[humilities]

---

South: My hand is pretty much a minimum takeout double of 3H
North: My hand is barely better than the rule of 7 would indicate

Each thinks the other should have taken the plunge. Your thoughts?

[eagles123]

seems crazy for North to pass but i'm probably missing something

[humilities]

eagles123, on 2013-December-02, 08:46, said:

seems crazy for North to pass but i'm probably missing something

Whoops error in the diagram - corrected.

[eagles123]

haha I was wondering

In that case I still blame North think he's too good for a simple 3S

[broze]

100% North. 3♠ is a clear underbid. And having never heard of the 'rule of 7' I am quite happy for that to continue if it suggests bidding 3♠.

[kenberg]

I'm not big on blame and I detest the expression "man up", but I voted for N as the culprit, meaning that I definitely would have bid 4♠ with the North hand. This is not because i am positive it will be making but rather[ because after a pre-empt some guesses have to be made,and I, as North, would make them. North will bid 3♠ with far less, really on any hand that holds four spades and lacks defense, so we cannot expect S to raise to 4 unless he has more than he has.

So I, as North, bid 4♠.

I also never heard of the rule of 7, although I am guessing that it refers to the idea that when competing against a pre-empt you assume pard is not broke. Placing him with something like a 7 count is reasonable. But he won't always have a 7 count, and I am not placing him with what he actually has.

[Zelandakh]

Is a decent 10 count not a trick better than a flat 7?

[billw55]

South obviously has bid his full value with just the double. This is the three level after all, and the stiff A♥ is not so good. Clearly south has no extras and cannot consider raising.

North has substantial extras. Personally I would lean toward 4♥ (letting south pick the strain) rather than 4♠. But 3♠ is more than an underbid, it's just an error.

[neilkaz]

Zelandakh, on 2013-December-02, 09:51, said:

Is a decent 10 count not a trick better than a flat 7?

Certainly, which is why North should bid game and hope to make it.

[ggwhiz]

North gets 100% for missing game and would get the same for bidding game and going down so I have sympathy but at mp's, not at imps.

[mikeh]

I can't get too worked up about this. Clearly S has no call over 3♠: the notion that S was at fault is absurd. So responsibility for getting to game rests with N, but blame?

Anyone who argues that N has a 10 count is giving weight to Jx in hearts.....why?

Put another way, is there a real bridge player alive who sees this hand as having significantly more playing strength than Kxxx xx 10xx AQxx, a 9 count?

Is this second hand clearly a game bid? Well, tell me partner has slight extras with no wastage, and I'll say yes.

Personally, I would probably have bid 4♠ as N, but it is a close decision and I'd certainly bid only 3 at mps or if white. As it is, being red, I'd choose what I see as an overbid rather than the slight underbid.

I really think that these problems should be posted as a single hand question. Nobody, surely, thinks or could argue that S should have done anything different, so posting the N hand and soliciting opinions would get a more objective picture. We can all see that game was missed, so we tend to look to see whose fault it was, which means everyone dumps on N. Pose the question without telling us the answer, and I suspect we'd see a significant number of posters choosing 3♠ or at least commenting that it is a close call.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2013-December-02, 10:44, said:

Put another way, is there a real bridge player alive who sees this hand as having significantly more playing strength than Kxxx xx 10xx AQxx, a 9 count?

This is a 10 count too, no? Incidentally I mentioned the point count only because North used that as an argument and that is clearly silly when holding a trick over what you are comparing with.

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2013-December-02, 10:44, said:

Nobody, surely, thinks or could argue that S should have done anything different, so posting the N hand and soliciting opinions would get a more objective picture.

Well, somebody thought so - see the OP.

But yes, you have a point, the north hand alone would get better answers. I still think I would bid more than 3♠, but I guess the true test is at the table.

[chasetb]

The Rule of 7 states that bid as if partner has 7 average HCP. Most of the time, expect partner to only have 5-6 useful HCP.

Here, North has 9 useful HCP to start, they are concentrated in 2 suits, T9x is worth a point, and I am expecting the K♣ to be onsides. This is worth a game bid, and I disagree with Mike that more people would be choosing 3♠ if they only saw the North hand.

[mikeh]

chasetb, on 2013-December-02, 11:35, said:

The Rule of 7 states that bid as if partner has 7 average HCP. Most of the time, expect partner to only have 5-6 useful HCP.

Here, North has 9 useful HCP to start, they are concentrated in 2 suits, T9x is worth a point, and I am expecting the K♣ to be onsides. This is worth a game bid, and I disagree with Mike that more people would be choosing 3♠ if they only saw the North hand.

