Only me to blame?

[bsm20]

Teams. I was sitting West. 5 Clubs Doubled was a very bad score. Partner felt I was totally to blame. Would 50 / 50 be more reasonable? Thanks for any comments.[hv=pc=n&s=sq9653hq54dk65cj8&w=sjhjt9daq43cqt642&n=st8742hak6djtck93&e=sakh8732d9872ca75&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1sd4s5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

[cloa513]

Teams. I was sitting West. 5 Clubs Doubled was a very bad score. Partner felt I was totally to blame. Would 50 / 50 be more reasonable? Thanks for any comments.[hv=pc=n&s=sq9653hq54dk65cj8&w=sjhjt9daq43cqt642&n=st8742hak6djtck93&e=sakh8732d9872ca75&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1sd4s5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Partner's double is the dumb bid.

[aguahombre]

The double of 1S was fine. I would have doubled 4S as West responsively to show some stuff...second choice, pass. Whether 5C turned out good or bad, the responsibility must be on the person who bid it.

[lalldonn]

I don't like partner's double (I would pass) or your 5♣ (I would double). Partner's double sure would have worked well after you had doubled, but that's more because the opponents bid really badly. Anyway I blame both of you about equally.

[Siegmund]

I hesitate to "blame" anybody. I understand the 2443 double. I certainly understand the 5C bid, expecting partner's face cards not to be in spades.

 

I point to the SAK in doubler's hand as the reason it was such a bad result, instead of being either a make or a paying sacrifice against a making 4S.

[gwnn]

I'd pass from E but it would not take me much to change to x (Ax KJxx xxxx Axx would be automatic for me). For West the correct call with (a suitable) 1345 is x, not 5C.

[eagles123]

I think DBL is terrible personally - a crappy 4-4-3-2 11 count opposite a passed hand with 7 pts in the opps suit...

 

However for me 5♣ is equally awful it's the kind of hand where it doesnt look like making and it doesnt look like a good sac. Either DBL or pass for me ;)

 

Eagles123

[Trinidad]

"Only me to blame?" is an interesting question. My point of view is that if I am to blame (whether fully or partially) I will take the blame. Whether other people will take their share of the blame is not my problem.

 

Having said that, I would not have doubled on the East hand with a passed partner, vul vs not at IMPs. And I wouldn't have bid 5♣ on the West hand.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

I don't think West can pass, and if dbl would be understood as penalty it is not necesarilly more attractive than 5♣ although it is probably a better agreement that dbl shows something like West's hand. I don't believe that E should play W for a singleton spade, though, if W doubles.

 

E's double is really bad under these circumstances. I would consider doubling a 1st seat opening with that hand, but a 3rd seat opening ... argh. Especially at this vulnerability.

 

It is unusual that nobody can make 9 tricks when opps have a 10-card fit, and S's final double was really inspired. If the LOTT had held then 5♣ could have been the winning decision (EW 11 tricks, NS 7) although it would more often be wrong.

[aguahombre]

I don't think West can pass, and if dbl would be understood as penalty it is not necesarilly more attractive than 5♣ although it is probably a better agreement that dbl shows something like West's hand. I don't believe that E should play W for a singleton spade, though, if W doubles.

 

E's double is really bad under these circumstances. I would consider doubling a 1st seat opening with that hand, but a 3rd seat opening ... argh. Especially at this vulnerability.

 

It is unusual that nobody can make 9 tricks when opps have a 10-card fit, and S's final double was really inspired. If the LOTT had held then 5♣ could have been the winning decision (EW 11 tricks, NS 7) although it would more often be wrong.

The LOTT didn't hold in large part because of South's violation of it; Application of the Law is more than just counting one's trumps, and South has two subtractors in the rounded suits. His double was truly as "inspired" as his 4S bid was.

[rhm]

I consider East takeout DBL borderline but not insane. This might be the last chance for East West to compete in relative safety.

