[GreenMan]

---

Not a "what ought I have done" post so much as hoping to discuss approaches to this sort of situation. At one table NS bid over the interference and landed in the fine 3NT. At the other, North passed, South doubled, and NS collected 1400 when declarer (me) slipped a trick in the play.

My philosophy is that trying for trap-pass penalties often isn't worth the risk of missing our own game, and thus that responder should bid when he or she has a reasonable action, and opener shouldn't strain to reopen with a double without extra strength. (This is the Kleinman-Straguzzi-Chthonic approach from Human Bridge Errors.) The NS at my table took the opposite approach, obviously.

The Chthonic idea is that you pass up an occasional phone number for the sake of greater precision on the hands, presumably more frequent, where defending won't profit. Should this hand make me question my philosophy, or am I just reacting to one bad result? (Should approaches differ for MP and teams?)

Thanks.

[RunemPard]

I will give my thoughts, and I believe that even Kleinman-Straguzzi-Chthonic will agree in this situation. East was first to bid with a pass, placing max 10ish HCP in their hand. Our partner then opens the bidding. West makes a vulnerable 2♥ preempt. Certainly, this is not "weak", but I could not imagine it having more than 12 HCP unless they chose to add some confusion to the auction. I cannot imagine many hands where our partner sitting south will have no possible hand to balance with holding 0-2(maybe a rare 3) hearts. In this case I believe NOT passing is a huge missed opportunity at any scoring. We MUST pass in good tempo, and put faith in our partner to understand that we may have better than game available. Not passing here shows lack of faith in our partner IMO.

Edit: This is much different than for example expecting a limited partner to find the magical balancing double...

P-1N-2H-P
P-??

Now, this is much more difficult to find the courage, but the auction in the OP demands a balancing X.

[GreenMan]

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

[nigel_k]

I would not like to play a method where South is required to reopen on this hand. But I agree with pass by North. The two are not inconsistent because North can expect South to reopen with a double very often and it's only a small to medium loss in the small number of cases where they get to play undoubled.