ATB
#2
Posted 2012-January-25, 10:03
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♦.
-gwnn
#3
Posted 2012-January-25, 11:45
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.
#8
Posted 2012-January-27, 06:37
Passing 3 Diamond doubled is simply not bridge as I know it.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#9
Posted 2012-January-27, 11:35
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.
#10
Posted 2012-January-27, 11:40
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.
#11
Posted 2012-January-27, 22:26
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)
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#12
Posted 2012-January-27, 22:54
aguahombre, on 2012-January-25, 11:45, said:
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.
#13
Posted 2012-January-27, 22:54
aguahombre, on 2012-January-25, 11:45, said:
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.
#14
Posted 2012-February-01, 12:31
#15
Posted 2012-February-04, 09:44
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
#16
Posted 2012-February-04, 13:55
rhm, on 2012-February-04, 09:44, said:
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.
#17
Posted 2012-February-04, 15:04
aguahombre, on 2012-February-04, 13:55, said:
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
#18
Posted 2012-February-04, 16:40
#19
Posted 2012-February-05, 02:50
aguahombre, on 2012-February-04, 16:40, 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
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#20
Posted 2012-February-05, 03:56
Trinidad, on 2012-February-05, 02:50, said:
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