[Lord Molyb]

---

This was a train wreck of an auction, with 3NT going down one doubled on a heart lead to the ace and ♠AK back, followed by a third spade. Declarer took 5 hearts, a spade and 2 clubs (overtaking the king) and conceded the rest.
Which of N/S do you put the most blame on?

[wyman]

To me this is all south.

I don't hate opening the south hand [I almost hate it, though], but if I'm gonna do it, I'll open 1D. I _hate_ opening 1S.

Then south, vulnerable, decides to reopen 3D. This is part of why I hate opening a spade. Now partner thinks we have 5-5 or better and is supposed to correct to spades, often when it's wrong to do so. IMO, given the 1S opening and the fact that partner didn't rip 2N (so he's pretty much bid his hand by XX'ing) I think passing out 2N is probably right.

But this auction goes a lot better if S opens 1D.

[mikeh]

You have got to be kidding? In what universe does S have an opening bid?

N isn't entirely free of culpability.

Failing to double 2N is flat out weird, given that he has no fit and a lot of reason to expect that his hand will be worth little on offence.

S's 3♦ was another monumentally idiotic decision, altho not in the same league as the initial idiocy...hey, I'm grading idiocies here!

I have no idea whether S thought that he was in a forcing auction. He shouldn't be, in my view.

If he was, he should pass anyway...yes, it would be a breach of discipline, but having opened that hand, breaching discipline was the only logical action. If he (correctly imo) thought that partner had limited his hand to a 10 count, by not doubling 2N, then I suppose he might have thought that 3♦showed a weak but distributional hand unwilling for reasons unknown and unimaginable to me, to sell out. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that partner probably has length in the rounded suits, and our suit texture isn't conducive to a 3 level offensive contract.

Now N does it again: after the insane pass of 2N, and hearing partner not double but show, instead, a weak shapely hand, North, looking at an utter misfit and inadequate hcp decided to bid game.

This one was actually tough. Each of N-S committed at least 2 incredibly foolish actions (I don't like the redouble, but maybe N systemically had no alternative so I don't put fault on him for that). Each of N's decisions is awful....truly awful. But S's actions make N look like a paragon of bridge wisdom. Is it possible to assign N 100% of the blame while holding S to be far, far more at fault?

[manudude03]

Ugh, this is just horrible all around. South doesn't have an opening hand, I prefer a slightly heavy 1NT from West, XX I can't really argue with. East might have passed to show 2 places to play, but maybe that's not available. West has a tough problem now and 2NT is understandable, but did North fall asleep here? Double 2NT and it's not going to be pretty for EW (probably 800 even if they pull it to 3C), especially on an obvious heart lead and diamond switch if ducked. Anyway, having opened this trash, I think south has to bid 3D here (on the basis that North's pass should be forcing imo).

If I have to assign percentages between N/S, I would say 40% South 60% North (due to not doubling 2NT).

[Bbradley62]

wyman, on 2013-December-04, 13:07, said:

To me this is all south.

North should shoulder some blame, since he can pass 3♦.

I guess I need a deck of cards to work this out... if dummy wins the third spade, then ♣K to ♣A, run hearts and exit small ♦, don't you make the contract?

[manudude03]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-04, 13:38, said:

North should shoulder some blame, since he can pass 3♦.

I guess I need a deck of cards to work this out... if dummy wins the third spade, then ♣K to ♣A, run hearts and exit small ♦, don't you make the contract?

You establish your 9th trick, but unfortunately the defense now have 3 spade tricks and the 2 red aces.

[wyman]

mikeh, on 2013-December-04, 13:31, said:

You have got to be kidding? In what universe does S have an opening bid?

U26 midnight MPs played at the bar?

[neilkaz]

Bbradley62, on 2013-December-04, 13:38, said:

North should shoulder some blame, since he can pass 3♦.

He also has to shudder some blame since he should X 2NT.

That being said, I cannot imagine opening these cards.

Of course I'll again mention that this is another XX'd TO X action gone wrong.

[CSGibson]

Both deserve all of the blame. X of 2N is obvious, I hate XX here because I think I need to start describing my distributional hand rather than just blindly saying I have 10+ HCP, and 3N is insane. Countering that, South opened the bidding with 4 useful HCP, and decided to reopen 3D over 2N. When everyone makes mistakes that contribute 100% to the result, then everyone shoulders all of the blame.

