[Cyberyeti]

 rmnka447, on 2017-September-25, 11:59, said:

A problem on this hand is that North, a strong player, has competed to the 3 level vulnerable when his opponents arguably have at least game invitational values from the bidding. What can North have that would justify stepping into this situation? Well, it can't be a preponderance of points, so it must be distribution or playing tricks unless North has some bizarre death wish. I wouldn't be surprised to see North with something like ♠ AKxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ AJ10xxxx or similar.

Against this, East has what looks like 2 sure ♣ tricks and otherwise soft defensive values. Defeating 3 ♣ is far from a certainty. Beyond the ♣, East has another 1/2 QT. So beating 3 ♣ looks like it needs 2 1/2 to 3 defensive tricks from partner West which is a lot to assume.

If N has this, how big a number do you think you're dialling in anything you bid ?

[dokoko]

West may

- bid Stayman, then pass 3C; or
- pass 1NT, then dbl 3C for takeout.

but should not bid, then double.

All vul is the worst vulnerability for balancing at imps for the partscore. If partner takes out the double your action wins imps if both sides make 9 tricks somewhere, which is rather unlikely. In fact, holding both majors opener would probably have doubled 3C.

Opposite a genuine inv+ hand 3C figures to go down, while there might be no fit our way and 3NT is far from certain.

On the actual layout, taking out the double to 3H will be no fun and might cost 500 as well.

[wank]

west has done too much twice.

[Jinksy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-September-25, 08:01, said:

You really not overcalling on AK(x), AQ, xx(x), AJ109xx assuming responder was using garbage stayman ? there is also very real possiblility declarer is never getting to dummy so might lose extra spade tricks while unable to take finesse(s).

With a hand that good, N would have the option (which I, in his seat would certainly exercise) to make a values-showing X of 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

 Jinksy, on 2017-September-25, 16:35, said:

With a hand that good, N would have the option (which I, in his seat would certainly exercise) to make a values-showing X of 2♣.

It shows clubs for me but not necessarily a real hand, lead inducing, so didn't think of that.

[The_Badger]

 wank, on 2017-September-25, 14:42, said:

west has done too much twice.

That's the most logical explanation I've seen written here. You don't go stayman-ing with a balanced 10 count opposite a weak NT, especially, no not even especially, never, if you know partner opens with 1NT with rubbish.

The odds do not favour partner having a maximum NT, and/or a four card ♠ fit. As for doubling 3♣ that's pure madness. North is going to have a very strong hand at this vulnerability; with a lesser hand North would/could have doubled East's 2♣ Stayman bid.

[msjennifer]

 johnu, on 2017-September-24, 18:27, said:

Was 1NT forcing?

That’s a nice question indeed!!!

[aawk]

All depends what 2♣ means if it is stayman being invite or better (opposite a 12-14 1nt at least 10 HCP) west double must be penalty. Playing it as take out without the option for east to pass is a strange agreement in my opinion because we hold at least 22 HCP.

If 2♣ can be less than a invite (garbage stayman) then west double could be (on agreement) take out and east pass is dangerous (3♣ made is to costly) and 3♥ would be my bid.

[Cyberyeti]

 aawk, on 2017-September-26, 11:08, said:

All depends what 2♣ means if it is stayman being invite or better (opposite a 12-14 1nt at least 10 HCP) west double must be penalty. Playing it as take out without the option for east to pass is a strange agreement in my opinion because we hold at least 22 HCP.

If 2♣ can be less than a invite (garbage stayman) then west double could be (on agreement) take out and east pass is dangerous (3♣ made is to costly) and 3♥ would be my bid.

3♥x could cost you more than 3♣x= here, you just don't know (and that's opposite the actual W hand).

[yunling]

East slight overbid but maybe its ok under certain agreement.
West acted too much, obviously.

[dokoko]

 aawk, on 2017-September-26, 11:08, said:

All depends what 2♣ means if it is stayman being invite or better (opposite a 12-14 1nt at least 10 HCP) west double must be penalty. Playing it as take out without the option for east to pass is a strange agreement in my opinion because we hold at least 22 HCP.

If 2♣ can be less than a invite (garbage stayman) then west double could be (on agreement) take out and east pass is dangerous (3♣ made is to costly) and 3♥ would be my bid.

Nothing depends on whether 2♣ shows invitational values initially.

Double after Stayman promises an invitational or better hand with support for the unbid suits. Doubling with a weaker hand is telling the same story twice (as a weaker hand has to have support for both majors). East didn't double 3♣, which he could have done if interested in 3M.

Playing West's double as penalty would be a stupid choice; it's takeout which East is free to convert if appropriate.

[Phil]

1N is fine. 2C is meh. Double is more meh. Pass was ok.

But this doesnt look like a bad spot.