[shyams]

At IMPs (or more precisely X-IMPs), white vs. red, this auction occurred at our table.

---

Result: West's hand was 7-3-3-0; 3♠x made +1 for a bad score. Incidentally, 6 out of 16 tables played in 3♠x or 4♠x (all of them succeeded in their contracts)

Would like views on who from North/South was most to blame.

[FrancesHinden]

The only call I can find fault with is South's final double, everything else looks completely normal.
At matchpoints, I'd expect to replicate the result.

[gszes]

South 80%

I would have started with 1n as south vs 2c. It lets p know we have :wasted: power in spades (in case they have a really strong hand) and at least gives p some idea of our power. the 2c emphasizes a 4 card minor and show nothing in the way of power. It is this latter fact that probably led to the 3sx since south felt they had not done enough with their meager 2c bid. In many ways the 3sx was a self inflicted wound.

North 20%

North does not escape blame here. How can they possibly expect to beat 3s when their partner is not only in front of the long spades but they were unable to bid 1n? The opps appear to have at least a 9 card spade suit and the x of 3c means our longest and strongest suit (in theory anyway) will not be taking many tricks (if any). All of this is bad news for deciding to pass 3sx. Running to 4c in the teeth of 3c x surely looks unappealing but it would seem to be far safer than letting the opps play 3sx North's pass seemed more geared toward making p the goat in the post mortem when they should have acted like a teammate.

[BillPatch]

I also fail to see the merit of the free raise to 3♣. This hand has a very high ODR for a TO double. Very low chance odds of defeating 4♠ opposite almost all maximum 2 club bids which did not forget to bid 1NT. I prefer the immediate advance sac at 5♣, although I see a little merit in temporarily not announcing the club fit and waiting to get more info before taking the sac.

[mike777]

60% north\40% south

prefer pass of 2c not 3c by north

prefer pass of 3s not x by south

[rmnka447]

I put most of the blame with South.

At IMPs, you shouldn't double a part score above 2 ♦ unless you're dead certain it will go down. Also, at IMPS, any positive in a part score hand should be considered par. If you're plus, the swing will likely be only a few IMPs either way.

If the 3 ♠ bidder isn't a lunatic, bidding 3 ♠ vulnerable, without a partner able to bid over the double and with both opponents showing something, must be based on a big playing hand. 3 ♠ bidder must have pretty good long ♠s and enough outside that making 3 ♠ is reasonably likely.

South can't know what partner has doubled on. The penalty double of 3 ♣ by the 3 ♠ bidder's partner means you're not getting many ♣ tricks. ♠ A10xx in front of the ♠ bidder is of less value for taking tricks. South has no clue whether 3 ♠ can be set or will make. That being the case, a penalty double is complete folly.

Also, after making the penalty double, South has given a road map on how to play the hand. Suppose dummy has a stiff ♠ and 3 ♠ bidder has ♠ KQJ9xxx. Without a double, a ♠ honor will be played to start drawing trump. But with a double and a dummy entry, I would expect almost all good players, to lead the ♠ from dummy and insert the ♠ 9 when South ducks.

[rhm]

gszes, on 2015-September-05, 11:16, said:

South 80%

I would have started with 1n as south vs 2c. It lets p know we have :wasted: power in spades (in case they have a really strong hand) and at least gives p some idea of our power. the 2c emphasizes a 4 card minor and show nothing in the way of power. It is this latter fact that probably led to the 3sx since south felt they had not done enough with their meager 2c bid. In many ways the 3sx was a self inflicted wound.

North 20%

North does not escape blame here. How can they possibly expect to beat 3s when their partner is not only in front of the long spades but they were unable to bid 1n? The opps appear to have at least a 9 card spade suit and the x of 3c means our longest and strongest suit (in theory anyway) will not be taking many tricks (if any). All of this is bad news for deciding to pass 3sx. Running to 4c in the teeth of 3c x surely looks unappealing but it would seem to be far safer than letting the opps play 3sx North's pass seemed more geared toward making p the goat in the post mortem when they should have acted like a teammate.

