[broze]

---

Double is defined as "values". 4♥ is cold. Since these things are difficult to be objective about thought I would post this as an ATB.

EDIT: Should have said that the format is 20 VP Swiss Teams.

[Fluffy]

How do you play 2♥-Pass?

[ArtK78]

Double of 2♥ on the West hand is, to say the least, very aggressive.

Having said that, I would bid 4♠ on the East cards.

Most of the blame goes to East. That is not a double of 4♥.

[diana_eva]

I'd bid 4♠ as East. I don't mind West's double much, although it is aggressive.

[the hog]

West does not have the values to x. East has a 4s bid. 50 percent each.

[gszes]

Hard to argue with success and even though the original tox by west looks
light it allows for a nice 4s sac that would not be reached with pass. The
only problem is how to get east to realize their hand is better suited for
offense than defense.
The heart K has to look poorly placed and the QJ of spades surely will amount
to next to nothing on defense. Would east show a cards x with xxxx xx KQxx xxx???
nope yet that is how their hand stacks up defensively. The addition of the spade
QJ for offensive purposes however looks quite interesting at these colors. Even
the most pessimistic players would have trouble imagining 4sx going down 4 (better
than 4h making 4). There is also a tiny chance the opps might push to 5h which might
be easier to set.

[MrAce]

NS auction is a joke imo.
About EW, I think posters are a bit harsh on EW. I do not mean to say that E should not bid 4♠. It was a very close call and DBL by E is not as bad as they say it is. Neither the first DBL by W, imho.

EDIT: In fact, the aggressive action by W could end up easily playing 4♠, very likely undoubled, and going anywhere between -50 to -150 instead of -620. Call his action "aggressive" and I am with you. Call him anything else and I will disagree. OTOH, change couple honors between N and S and EW looking at anywhere between +200 to +800 instead of -50 or +420.

[mike777]

60% west, west should pass, not an opening hand
40% east, east should bid 4s but it was somewhat close.

[aguahombre]

Add the Spade King to West, taking it away from North. Now, East is to blame for +200 instead of Plus 420. So, whatever we think of West's direct double doesn't have anything to do with the blame here.

In fact, if East had bid 4S, they would be -50 or -100 against a vul game --- and if West had Passed 2H they would just be minus 620? West gets blame for his "bad" takeout double????

[mike777]

sure why not, I assume we are not just looking at the double dummy results.


I would assume west gets blame if west makes a bad bid.

[ggwhiz]

2♥ is the ONLY bid that makes any sense.

East 40% for trying to wrong side 4♠ on a (surprise) heart lead
West 40% for being afraid to do so after that 1st double.
North 20% for the 4♥ bid but probably a decent tactical maneuver if they are familiar with this partnership

No blame got a vote?

[mike777]

fwiw using FTL on the ns hands.


13-sst-wp

sst=4-1 or 3, three short suits


wp=19 which equates to o tricks

13-3-0=10

the hard part is estimating sst and wp.

[whereagles]

West is a tad light, but he does have the "regulamentary" two tricks. Still, any strengthening of West hand makes it 1 down. But it also makes it 4♠ a cakewalk.

Thus, I would have to say West.

[the hog]

 mike777, on 2014-December-31, 11:57, said:

fwiw using FTL on the ns hands.


13-sst-wp

sst=4-1 or 3, three short suits


wp=19 which equates to o tricks

13-3-0=10

the hard part is estimating sst and wp.

what about IHNFIWYATA?

[aguahombre]

 mike777, on 2014-December-31, 11:31, said:

I would assume west gets blame if west makes a bad bid.

No. Blame is blame for a bad result. West's bad bid should have gained here. East's decision to double 4H instead of bidding 4S might be good, might be bad; but it is to blame.

[nekthen]

I don't get the criticism of North. IMHO any hand with 4 hearts should follow the Law and bid 4 even without the double.
I think the double of 2 hearts is wrong it is a good takeout double, but if you have agreed values then you cannot really blame East especially if "values" does not guarantee 4 spades

I think all those Europeans who seem to use values doubles should reflect on this hand and revert to pure takeout immediately LOL

[gnasher]

I don't know what a "values" double is in this context.