West 5♣ is insane. Was he really expecting to make 11 tricks? Give East the ♣K and ♥A instead of ♠AK and 5♣ is still down on normal breaks.

When South triple raises West DBL does not show spades but some strength, nothing else. It is a good description of West hand.

South bidding was super aggressive, but understandable at these colors.

 

So yes, all blame goes to West in my opinion.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

double>4NT>5♣ not sure where I would put pass here, but the other 3 options are certainly on that order.

[Codo]

Yes the double is borderline- on the borderline to insanity with this hand and this vul.

I would double instead of bidding 5 ♣, but this is a matter of partnership agreement- if this is pure penalty, I would bid 4 Nt, but 5 ♣ is not too bad.

[abc234]

Joke double. Four points in the takeout suits, vulnerable and partner has passed. Enough said.

[ggwhiz]

Red v White with a 3rd seat potentially light opener......

 

Sorry, I think the double IS insane and insulting to both partners balancing abilities.

[mikeh]

I agree with those who dislike the initial takeout double. Well over half our hand is the AK of the opening suit: how many tricks are we developing in spades? The reason we like Aces and Kings, and usually love the combo, is that possession of high cards in a suit enhances the ability to turn low cards in that suit into winners. So the AK in spades are not pulling their weight. This is a truly bad 11 count, with zero desire to play in almost any 4 card side suit held by our passed hand partner. Doubling is horrific.

 

By contrast, 5♣is merely misguided, and may be caused by poor methods or a lack of understanding at this level. West cannot comfortably pass 4♠. I'm not saying that he 'has to bid', should double be penalty. He may be playing in a partnership in which double would be taken as penalty. As others have noted, this isn't the usual use of double by advanced players: it is more commonly played as 'cards' or 'transferable values', basically announcing ownership of the hand and willing to defend if partner lacks 'extra' offensive values (which can be shape or hcp or both) and willing to compete to the 5-level otherwise.

 

The reason that double now usually has the 'cards' meaning is exactly the sort of dilemma that W faced here over 4♠. He has way too much to want to pass and not enough to insist upon the 5-level.

 

If double was penalty for this partnership then West can't be blamed for not doubling. He might have chosen a conservative pass, or an aggressive 4N as two places to play, but that latter call wouldn't make the end result any more palatable.

 

So E was definitely, imo, at fault and West was either at fault for not doubling or a victim of poor methods/lack of knowledge if double was penalty.

[neilkaz]

While the decision to make a t/o X at these colors with that hand is dubious, most of the blame goes to west for his horrible 5♣ bid. Just how does west expect 5♣ to be a close to a fav to make? These are most certainly the wrong colors to be sac'ing at the 5 level and certainly from west's hand it is possible to see that 4♠ may not make.

[wyman]

While the decision to make a t/o X at these colors with that hand is dubious, most of the blame goes to west for his horrible 5♣ bid. Just how does west expect 5♣ to be a close to a fav to make? These are most certainly the wrong colors to be sac'ing at the 5 level and certainly from west's hand it is possible to see that 4♠ may not make.

 

Give partner what he rates to have: ♠xx and 12 HCP in the other 3. On many of these layouts 5C has play. I mean -- if partner has his bid, it's a 30 point deck, of which we have at least 21, and partner's most likely shape gives us a double fit with one loser in spades.

 

I still think dbl to show cards is best, but I don't think 5C is out in left field -- especially absent a "dbl = cards" agreement.

 

I hate east's TOX though.

[glen]

Assigning blame, while fun for the blameless, isn't a constructive activity and focuses too much on a single deal.

 

The question you want to ask is bidding 5♣ red vs. white on this specific hand a good idea opposite a whole set of hands that have this auction. I like pass and 4NT better, but I really like a value showing X if the opponents are playing a modern style.

 

Likewise your partner could ask if P-P-1♠-X is a good move on a whole set of hands.

[ggwhiz]

Likewise your partner could ask if P-P-1♠-X is a good move on a whole set of hands.