Muddled thinking I dare say.
It is true that North knew that their partner was in front of the long spades, but their partner did not know this fact when they doubled?
North did not say he expected to beat 3♠, their partner did.
Taking out the DBL here shows a healthy mistrust of partners judgement (Of course justified here). I would hold ♠JT97x ♥Ax ♦x ♣xxxxx if I doubled 3♠.

I do not care whether South had undisclosed values.
Values do not necessarily take tricks in defense.
How many tricks does South have after this bidding? Certainly none in clubs.
I would say he has one certain trick.
What made him believe his partner would contribute four more?
Penalty doubles are not my default action when I do not know what to do. Pass is.

FrancesHinden, on 2015-September-05, 07:31, said:

At matchpoints, I'd expect to replicate the result.

The double is so bad, I would never consider it at any form of scoring.
I see nothing North could do about this disaster.
He certainly did not promise anything more in defense. I can see North taking out the DBL to 4♣ if his minors were interchanged.
The fact that some poster suggest a Pass over 2♣ and other 5♣ shows that North club raise was spot on.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-06, 21:25, said:

I also fail to see the merit of the free raise to 3♣. This hand has a very high ODR for a TO double. Very low chance odds of defeating 4♠ opposite almost all maximum 2 club bids which did not forget to bid 1NT. I prefer the immediate advance sac at 5♣, although I see a little merit in temporarily not announcing the club fit and waiting to get more info before taking the sac.

This is way off, K10xx, Kx, xxx, xxxx could easily take 6 tricks and for many people is not a 1N response, lesser spade holdings could easily take 5, dummy's points figure to be in clubs, so dummy is going to be very short of entries (or completely bereft) to hook spades.

I would have started with 1N with the S hand and certainly not doubled. There is more pressure to double with the S hand after starting with 2♣ as you have enough that partner might need to know about your values. How would you bid a xx434 17 count as N for example ? some people would bid as N did.

[BillPatch]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-September-07, 04:45, said:

This is way off, K10xx, Kx, xxx, xxxx could easily take 6 tricks and for many people is not a 1N response, lesser spade holdings could easily take 5, dummy's points figure to be in clubs, so dummy is going to be very short of entries (or completely bereft) to hook spades.

I would have started with 1N with the S hand and certainly not doubled. There is more pressure to double with the S hand after starting with 2♣ as you have enough that partner might need to know about your values. How would you bid a xx434 17 count as N for example ? some people would bid as N did.

It may be way off, but at least it's a better idea than showing the fit at the three level and tentatively giving partner the captaincy over the club save by limiting my hand byraising to the three level on a hand where it appears the opening side may be headed for game. Maybe I'm resulting horribly, but nobody has said that favorable was a bad vulnerability for a save.

For me, your example hand is an WTP 1NT response, not that it matters. Partner has shown a possible Yarborough hand and denied good spades and a fair 6+ hcp with a good stopper in spades with a balanced hand by choosing 2 clubs rather than 1 NT. Since he has length in clubs, it is likely he has some of his strength there.

[Cyberyeti]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-07, 11:14, said:

It may be way off, but at least it's a better idea than showing the fit at the three level and tentatively giving partner the captaincy over the club save by limiting my hand byraising to the three level on a hand where it appears the opening side may be headed for game.

For me, your example hand is an WTP 1NT response.

many people require a bit more for 1N opposite the X, even ♠Q10xx may well be enough for a 2 trick set if declarer has something like AKJxxxx, QJx, Ax, x and partner has A♣.

[BillPatch]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-September-07, 11:36, said:

many people require a bit more for 1N opposite the X, even ♠Q10xx may well be enough for a 2 trick set if declarer has something like AKJxxxx, QJx, Ax, x and partner has A♣.

Another good 6 point hand with a good, though directional stopper in spades. because it is harder to bid constructively after responding at the 2 level showing 0-bad 10, the normal range of the 1NT response on this auction is 6-10 hcp according to Lawrence. I think this partially shown advancer's hand qualifies, but it is close. I would insist on 13 cards in the hand.