[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♥)-p-(1♠)-p
(2♠)-p-p-X
p-3♦-X-p
(3♠)-X-all pass

-530

[jtfanclub]

Looks normal to me until the final X....

[jdonn]

Both doubles are so bad that I have to vote for the 100-100 option. If I must pick I choose south since his mistake came first, without which the other could never have occured. On the actual hand north's was more damaging, but I won't use that to judge since south's could have easily gone for a number and north's could have easily gotten a plus.

[Edmunte1]

Both doubles are horrible

[skjaeran]

South made a very frisky balancing double. It did the job and got opponents one level higher - thus increasing the odds for a positive score on the board. I'd probably never make this double myself, but I won't kill anyone for making it.

North should be aware that south has bid most of norths values already. And except for the ♦AK, which normally is two tricks on defence - thouth not always - he's got very little defence. The ♥Q is of dubious value and the ♠Q will almost always be finessed. So there's absolutely no reason for north to double 3♠ - it's a horrible double at MP and insane at IMPs.

If you want partner to be there next time and make another balancing action you really can't punish him like this.

[mike777]

Not sure why south doubles? If you are going to bid with south hand just bid 2nt. 2nt is weakish....double shows an opening hand for me.
In any case prefer pass with the south hand, I am 2=3=4=4. shape and partner could not bid over over 1H or over 2s.

[mikeh]

agree with the 100-100, but would like to be able to apportion it more like 100 S and 200 N Neither player appears to understand imps. it is NOT a crime to be -110 or -140.

[helene_t]

What jtf said.

[jdonn]

By the way, the logic toward balancing in general that your opponents would have bid game if they had one doesn't hold in my opinion, good players can often re-evaluate their hands on the basis of the balance and reach a game they had otherwise missed (and needless to say, bad players can simply make up for mistakes earlier in the auction). These hands are all from the first open pairs in SF at my table, where we were balanced into a making game 3 times! In fact 4 times, twice on the first hand! Not telling if we bid these games after the balances because we are good players or bad players

Sorry about the poor auction formatting.

Scoring: MP

P
P P 1♣ P
1♥ P P DBL
2♥ 2♠ 3♥ P
P 3♠ P P
4♥ p P P

---

Scoring: MP

P
P P 1♣ P
1♥ P P DBL
2♥ 2♠ 3♥ P
P 3♠ P P
4♥ p P P

---

Scoring: MP

1♥
P 1NT P 2♣
P P DBL RDBL
2♦ P P 2♠
P 4♣ P 4♦
P 4♠ P 5♣
P P P

---

My point is that regardless of what you think about north's terrible double, south's double on such a bad hand certainly is abysmal and deserves anything bad it gets. RBL P 3♥ P 4♠ is just the continuation he deserves.

[MFA]

South's double is very wild, but north's double is outright insane.

@jdonn
I'm far from crazy about the bidding in your 3 examples. Support with support :-)

1) Why does N pass 1♥? Partner can easily have a distributed hand that wants to play game, and 2♥ can't hurt on this full-value opener.

2) I suppose that this was a misunderstanding where N thought 2♠ was forcing, and south did not?!

3) Ok, with forcing (or semiforcing) NT, I suppose passing 2♣ is fair. But with my usual acol-style bidding, raising 2♣ to 3 is clear-cut.

[lilboyman]

Playing IMPs, the last double doesn't seem in order. Doubling opps into game risks 520 to gain 100 or 300 instead of 50 or 100 by passing.

[dburn]

jdonn, on Nov 30 2007, 06:18 PM, said:

My point is that regardless of what you think about north's terrible double, south's double on such a bad hand certainly is abysmal and deserves anything bad it gets. RBL P 3♥ P 4♠ is just the continuation he deserves.

Whereas I agree with almost everything jdonn says in his post, I think that he and others may be committing an error that often occurs when rulings are given: that of confusing "subsequent" and "consequent" damage.

I would not have doubled with the actual South hand (nor would I have bid 2NT or anything else). But what South did achieved what he hoped it would: it pushed his opponents to 3♠ when they would otherwise have played comfortably in 2♠. I can almost hear Larry Cohen cheering wildly from the bleachers (whatever they are).

Nothing about the auction should have convinced North to double 3♠; that was a truly absurd action with no foundation in reality. Of course, he would not have been given the opportunity to display his abysmal lack of judgement had South not doubled 2♠, but that is not South's fault, nor does he "deserve" what happened subsequently (but not consequently). If 200% of the blame is to be apportioned, then North should incur it all. Come to think of it, even if only 200% of the blame is to be apportioned, North should be debited with 250% of it.

