and then bidding hearts is fine with this hand. This sequence should essentially be limited by the failure to double and would be my preference in a regular partnership playing these methods.

 

Given the circumstances I think it would be tough to be overly critical of either double. Things don't work out occasionally.

 

In order to transfer, I'd need to bid 2NT --> Diamonds and then rebid 3H

[paulg]

In order to transfer, I'd need to bid 2NT --> Diamonds and then rebid 3H

Sorry, I should read your methods more carefully. You would need more for this :)

[helene_t]

The only alternative to double would have been transferring to Diamonds and then reversing into Hearts.

I didn't think that the hand was nearly strong enough for that...

The failure to dbl would limit your hand so you are strong enough. But obviously you don't have enough shape.

[mike777]

thought a penalty double of a 10-12 nt showed a bit more than this?

 

so pass and then balance with x over 2s by opp?