 

Yabut. Double at imps, these colours and position is so far out there that blaming pard 100% for the 5♣ bid (instead of the above approach) is north of ludicrous.

 

Your partnership principles (ask, don't tell) are bang on but this one breaks all of them.

[rmnka447]

Rather than worrying whose to blame, why not take it as a learning experience?

 

Everyone makes mistakes, but what really helps you get better is to be able to learn from them. The first step is to try to get dispassionate about the hand and try to figure out what went wrong.

 

Let's start with your 5 ♣ bid. Ask yourself this -- "Is your hand good enough to contract for 11 tricks opposite a run of the mill 12/13 point takeout double?". Consider that partner's takeout double has already purportedly shown shortness in the opponent's suit. Your singleton in ♠s then really doesn't carry much value. Based on the other values you have, you'd be very happy to settle in a partscore if RHO had passed. Game would not come into view unless partner shows some healthy extras. Despite the preemptive 4 ♠ bid, there's no reason to believe that that has changed. Indeed, if you bid on, it has to be on the basis of strength, distribution, or both to believe that 11 tricks are reasonably possible.

 

Let's move on to partner's take out double. I think previous comments by posters are very appropriate. They boil down to this -- when the bulk of your values are in the opponents suit, it's probably not a good idea to make a takeout double. Here partner has nothing but small cards in both red suits. If you as advancer, bid a red suit suit then whatever honor holdings you have in them are more likely to be under opener's honors whatever they are. With doubler's values in ♠, opener rates to have the bulk of his points in the outside suits. So in effect, doubler's holding devalues whatever values you as advancer hold. If the takeout double had been made on something like xx Axxx Kxxx Axx, then doubler's points can work with whatever advancer has to surround and neutralize opener's values.

 

Likely, after the 4 ♠ bid, you felt a bit taken advantage of. Well, vulnerable at IMPs, that's a feeling you just have to get used to. Often, the most prudent option is to just stay fixed by the opponent's preempt. Nobody likes it, but it's part of learning to play this form of the game well. I wish I could give some sage advice on when to compete and when to sit, but that's best learned by a process of experience as painful as it may be.

 

Playing the blame game never helped any partnership get better. It hurts sometimes to take responsibility when things don't go well. That pain will be useful next time you both find yourselves in a similar situation. You'll both remember and find it easier to take the right action.

[aguahombre]

The main reason I don't fault the original takeout double, even though it is ugly, is because I believe it caused the 4S response and put E/W in position for a nice doubled plus. Even if South bid 4S without the double by East, our side would not be doubling the contract.

 

There is a difference between a bad action and responsibility for a bad result. If West had just shown his stuff with a double, then we would be crediting East and blaming South.

[bsm20]

Thanks for all the responses, particularly the very helpful one from rmnka447.

 

I was a substitute in a Teams game. This was the first board. After partner’s outraged criticism, we chose to ignore each other, and subsequently played well. To be fair, my partner was a good player.

 

I never tried to defend my bid of 5C – hence the 50% comment. (It now appears to be bad, whereas I had only thought it was poor.) I think I tend to be too optimistic when bidding.

 

All I need to do now is learn from my mistakes...

[lalldonn]

The main reason I don't fault the original takeout double, even though it is ugly, is because I believe it caused the 4S response and put E/W in position for a nice doubled plus. Even if South bid 4S without the double by East, our side would not be doubling the contract.

 

There is a difference between a bad action and responsibility for a bad result. If West had just shown his stuff with a double, then we would be crediting East and blaming South.

So you are resulting? ...

 

Had west doubled and collected a penalty I would still not have liked the initial double!

[aguahombre]

So you are resulting? ...

 

Had west doubled and collected a penalty I would still not have liked the initial double!

Yes..for the question of blame vs credit, there was a result upon which to base that assessment. You don't have to like/dislike a bid or call in order to determine whether it is responsible for the outcome.