The rule of 7 isn't to be used by responder. It is to assist doubler.

When we double at the 1-level, advancer can show weakness, or constructive values, or invitational or game force (the latter two generally start with a cuebid and diverge thereafter). Thus doubler, by his next call, has a good idea of the combined assets, and won't be tempted to be aggressive over a weakness response.

At the 3-level, advancer can only, on most hands, send one of two messages: weakness or game force.

Thus doubler has far less information on which to base his second action. This is where the rule of thumb comes into play. When facing a weakness response, doubler should assume advancer has AT LEAST 7 hcp. It doesn't say that 7 is the upper limit: it says that for the purposes of guessing what to do, assume it is the lower limit.

As for expecting the club K to be onside....when I hold AQxx in a suit promised by partner, due to his double, I 'expect' the club K to be in partner's hand. Arguing, as you seem to be arguing, that we upgrade the AQ because we know the club K is missing and it rates to be onside is precisely the sort of error into which we tend to fall by virtue of seeing all the hands.

Give doubler AJx Ax KJxx Jxxx

Any passers here? I doubt it. Wouldn't we all double with this? Hedk, make the diamonds KQxx if you want...any complaints about a 15 count?

Or Axxx Ax QJx KJxx... heck 15 hcp and 4 spades to the A.

Now, make N bid 4♠, and have West double it (in the latter case, he has say AK diamonds and 2 spade tricks) and post an ATB.

Does that mean I choose 3♠ on the OP? No, I am already on record with a (to me, close) 4♠. What it does mean is that arguing that it is clearly correct to bid game here, on the basis of the rule of 7 or whatever is flat out silly.

[ArtK78]

I think that North has a clear 4♠ bid. But I expect that direct actions over preempts are sound. That is not to say that I would not double with the South hand - I would, but I would consider it to be a minimum double. Change the red suits to x AQJ and it is a full values double.

North's 3♠ bid is playing scared. Opposite most takeout doubles of 3♥ game in spades should have play, assuming that it is not cold.

[gszes]

rule of seven (as commonly used) mrely means doubler is "borrowing" 7hcp from parner
for their bid. This means that anything up to and including 7 (or a poor 8) is minimum
because p has already 'used" those points. This has a great application for this hand since
north has an easy 9 count with maybe a touch extra and they cannot make a "minimum" bid
of 3s. The proper bid is

4s

Do not misunderstand, the doubler does not assume p has 7 hcp it is more of a warning to
doublers partner to disreguard the first 7 hcp before deciding how to bid. This creates a
rather wide range for a minimum bid 0 to a poor 8 so some hand will inevitably fall into a
range that will cause us to underbid. Preempts work keep on using them but it should not
have worked in this hand.

A side thought, since the 3s bid can be made with zero it is completely unfair to blame south
for not bidding 4s. They would have needed at least an A more before doing that. So north
gets the blame for underbidding and causing a poor post mortem:))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[humilities]

Thank you all for the constructive responses.

mikeh, on 2013-December-02, 10:44, said:

I really think that these problems should be posted as a single hand question. Nobody, surely, thinks or could argue that S should have done anything different, so posting the N hand and soliciting opinions would get a more objective picture.

Mike, as South, it's gratifying to hear you say that, but I fear you overestimate B/I/A. I presented it this way for a reason - we played this hand on BBO and exactly zero Norths bid 4S. BUT, six pairs got to 4S when South raised 3 to 4. So what seems obvious wasn't so to my partner with all of BBO on his side then again maybe that should have told him something...

[quiddity]

I agree with Mike; I think North's decision is difficult. Personally I would only bid 3♠ since the trumps are mediocre.

[kenberg]

As I mentioned, I bid 4♠. I find it clear to do so, which is not the same as saying that as I bid it I am confident that it will come in. Pre-empts lead to guess work, there is no way around that, and for me it's a clear 4♠. But given the bbo results that you cite, I think it is well to note that no one thinks South should raise 3♠ to 4♠. Quiddity says that he, as North, bids 3♠. Opposite some South hands he will be right and, for that matter, even with these NS cards he will be right on some EW layouts. So, if my pard bids 3♠, if I as South pass, and it makes 4, I accept that he had a problem. If pard then tries to tell me that I, as South, should have raised his 3♠ to 4, that would not go well.

I hate to be of a suspicious sort, but I can't help but wonder if some of the auctions where S bid 4♠ didn't proceed as 3♥-X-Pass-...........................3♠-Pass-4♠.

I like to trust my fellow bridge player but I really find South's raise to 4 to be incomprehensible.