[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

---

p-p-1♣-X
3♣-3NT-end

[helene_t]

If anything, North's double was too light. If it's in accordance with partnership agreements, it's just an accident.

[Gerben42]

I voted for "3 or more idiots".

Pass: OK
Pass: OK
1♣: Ugh!
Dbl: OK
3♣: Ugh!
3NT: Ugh!
Pass: OK
Pass: OK
Pass: Chicken

, thus leaving North innocent.

[Fluffy]

On my diagram North doubled lol, anyone could open a third position 1♣ on this board!

North made the undisciplined bid, but anyone can do that from time to time.

[gwnn]

I put in the wrong poll choices so I had to rotate the hand. Helene was so eager to help poor csaba that she saw the original diagram.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the only issue I have is, why did you play
3NT not doubled.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Free]

South is an idiot... When he passed, partner's Dbl can be distributional. Bidding 3NT is ridiculous!

[whereagles]

South would do better to bid 3♦, though 3NT might have been the right bid had pard been a bit stronger.

Blame:

40% bad luck
60% South, for bad judgement (pard is very short on clubs, light TO dbl lis ikely)

give or take a few %s.

[mikeh]

A note to the OP: on these typoes of problems, it is usually best to post just one hand and give the auction. Thus, for me, I'd post the S hand, since I think N's double is normal/aggressive. My guess would be that double would be the first choice for significantly more than 50% of the posters. But S has a much less clear choice.

I would also add a note as to what 3♣ meant. Oddly enough, I can't tell from the hand: was it limit or preemptive (to me it is neither: too defensive and strong for a preempt and not (quite) good enough for a limit.. but it is closer to limit than to preemptive... I'd bid 2♣ and then 3♣ if needed/possible)

As for the idiocy awards, substantial idiocy points go to West for that silly choice of 1♣ (but he gets to keep his 300, so he won't mind) and some go to East for a silly 3♣, whatever it meant. Maybe S gets some for not (apparently) asking about the 3♣ call, but I don't know that knowing what 3♣ was supposed to show would be much help.

I think that on one level S might reason that he has only 1 stopper (the auction tells him that the 9 won't grow to a second) and that he now needs to run 8 side winners, which sounds like a tall order when partner has a 13 count 4441... leaving aside the chances of an aggressive 4441 10-11 count.

But that is the kind of reasoning that I use when I'm having a bad game: the glass half empty approach. Red v white at imps, and unable to make a responsive double, my choices are pass and hope to catch a reopening double when partner has extras (would I then sit or bid 3N?); or 3♦ which is a nothing bid...we can't get to 3N when I bid 3♦..if partner can bid a major over 3♦ then he won't pass 3♣ out... or 3N.

3N is where the money is. So I don't actually award any idiocy points to NS.

[pclayton]

Unfortunate auction. Both NS took aggressive views.

EW bidding is a little weird, but you can't control them.

[awm]

I blame the methods. South has a clear penalty double of 3♣.

Hands like the south hand are just a problem; if you pass or bid 3♦ it's pretty easy to miss a game whereas bidding 3NT could get you too high (as it did here).

Note that north has a dead minimum and the cards are not placed particularly well for N/S (heart queen behind the AK, club ace behind the king, etc) yet you're still setting 3♣ with some chance of getting it down two.

[goodwintr]

I voted for NS, but I don't think anyone did anything really stupid. NS get a mild rebuke (and full credit for their own -300) because of a faulty system agreement, playing responsive doubles after a takeout double and a raise. The disaster never would have happened if South had been able to double three clubs for penalties. And why shouldn't he be able to do that?

This isn't just my opinion, because I don't imagine anyone cares about that. It was also Roth's opinion, which is perhaps entitled to some respect. He said, "Responsive doubles take place only after we overcall, not after we make a takeout double!" His theory, I imagine, was that it isn't terribly useful to respond to a takeout double that says, essentially, "I am relatively short in their suit and have support for the other suits," with a responsive double that says, essentially, "I, too, am relatively short in their suit and have support for the other suits."

Incidentally, East's raise to three clubs looks like a more or less classic "mixed raise," meaning a little of this and a little of that. If that is what East-West were playing, East can hardly be criticized, even a little bit, for making the bid called for by the partnership agreement.

TLGoodwin

[skjaeran]

I'd surely have opened the south hand. The actual south obviously apply a sounder opening style. Two somewhat weird actions by the opponents put him in a troublesome position where a too agressive choise was made. I've no complaint regaring norht's double - it's minimum but fine with me.

On this hand a light opening style would have worked far better, as south then would be declaring 1NT instead of 3NT. Nothing proved by one example though.

I voted south was an idiot, but that's too strong an expression IMO. I probably shouldn't have voted at all.

[jdonn]

I might have had the same auction, both north and south were absolute minimums for their action so what can you do. They preempt you, so obviously the ranges for everything need to be wider, and then if both players are a minimum for the wider range you will be too high.

A pass by south is not impossible, and if partner reopens again then you can either pass that or bid 3NT, either of which should work fine in that case. So if anyone I would have to blame him, but only a little and not harshly. I don't see blaming north for a double that I challenge anyone to claim they wouldn't make.

[matmat]

i think EW play some silly system, so i wouldn't go criticizing their bids too much as we don't have a good explanation of any of the negative inferences etc.

N's X was light, but reasonable, certainly a passed partner wouldn't hang him, right?

3NT... ROLL OUT THE GALLOWS!

[cherdano]

What is wrong with 1♣? It looks like an entirely normal bid to me. (Not everybody's choice, but normal.) There are many auctions where it wins, such as 1C 1D 1H as opposed to P 1D P, or 1C 1D X 1N 2M instead of P 1D P 1N ? etc.

[han]

No idiots.

[Echognome]

awm, on Oct 19 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

I blame the methods. South has a clear penalty double of 3♣.

I take it that you never get dealt a 4=3=4=2 hand doubling opposite a 4=4=3=2 hand. Well done!

[goodwintr]

And Echognome, of course, never gets a 4=4=4=1 double opposite a 3=2=4=4 advancer. Oh, wait: that was the original hand, wasn't it?

TLG