If East's double meant "I think we might want to play the hand in game. What do you think?", West has a fairly clear pull to 4♠. He has a singleton heart and an offensive shape, and not a huge amount of defence.

If it meant "I want to defend unless you have an unusual hand", I think East should have bid 4♠ instead of double.

When I held the East hand I bid 4♠, but I thought a responsive double would also have been reasonable. If I'd done that, I expect West would have taken it out to 4♠.

[rhm]

 mike777, on 2014-December-31, 11:31, said:

sure why not, I assume we are not just looking at the double dummy results.


I would assume west gets blame if west makes a bad bid.

You need to explain why it was a bad bid.
West has the type of hand where both sides could easily have game.
Note that there are 18 total tricks (often 19 single dummy) even though everyone except West was balanced or semi balanced.
Whether you consider West worth an opening bid or not I would certainly not pass 2♥ holding this hand white on red and the whole critic on West is an error in judgement.
West hand is worth more than its point count suggests and is improved by the 2♥ bid.
All successful players would double. It simply separates the wheat from the chaff.
East DBL is the typical bid people make when they do not know what to do. They lack the courage to bid 4♠.
The heart king is worthless and where 4 tricks should be coming from remains a mystery. One thing is rather clear: At these colors N/S are bidding to make.
Note, even if you disagree with this analysis West was at best responsible for -170 but gave the partnership a chance to save 500 points.
He deserved better.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

 nekthen, on 2015-January-01, 02:46, said:

<br>I don't get the criticism of North. IMHO any hand with 4 hearts should follow the Law and bid 4 even without the double.<br>I think the double of&nbsp;&nbsp;2 hearts is wrong it is a good takeout double, but if you have agreed values then you cannot really blame&nbsp;&nbsp;East especially if "values" does not guarantee 4 spades<br><br>I think all those Europeans&nbsp;&nbsp;who seem to use values doubles should reflect on this hand and revert to pure takeout immediately LOL<br>

<br><br>"I think the double of&nbsp;&nbsp;2 hearts is wrong it is a good takeout double" roflmao!<br><br>What is a values x?? <br><br>"All successful players would double" rhm. Really? Prove this please by showing similar Xs from expert players with these meagre values else don't make gross generalisations. If you think this x is ok I assume you think a 4441 7 count is an acceptable t/o of a 1 level bid. If not, why not? You are 1 level lower and a k less in hcp.

[rhm]

 the hog, on 2015-January-01, 06:39, said:

<br><br>"I think the double of  2 hearts is wrong it is a good takeout double" roflmao!<br><br>What is a values x?? <br><br>"All successful players would double" rhm. Really? Prove this please by showing similar Xs from expert players with these meagre values else don't make gross generalisations. If you think this x is ok I assume you think a 4441 7 count is an acceptable t/o of a 1 level bid. If not, why not? You are 1 level lower and a k less in hcp.

First of all I do not share your theory that you need a king more to double a weak 2♥ bid than at the one level white on red. Most double with pretty much the same strength.
I would expect most would double white on red with

---

I prefer the actual West hand and I also think it is safer to double with

---

Of course I have not the means to make an extensive statistical study with what world class player double a weak 2♥ bid nowadays.
I admit my statement is based on what I think is happening at the top level.
Lest you think I am a maniac I just take one hand out of a recent book by Australian international Matthew Thomson:
You are in second position (vulnerability not given) and hold

♠QJ42
♥4
♦AJ865
♣653

Dealer passes, you pass and LHO opens 2♥ (weak) raised by RHO to 3♥.
Your bid?

Matthew Thomson writes:

"With your singleton heart and the high trick winning potential of your 4-1-5-3 shape compete.
Partner may have erred on the conservative side over 2♥ as you were a passed hand.
With a shortage in their trump fit, stretch to compete.

As long as you held this 4-1-5-3 hand, no matter what the bidding, as you evaluated and recognized its trick winning potential, your partnership bids and makes 4♠.
Many pairs missed game.
Partner's actual hand was

♠AT98
♥T652
♦KQ4
♣A9

Even though the ♠K was offside, ten tricks made in comfort."

Now I do not agree with everything Matthew says, nor are the two scenarios here one to one identical.
But I do believe the takeout DBL with West is rather a normal sound minimum action nowadays for an expert Bridge player.

Rainer Herrmann