[Bbradley62]

---

[billw55]

West may be a little light for the double, but east passing it is just bizarre.

3♠x-2 won't be great either, so west shares some blame. OK, it might only be -1 and might not be doubled, but even so there's not much to gain versus -130 defending 3♦.

[aguahombre]

IMO, the blame goes to the one who, at these colors, started the problem.

Of course East's pass of the double was ludicrous. A reasonable East would have selected 3S, incurring a less bad result.

But E/W really couldn't get a good result after West's double. They should be at least minus 200. That double is one of those "Didn't you notice I opened the bidding?", or "Did you forget to make a negative double last time?" calls.

That is why West should get the blame for a bad board. East gets the blame for it not being a bad board in 3S.

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-25, 11:45, said:

That is why West should get the blame for a bad board. East gets the blame for it not being a bad board in 3S.

Yes, they were both insane.

[Fluffy]

Frances said what I was going to.

[wank]

east is mad. west is bad.

[whereagles]

Both streched.

[Codo]

I voted mostly East because I have a little more (not much of course) symphaty for Wests double. He has the perfect shape and it could be possible, that they will miss a major fit, if he passes now. At least he was right with this. Still his double is insane, but nothing compared with East choice.
Passing 3 Diamond doubled is simply not bridge as I know it.

[phil_20686]

Wests double carries some risk but it is probably worth it in the long run, much depends on partners style for the negative double. FOr me I would not ever double with less than about 8HCP if I only had one major, might stretch a little with both, so 3S could easily be cold.

Also, if east bids 3S confidently, there is no reason to expect NS to double them. Obviously seeing the EW hands we would like to double, but give east AQxxx x xxx Jxxx and 3Sx would probably be cold, and its reasonably unlikely either of them can know enough to tell the difference. Sure sometimes you catch south with QJ9xS, but that means the other has a stiff spade and a ten card diamond fit, and might easily choose not to sit it.

I think that wests double is fine. Passing would also be fine, its partly a style thing of whether you want to be in this auction, sure bad things can happen, but good things can happen too. Sometimes 3S will me making, sometimes they will go on to 4d, some times 3s-1 will save a few imps anyway.

[phil_20686]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-25, 09:42, said:

---

I suspect if the east hand had been ATxxx Kx xxx xxx

suddenly everyone would be much more forgiving about wests action. Although then we would have to put up with all the NFB crowd telling us how wonderful it would be to bid 2S on this hand.

Also, you didnt say what 1c was, and it makes a difference. If it is short in the style of "could be any weak nt with no 5 card suit" I think that failure to preprotect is a major error.

[MrAce]

I appologize, this is what happens when u read 2 topics at the same time in different windows and try to upvote a thread and accidently end up upvoting another one


To me it is completely East's fault, since we are judging the doubled making 3♦, not what would happen to 3♠. But now reading other posters i think i am about to be convinced that it is hard to not assign any blame to west (as i didnt in my vote)

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-25, 11:45, said:

IMO, the blame goes to the one who, at these colors, started the problem.

Of course East's pass of the double was ludicrous. A reasonable East would have selected 3S, incurring a less bad result.

But E/W really couldn't get a good result after West's double. They should be at least minus 200. That double is one of those "Didn't you notice I opened the bidding?", or "Did you forget to make a negative double last time?" calls.

That is why West should get the blame for a bad board. East gets the blame for it not being a bad board in 3S.

I concur with what AH and Frances have posted. The majority of the blame, however goes to the failure to take out the very poor x.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-25, 11:45, said:

IMO, the blame goes to the one who, at these colors, started the problem.

Of course East's pass of the double was ludicrous. A reasonable East would have selected 3S, incurring a less bad result.

But E/W really couldn't get a good result after West's double. They should be at least minus 200. That double is one of those "Didn't you notice I opened the bidding?", or "Did you forget to make a negative double last time?" calls.

That is why West should get the blame for a bad board. East gets the blame for it not being a bad board in 3S.

I concur with what AH and Frances have posted. The majority of the blame, however goes to the failure to take out the very poor x.

[jh51]

I agree with the others that this is a question of who is more to blame. I cannot see doubling with west's hand - partner already had a chance to bid and did not. At IMPs you let them have their part score - East cannot possibly have enough for game. But at this scoring, East is nuts for passing. His partner should have a pretty good hand (not the actual hand) with something like 4414 shape. Where does he think that defensive tricks are going to come from? With just a bit more, I would think that East should be thinking about a spade game.

[rhm]

Bbradley62, on 2012-January-25, 09:42, said:

---

The result merchants criticize West with hindsight, the successful players might duplicate West's action.

Sure West's DBL is aggressive but he has ideal shape in the majors and corresponding shortage in ♦. This DBL is really unlikely to backfire and 2 down undoubled at IMPs against a making part-score is no tragedy.
Who of the opponents will likely double a part-score at IMPs when holding a ten card fit in their own suit?
West can see that East might not be able to negative double when quite a bit stronger, but holding only one major and if East does reopen with a double how do West-East find the right major?
From West perspective it was really unlucky that his partner had only 5 working points and only 2 cards in ♦. As it happens, opponents would probably do well in 3NT, but might well compete over 3♠ with 4♦. After all they do have a ten card fit.
Also note, that when opponents have a ten card fit it is rather unlucky when your side gets only an 8 card fit.
The chances for that to happen is 22.7%, In 47% of the deals you will have a nine card fit and in the remaining 30% of the deals you will have a ten card fit or better yourself.
This would not matter much, but it looks that the total number of tricks is probably significantly lower than 18 here.
Unlucky.

---

ATB for letting North South play 3♦

I consider the critic on West really overblown

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

rhm, on 2012-February-04, 09:44, said:

ATB for letting North South play 3♦

I consider the critic on West really overblown

Rainer Herrmann

There would have been no blame for letting N/S play 3♦. That is what should have happened. The blame for letting them play it doubled is clearly on East. The blame for creating a no-win situation is clearly on West.

[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-04, 13:55, said:

There would have been no blame for letting N/S play 3♦. That is what should have happened. The blame for letting them play it doubled is clearly on East. The blame for creating a no-win situation is clearly on West.

There is no question that East is at fault, but West? On my alternate layout I changed the East hand with an identical West hand and 4♥ is a very reasonable contract.
Letting opponents make a partial in ♦ would not be my idea of winning Bridge at IMPs

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

On your alternate layout, East should make a neg double IMO. He has club support in case West bids spades. When East doesn't make a neg double, West's double of 3D becomes poor. As described in an earlier post, it says "Did you forget I opened the bidding and forget to act over 2D?"

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-04, 16:40, said:

On your alternate layout, East should make a neg double IMO. He has club support in case West bids spades. When East doesn't make a neg double, West's double of 3D becomes poor. As described in an earlier post, it says "Did you forget I opened the bidding and forget to act over 2D?"

Maybe East should make a negative double and maybe he shouldn't. I can already see the disaster happening when the EW hands are:

---

It would be different if East would actually have club support, but he doesn't.

Rik

[rhm]

Trinidad, on 2012-February-05, 02:50, said:

Maybe East should make a negative double and maybe he shouldn't. I can already see the disaster happening when the EW hands are:

---

It would be different if East would actually have club support, but he doesn't.

Rik

With my luck the bidding would go

---

If 2♥ over 2♦ is forcing any action other than Pass by vulnerable East is asking for trouble.

Rainer Herrmann