I never understood ATB's in situations where both parties screwed up in obvious ways - who cares who is the most to blame, just learn what you can and fix what you can so that it doesn't happen again.

[PhilKing]

On the basis that we are requested to assign the most (rather than greater) blame:

North - infinity
South - infinity plus 1 (cue flaming by mathematicians)

Which is pretty fair imo ...

[mikeh]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-04, 17:57, said:

I hate XX here because I think I need to start describing my distributional hand rather than just blindly saying I have 10+ HCP,

Most players in NA (I can't speak for elsewhere) are taught that one starts all strength showing sequences with xx. As they advance, they are taught about artificial raises, so that the xx implies no fit.

However, in standard NA methods, a 2/1 advance isn't even invitational. It is basically the equivalent of a weak 2 bid, and partner is expected to pass almost all the time.

I play transfers here and I expect many forum members have either that or some other gadget that solves the problem, but absent that sort of agreement, the xx may be ugly but it may have been the best of a bunch of ineffectual alternatives. At least he has hearts, and so he expects that the auction will often be a 2 of a minor (he expects 2♦ most likely) at his second turn and now 2♥ isn't a bad description.

Of course, the rest of the auction is nausea-inducing.

[mikeh]

PhilKing, on 2013-December-04, 18:02, said:

On the basis that we are requested to assign the most (rather than greater) blame:

North - infinity
South - infinity plus 1 (cue flaming by mathematicians)

Which is pretty fair imo ...

I'm no mathematician (as any long time forum reader will well know) but I did recently read a book by someone who has considerable mathematical knowledge and he says, and I accept, that some infinities are 'bigger' than others, altho I don't know that the difference can be measured as an integer

I put 'bigger' in quotes so as to try to minimize mathematical flames coming my way.

[mycroft]

I guarantee that the difference can't be measured as an integer. In fact, it's proven (in the "standard" version of the mathematics of infinity) that there is the same infinity of positive and negative integers as there are positive integers alone.

This one is fairly easy to prove:
map 0 to 0
map 1 to 1
map 2 to -1
map 3 to 2
map 4 to -2
...
and you have one and only one positive integer that maps to a particular integer (okay I cheated by saying that zero is positive. Map 1 to 0 and add one to all the first maps). Therefore, the cardinality of the infinity of integers is the same as the positive integers - there aren't any more.

Cantor in his original work, proved however that there are "more" real numbers than there are integers (in fact, there are more real numbers between zero and one than there are integers (in fact, there are more real numbers between 0.0 and 0.1 than...(...))). His diagonal proof of this is one of the most beautiful works of the mathematician's art, in my (in this case, truly humble) opinion.

Having perpetrated this auction, however, I would retire, my job done. I've psyched and misbid on the same hand, and still not pulled this level off. I tip my hat to the pair.

[sfi]

mikeh, on 2013-December-04, 18:20, said:

I'm no mathematician (as any long time forum reader will well know) but I did recently read a book by someone who has considerable mathematical knowledge and he says, and I accept, that some infinities are 'bigger' than others, altho I don't know that the difference can be measured as an integer

Indeed they're not. The 'size' of infinities are measured in aleph numbers. All infinite sets of rational numbers (positive integers, primes, fractions, etc.) are of size aleph-null. The set of real numbers is an example of an infinite set of size aleph-one. And so on.

Back on topic, North-South deserve each other. It doesn't even seem worth apportioning blame, but it definitely adds up to more than 100%.

[Lord Molyb]

CSGibson, on 2013-December-04, 17:57, said:

Both deserve all of the blame. X of 2N is obvious, I hate XX here because I think I need to start describing my distributional hand rather than just blindly saying I have 10+ HCP, and 3N is insane. Countering that, South opened the bidding with 4 useful HCP, and decided to reopen 3D over 2N. When everyone makes mistakes that contribute 100% to the result, then everyone shoulders all of the blame.

I never understood ATB's in situations where both parties screwed up in obvious ways - who cares who is the most to blame, just learn what you can and fix what you can so that it doesn't happen again.

because my partner thought my bidding was way worse than his

[ggwhiz]

Lord Molyb, on 2013-December-04, 19:20, said:

because my partner thought my bidding was way worse than his

Worse yes. Way worse is an overbid bordering on a psyche and I don't care if you were north or south, both players bidding was worse.

