Qui Culpa?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skq5ha2d854caq742&w=st963h9654dakqc65&n=sa7hkqtd963ckj983&e=sj842hj873djt72ct&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1c(3%2B)2d(weak)3d(good%20raise%2B)4d5cppp]399|300[/hv]

Opening lead A♦. Table result 5♣-1 0%

 

My partner was scathing about my choice of 5C here at the North London Club this week. But I thought he should have just bid 3NT on the first round. He said that I should double 4D, as he thought it was 1100 even at adverse. I think declarer can get out for 800, but bidding 5C looked normal to me. I suggested that we had 10 clubs and they probably had 9 diamonds so we were not likely to get rich from 4Dx. He said "They were playing in a Moysian at the 4-level, and you didn't double them. Give me a break!"

 

Who was right?

[lamford]

dupe

[Cyberyeti]

S got done by a quality psyche, N's arguments are garbage, S "knows" he has a maximum of 2 but more likely 1 diamond.

[DavidKok]

Neither.

 

West got a psych in at a fortunate time, and you lost the board for it. It is reasonable for both of you to suspect partner is short in diamonds on the bidding, so 5♣ is safe. Neither side can bid any level of NT on the risk of EW running 6 diamonds.

 

Don't blame your partner for this. The opponents got you good. It happens.

[mw64ahw]

5♣ - N was unlucky with 3 ♦ losers off the top, but with 3♦, 3.5 quick tricks and a good majority of the points I would have preferred to double

[Winstonm]

IMO this should be a forcing pass sequence so it depends on how you define double. I played that double by opener here would show a hand interested in bidding on while pass showed a hand that preferred defending unless a subsequent double by partner was pulled and that became a slam try.

 

In this case I would pass showing a willingness to defend and partner should double looking at 3 diamonds.

 

Note that neither partner had to worry about what opps were doing. They based their decisions on their own hands and their FP methods.

[tolvyrj]

Obviously west.

[AL78]

Neither was right.

 

How were you supposed to know they were playing in a Moysian at the four level and so to know to double? If West had their bid, they could easily get out for -500 on some layouts where you have 6♣ on.

 

Why do you think your partner should have bid 3NT with no diamond stop and the opponents cashing the first six tricks (based on the bidding)?

 

When you have a disaster at the table, the objective should be to fix the mistake/misunderstanding, not the blame. All that does is fuel your ego, but ego won't reduce the chance of it happening again.

 

You both got duffed up by a psyche that worked. Deal with it and let it go.

[Cyberyeti]

IMO this should be a forcing pass sequence so it depends on how you define double. I played that double by opener here would show a hand interested in bidding on while pass showed a hand that preferred defending unless a subsequent double by partner was pulled and that became a slam try.

 

In this case I would pass showing a willingness to defend and partner should double looking at 3 diamonds.

 

Note that neither partner had to worry about what opps were doing. They based their decisions on their own hands and their FP methods.

 

I would agree with this if 3♦ was GF, it isn't, you could be looking at a minimum opening bid opposite a minimum limit raise where 4♣ is already one too many and there is no defence to 4♦. Our relevant meta agreement is that pass is forcing if below the level to which you've committed yourselves, in this case 4♣ so pass of 4♦ would not be forcing.

[eagles123]

I agree with others, W chose a great time to go rogue. It happens, move on.

[Winstonm]

I would agree with this if 3♦ was GF, it isn't, you could be looking at a minimum opening bid opposite a minimum limit raise where 4♣ is already one too many and there is no defence to 4♦. Our relevant meta agreement is that pass is forcing if below the level to which you've committed yourselves, in this case 4♣ so pass of 4♦ would not be forcing.

Agree that it depends on strength of openings and strength of limit or better responses.