[the hog]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-22, 21:23, said:

2♦ instead of double is not that bad if you follow it with a TO double of 3♣.

However......

You were clearly jobbed by the failure to alert the non-forcing 3♣ call and would have won any Director or committee ruling.

Yes it is that bad, and you are not worth a double of 3C.

[Vampyr]

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-22, 11:43, said:

I agree with all of the above with the possible exception that I may well double 3nt if they bid it if there is even the slightest thought/reluctance.

This was played online, though, so you will not be able to pick up any of this.

ggwhiz, on 2012-March-22, 21:23, said:

You were clearly jobbed by the failure to alert the non-forcing 3♣ call and would have won any Director or committee ruling.

Are these available on BBO?

[billw55]

FM75, on 2012-March-22, 16:06, said:

Partner passed. Opener apparently did not consider 3♣ to be forcing.

It sounds like south just didn't know what he was doing. Occasionally bad calls by bad players get good results, that is part of bridge and isn't going away.

Perhaps too, south did know what he was doing, and NS had an undisclosed agreement that 3♣ is nonforcing. Perhaps he deliberately withheld the alert. Or perhaps that treatment is so common where he is from that he thought no alert was needed. Or perhaps he has no idea what an alert even is ... etc. On BBO all these things happen and there is little to do but get used to it.

FM75, on 2012-March-22, 16:06, said:

At the other table EW bid unopposed to 4♥ making - though on the layout it was cold for 6. My teammate South passed a 13 count 5=3=3=2 hand!

So it is safe to say your bad result was due as much to your teammate as to anything opponents did.

[FM75]

billw55, on 2012-March-23, 06:56, said:

It sounds like south just didn't know what he was doing. Occasionally bad calls by bad players get good results, that is part of bridge and isn't going away.

..snip...

So it is safe to say your bad result was due as much to your teammate as to anything opponents did.

This was a friendly team match. The "TD" was my teammate sitting south Blaming a teammate would be easy, but this sort of thing (minus the 3 clubs forcing part) might have just as easily arisen in pairs.

I was looking for some possible argument/bidding that finds the fit, that makes sense. One person suggested a double on my part instead of a 2 diamond overcall. I considered that, but with a doubleton in the other black suit and a hand not suitable for double followed by a bid of my own suit, both for strength and self-sufficient suit purposes, I chose to overcall. Maybe that was wrong, but I think the argument that a double shows a major (which happened to be the one my partner had) seems to be resulting a bit.

Should the West hand bid? I think so, because I tend to bid whenever there is reasonable justification for it. Not sure how teammate downgraded her hand to unworthy of opening - maybe a lack of quick tricks. But not bidding the South hand pretty much left the partnership defenseless. - Yes, I am resulting here.

Perhaps this is just another "that is just bridge" story. I was just wondering if either my partner or I missed some reasonable (perhaps complex) inference that would have supported a different action on our part.

[ggwhiz]

FM75, on 2012-March-23, 14:11, said:

One person suggested a double on my part instead of a 2 diamond overcall. I considered that, but with a doubleton in the other black suit and a hand not suitable for double followed by a bid of my own suit

A useful treatment you might consider is "same level conversion". It works like this: If you double and partner bids some number of ♣, when you remove to ♦ you do NOT promise extra values (hence the same level), just a side order of ♥.

[Statto]

aka Equal Level Conversion (ELC). Not playing that I think I'd pass as West at teams.

[the hog]

FM75, on 2012-March-23, 14:11, said:

This was a friendly team match. The "TD" was my teammate sitting south Blaming a teammate would be easy, but this sort of thing (minus the 3 clubs forcing part) might have just as easily arisen in pairs.

I was looking for some possible argument/bidding that finds the fit, that makes sense. One person suggested a double on my part instead of a 2 diamond overcall. I considered that, but with a doubleton in the other black suit and a hand not suitable for double followed by a bid of my own suit, both for strength and self-sufficient suit purposes, I chose to overcall. Maybe that was wrong, but I think the argument that a double shows a major (which happened to be the one my partner had) seems to be resulting a bit.

Should the West hand bid? I think so, because I tend to bid whenever there is reasonable justification for it. Not sure how teammate downgraded her hand to unworthy of opening - maybe a lack of quick tricks. But not bidding the South hand pretty much left the partnership defenseless. - Yes, I am resulting here.

Perhaps this is just another "that is just bridge" story. I was just wondering if either my partner or I missed some reasonable (perhaps complex) inference that would have supported a different action on our part.

It is not resulting. It is also not the possession of a 4 card M that concerns me. Bidding 2D on a suit of that execrable quality is not a bid a good player would make unless he was drunk or fooling around.