[jdonn]

Although I understand your point, I don't believe I'm committing an error. I think giving south 0% is a form of resulting. You are saying since south's double 'worked' he is off the hook, and I don't buy that for a moment. I'm sure you wouldn't think north's double was any good if it had worked (as, frankly, it probably will as often as not looking at north's hand, which is not to say at all that I condone it.) The fact is one player showed a better hand than he held, and his partner then made a penalty double of a contract that made. Of course the first double is partly to blame, he is not excused just because the second double is bad!

Hypothetical: Supposing north had all south's high cards, south had made his double on a yarbrough, and north then doubled 3♠ and it made. Whose fault would it be?

I knew north would get blamed by most people. They will always blame whoever doubles the making partscore at imps, regardless of what led to that. Just like they will always blame whoever bids the grand going down, regardless of what led to that. That's just how it goes.

There have been some good examples in the daily bulletins from San Francisco of appeals in which the committees had to consider subsequent vs. consequent damage, and I think except in one case they did a very good job.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Dec 1 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Although I understand your point, I don't believe I'm committing an error. I think giving south 0% is a form of resulting.

It's a who's to blame thread...isn't it by definition resulting?

I think the question should be, does the X by South show anything about hcp? To me, it absolutely shouldn't. South had almost a dozen calls he could have made over 1♠ to show a hand with points and minors- that he didn't implies to me that's not the hand he has. I don't think North should be more likely to X on this auction because South stuck his neck out.

I do think that the X of 3♦ followed by a pull implies that the puller has a singleton diamond, and therefore that North's hand just dropped in value by 3 points.

The X by South is, um, dangerous, but with

x
Jxxx
QJTx
AJxx

I'd X, and it turns out to have even less defense than the actual hand.

I can understand that South's X may be bad, but I don't see how it should encourage North to make that double, especially at IMPs. What in his hand implies that 3♠ is down 2? You'd have to be 90% certain that 3♠ is going down before that double is worth it if you're not thinking that down 2 is likely.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Dec 1 2007, 02:46 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 1 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Although I understand your point, I don't believe I'm committing an error. I think giving south 0% is a form of resulting.

It's a who's to blame thread...isn't it by definition resulting?

No? ......

[brianshark]

While we all agree that both doubles are bad, in my opinion South's balancing Dbl is far more excusable (or "less bad") than north's resulting penalty double.

The reason being that south's balancing double has a much better gain/loss expectation that north's penalty double.

And if we're going to go into the whole causality situation, while south's dbl made it possible for north to make a penalty double, I don't believe it can be faulted for north's gross lack of judgement because a 'more correct' balancing double would have more shape and just as much of not less defensive strength.

Rounded to the nearest poll option is '100% north'.

[brianshark]

@Jdonn: I understand your gripe that people tend to jump the gun and just blame the person who's bid directly caused the bad result. And god knows I agree that south doesn't deserve 0% of the blame. But it is a relative blame question, not absolute blame. I'd actually give 20/80% here, but I'm just rounding to the closest poll option to match and whether I'm resulting or not, in no way will I give them approximately equivalent blame. North's bid is far far worse.

[neilkaz]

North's double here is awful at IMPs and even increases the chances that declarer finesses him for the Q, IMHO.

If I am South, 2NT by me after my two passes would show the weakish stuff I have (if I decided not to just pass) and my take out double would be somewhat stronger, but not everyone plays that, and that being said, N has no excuse to dbl at IMPs and may even find that the opps are 4-1 in D's as well.

[kenberg]

N: I think that if you made a rule that you would never double 3S on this auction you would more often be pleased with the rule than regret the rule. . But especially in this case. Opener's 2S call may or may not promise four spades but it is highly likely his 3S bid is based on four. I suppose the double of 3D showed a maximum pass with at least some thought of defending and so with a three card raise playing 3DX for penalties would be attractive. I wouldn't place any cash on those top diamonds cashing.

S: I wouldn't have made the S reopening double either. The hand is trash and if they have not yet bid 4S I don't want to encourage them. If rho has two hearts then their heart side suit is splitting for them for a source of tricks. Spades are splitting. Not to mention I may mislead my partner into thinking that I have something.

So: I wouldn't do what S did, I cannot imagine doing what N did. And I make some pretty awful bids.

[mr1303]

The balancing double by South is aggressive. However, the double by North is hanging partner completely, and will put him off balancing when it's right to do so.

No 1 rule in bridge: don't hang partner