[A2003]

Is the double correct since 11 cards ♣ are known and no tricks coming in that suit? K!D may be finessable under the penalty double bidder.

---

score: NS=+850; other table +650.
USA2 Lost 5 IMPS because of the double that cost the match win.
How to analyze the double is not correct here quickly within 5-7 seconds at the table?

[aguahombre]

I think they played a lot of other boards which they could say they might have won the match with. I think West probably thought east's pass was forcing. I don't think this should be a FP situation.

[Cyberyeti]

Hmm, tough to bid 6♣, but if pass is forcing, could be right, as it is, only -2.

[JLOGIC]

Obviously pass is not forcing lol, partner never showed any values. West ripped it because he had AK doubleton and an ace and a king. Maybe questionable but on a good day he might have gotten 500 and I'm sure he gets 200 a lot. The AK doubleton of spades is extremely likely to cash as it is rare that partner has 5 spades or that the opps have a 6 card spade suit.

[gwnn]

It's misguided to say "this board cost us the match". If USA2 had not doubled here, France could equally say "oh but board 3 we should have defended better, so that board cost us the match", and it's an infinite loop with only one attractor: a 0-0 match.

[barmar]

It's typical to ascribe "cost us the match" to the most eggregious mistakes. The kinds of things you realize immediately that you should have known better.

Sometimes when a match is lost by 1 or 2 IMPs some people will point to a mistake that cost an overtrick or extra undertrick, and say "See, tricks DO matter at IMPs". But a better analysis will point to a game or slam swing and say "If they didn't make that one mistake, they could have weathered a half dozen overtrick mistakes."

[wank]

doubling 5♥ is far from absurd. 2 sure tricks plus an ace, a king and a partner.

i would never have passed 5♥ on the east cards though - looks like an obvious 5♠ to me

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2011-October-31, 07:54, said:

It's typical to ascribe "cost us the match" to the most eggregious mistakes. The kinds of things you realize immediately that you should have known better.

It's typical but it is still misguided. Chances are (in a long, close match) your opps have done something similarly egregious on some other board. Why are we allowed to imagine the match without our egregious mistakes but with theirs?

I agree with the second paragraph.

[barmar]

I think it's a psychological thing. Bridge is often seen as a game of minimizing errors -- there are far more opportunities for errors that can be avoided than brilliancies.

Also, it's human nature to try to ascribe causality to things. Sometimes you'll blame a miguessed queen, even though there may have been nothing to go on and it's totally random.

[gwnn]

I think we both agree. Obviously it is a human attitude etc, but it is worth noting that this particular human attitude is misguided.

[ArtK78]

Some years back I was playing in a second round Vanderbilt match against one of the top seeds. In the final quarter, we were defending a 4♥ contract. My partner led the ♠Q (Rusinow) and I had Axxx. There was a doubleton spade in dummy along with adequate trumps. I had the ♥A. It was easy to tell that we needed our two spade tricks, our trump trick and one other trick to beat 4♥. The other trick could only come from a ruff. I expected partner to continue spades and tell me which suit to switch to to give him a ruff.

So, I encouraged spades. But partner saw the need for a ruff as well, and he shifted to his shortness (not a singleton) at trick two. This caused our second spade trick to go away.

Only later did I realize that I could have overtaken the ♠Q at trick one, continued the suit, and then partner could switch to his (presumed) shortness.

Oh well, it was only 1 IMP.

The match went into overtime tied at 110 IMPs each after 64 boards. We lost in overtime.

Only 1 IMP.

[gwnn]

And this was your only mistake the whole match?

[barmar]

Yes, it's easy to obsess over boards like that. But how many boards had 2-digit swings because of stupid mistakes your team made?

[ArtK78]

Funny thing, but except for an adverse double part-score swing in the overtime, this is the only board that I remember in the whole match.

(Oh, yes, there was a hand in the first half on which we were about to bid a game, but after I thought about a bid in the middle of the auction and then partner bid game, the opponents objected to my "hesitation" and the director rolled back the result to partscore. Game made. In retrospect, I think we should have appealed the ruling. But it was so long ago I don't remember all of the details).

[billw55]

Hmm, I would for sure find an opening bid with south's hand. At these colors I would probably bid 2♥ with seven of them; in the right mood I might try 3♥; but I don't think I would ever pass. Do they have something in their system preventing this, or was he just being conservative at unfavorable, or am I maybe just nuts?

[Cyberyeti]

ArtK78, on 2011-October-31, 10:04, said:

Funny thing, but except for an adverse double part-score swing in the overtime, this is the only board that I remember in the whole match.

I lost my first national final on a board 32 where we passed it out with scores level, opps bid a filthy 2♠ which is no play if 2 suits are led, and AQ10 opposite xx for 3 tricks otherwise, team mate found the "wrong" lead (I'd have done the same thing) and sure enough, KJxx was in the hole. We felt desperately unlucky, but I don't remember any of the other boards that cost us more than 3 IMPs.