[gszes]

a "perfect" example of a rule of 20 opening bid the lighter one opens the bidding the more
cause for concern if the bidding turns competitive. Each partnership has to decide how
much tolerance they have when it comes to dealing with the misfits that will produce
really bad results on offense. This is one example. The opening bid by south is not
without reason (though I personally don't care for it one whit but that's also why my pass
cards are all worn to a frazzle). If we assume the partnership is happy with opening
these types of hands so be it. There is little doubt that 1s is probably the correct way to
open this hand and now we proceed with the rest of the bidding-------------------

The real question here is after the xx and 2h should this weak freak now bid 3d to show their
lack of desire to defend IMHO yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Delaying and bidding
3d later should show a much better hand (same principle as pass and pull). I cannot fathom
(given the bidding) how N did not x 2n it is almost as if they had an engraved invitation to
the greatest party of the century and "pass"ed it up because they would have to put on shoes.

100% N for failing to x 2n 15% for south failing to bid 3d over 2h. (I know that's more than 100% but
given the bidding north failure to x 2n deserved 100%

[nigel_k]

You guys clearly have a different idea of blame than I do. South's 1♠ opening is atrocious but did not cause the bad result. In fact it paved the way for +1100 on a partscore hand.

North's failure to double 2NT was the most costly choice, and second was North choosing 3NT instead of 4♥. I suppose South didn't have to bid 3♦ but the bidding suggested North would have a minimum redouble and probably three card support which might play ok.

[Fluffy]

The worst bid by far is the pass of north over 2NT, he wanted to consult with partner? why? to play 3NT himself!

redouble is totally obvious, and not because he has strenght, its because he has 2 suits to double.

[rmnka447]

South seems the major culprit to me. That hand is never an opener because it has 0 QTs. (A King needs to be at least Kx to be counted as 1/2 QT.) The actual gross point count is 10, but there's no way that stiff Ks should be evaluated at full value. A discerning hand evaluator would rate the hand at somewhat less than that. Personally, I'd rate the hand at maybe 6 or 7 value. If the hand were ♠ KQxxx ♥ x ♦ KQxxxx ♣ x, I don't think anyone would have a problem opening it.

As mikeh has said, many NA players still adhere to using the Redouble as the only way to show a strong hand after a take out double. If that's the agreement that N/S have, then the Redbl is proper with the North hand.

After the 2 ♥ bid, I don't see South as having any call. The hand has already been overbid by opening.

The biggest criticism so far has been for North not doubling 2 NT. To a great extent, I can concur with that. But I wonder if North was concerned with a possible psyche by South. If you take West's 2 NT rebid as showing an 18-19 HCP hand, then between North and West about 30 HCP are held. Bridge logic tells you that South can hold no more than about 10 HCP for the opening bid. Opening with 10 suggests a distributional holding yet South didn't show it with any call over 2 ♥. That might be enough to give North pause whether to double or not.

However, until North can legitimately disprove by bridge logic that South had a opener, North must act as though South did have one. So a double of 2 NT would seem right with 3 or 4 ♥ tricks and entries. If 2 NTx goes wrong because partner has psyched, it's not North's fault.

South can still save the day by passing out 2 NT. Yet South choose to compete further with a 3 ♦ call.

Now North commits the final blunder of the day by bidding 3 NT. At this point, North should see that the hand is a misfit and South is bidding on some sort of minimum distributional hand. In 3 ♦, North's ♦s are useful cards to consolidate South's suit or ruff ♠ losers. The problem with NT is entries. It's highly likely that you will be unable to get to cashing tricks in one hand or the other because of lack of them.

If I held the North hand at this point, I'd pass and hope for the best. I do so because if partner makes an unusual call, they usually have a good reason for doing so. So I never try to mastermind the hand and "save" partner. I've found too many times over the years that doing so often rescues defeat from the jaws of victory. And, if 3 ♦ goes down a ton, then maybe partner may learn from it.

So, both players had a couple opportunities to get to a better result and neither did. If I have to apportion the blame, I'd give:

South 100% for opening the hand and 100% for bidding 3 ♦,
North 80% for not doubling 2 NT and 50% for bidding 3 NT.