[humilities]

Sectional swiss teams, below-average opponents

---

Who knows what 3D was, East claimed no agreement (I believed her). Didn't stop them from chalking up an overtrick.

***

• North's argument: South has no defensive tricks opposite a passed partner, he should know he has to pull the double.
  
  
• South's argument: he has described his hand accurately and North still doubled, how is he supposed to know there's a hidden 9-card spade fit.

Your feedback appreciated

[Jinksy]

How strong a hand did the Michaels bid show?

[Siegmund]

No option in the poll for "there's enough blame to go around for both North and South"? I think 3S over 3D by North, and 3H over 3D-X by South, are both quite clearcut.

[benlessard]

South is a passed hand, so hes at least 5-5 but wasnt able to open so hes far from guaranteeing 2 defensive tricks and him having no defensive tricks is possible. North got 3 sure tricks but but the 4th is speculative. A layout where both 3D and 3S go down is possible but the odds strongly suggest 3S for me.

[mcphee]

North was obviously an inexpirienced player to dble. I would have been worried I was missing a spade game more than having the remote thought I was going to beat it. A good rule of thumb to follow is when playing imps NEVER dble for a part score for a 1 trick set.

As often happens north now turned around and blamed their partner for his own foolishness.

[Cyberyeti]

N's fault, yes if partner has an ace you have 5 tricks, but that may not beat the 140/620 you're entitled to in spades (visualise Kxxxx, Axxxxx, x, x which may well make 4♠ if hearts are 3-3 or spades 2-2, ace onside).

Note W is a passed hand also, so from this auction has a near opening bid with 6 diamonds, partner's hand is about as good as it can be in terms of HCP but still produces no tricks, he can have a worse hand than that and still pass thinking you've got AJ10x twice or similar in the minors and that one of his major suit cards might stand up.

[billw55]

Siegmund, on 2014-September-07, 20:43, said:

No option in the poll for "there's enough blame to go around for both North and South"? I think 3S over 3D by North, and 3H over 3D-X by South, are both quite clearcut.

True, but I do think north was worse. Red on white, game is possible, but instead let's try to hit a partscore for +100 when partner may have no defense at all?

[gszes]

There is nothing wrong with going after a 1 trick VUL set but when opps
are NVUL look elsewhere for a plus score or pass. Here the opps are NVUL
and south is a passed hand. If south had the defensive cards needed to set
3d 1 trick 4 spades may be a laydown. I think this is where north failed in
their vision of the hand. All N saw was AQJx diamonds and decided to x anyway.

North's claim that south should pull with a hand that had little/no defense is
also quite valid. Expecting a passed hand to gather in at least 4 if not 5 tricks
on defense seems just plain wrong and I would bid 3h and be prepared to apologize
if north could really set 3d. South did indeed describe their hand but failed to
realize that their hand also could have been way more useful defensively than it is.

[c_corgi]

South's hand looks like more than zero defensive tricks to me. That is because I expect to be facing something like 2-1 or 2-2 in the majors. It seems unreasonable to expect South to realise that North has 4 spades before evaluating his defence.

[whereagles]

I think North's dbl is a bit optimistic. With a fit for spades, doubling 3♦ is risky. After all, a michaels doesn't promise much in terms of defensive tricks.


I wouldn't take it out as South... North could have had a 55 minors.

[beatrix45]

North made a truly terrible bid. Partner is a passed hand showing something like 5-5 in the majors or even more extreme shape. The opponents almost certainly have the majority of the high cards. You have a 9+ card spade fit and can ruff two or three hearts. The ♦ hook should be on 85%+. Count'em. 4♠ (more or less), two or three ♥ ruffs, and 2♦. Bid 3♠and hope you can defeat 4 of a minor if they bid it.

[the hog]

North's fault 100%. South is a passed hand and to pull the double is absurd. South had what he promised. North should bid 3S.

[Trinidad]

North's fault. 3♠ is obvious, with 4♠ a close second. Pass would not be completely silly, but double is absurd.

Rik

[ArtK78]

North is entirely to blame here. Both North and South are passed hands. South bid his hand accurately. North's double says "I got 'em, pard!" North could have AQJT9 of diamonds on this auction (if North holds this hand and they still make 3♦, good for them). What is South supposed to do? Bid his cards again?

North has an easy 3♠ bid over 3♦.

[Winstonm]

humilities, on 2014-September-07, 18:38, said:

Sectional swiss teams, below-average opponents

Theirs or yours?

[Winstonm]

Jinksy, on 2014-September-07, 20:32, said:

How strong a hand did the Michaels bid show?

Passed hand strength.

[wank]

nm

[mikestar13]

On the vulnerability and trick total, I bid 3♠ with the North hand but don't regard pass as irrational--double is looking at rational in the rear-view mirror. You have a probable nine card fit with a probable three diamond tricks on defense and not the ghost of a reason to believe your side can find a fourth, let alone a fifth trick. South might have pulled the double, but imagine North's hand were ♠Ax♥xxx♦AQJx♣xxxx. if South knows North would have opened that hand, the last argument doesn't hold and pulling is more attractive, but I doubt a player who thinks it wise to whack three diamonds with the actual hand on this auction would open a flat 11.

[neilkaz]

the hog, on 2014-September-09, 23:43, said:

North's fault 100%. South is a passed hand and to pull the double is absurd. South had what he promised. North should bid 3S.

We agree as usual.

[MrAce]

N % 100

I do not mind 3♠ at MP. But IMPS I would definitely bid 4♠. We can make it. Even if we can not, vulnerability may give them a bad idea, such as saving over confidently bid 4♠