[manudude03]

---

3♠ made 12 tricks on suboptimum defence (E held up ♠Axx twice and then ran clubs and crossruffed to 12 tricks). Who's to blame for not reaching game?

edit: double by N would have been responsive. We have a reasonably "aggressive" overcall (AKJxx and out is a clear overcall)

[quiddity]

I would have doubled as North on the first round but most of the immediate blame goes to South for failing to show spades after the cuebid.

[inquiry]

I blame south.


One might think north should make a responsive double on the first round, but we don't know NS methods. Maybe double would have been rosenkrantz, maybe South overcalls on junk frequently.


After south's reopening double, North made an agressive 3♦ cue-bid and then bid 3♠. What is south waiting for to bid game?

However, depending upon N/S overcall methods, it maybe that north should get a small amount of the blame for no action on the first round.

[mike777]

75% south.


25% north

[Yu18772]

90% South 10% North

Assuming natural bidding more or less,.
First problem is South overcall instead of double. While its true that south has 5 card ♥, he also has support for all other suits, 4 card other major, 14 points and shortness in declarers suit.
Dbl would accurately describe 11 of south cards, his distribution and his values, while overcall shows 7+points and 5 card decent hearts. Dbl would suggest to compete in either major overcall does not.
At this vulnerability doubling with North hand, with lousy ♠ and no support for ♥ is risky to say the least (next time partner will be holding Qxx,AQTxxx,xx,xx, will say 2♥, get doubled and go down fo 500).

Second problem is the 3♥ bid, 3♦ denies heart support. North has points (thats fairly obvious) and did not bid after 2♦. He also did not leave the dbl in. So, it must mean choose ♠ or ♣- so CHOOSE ♠ or ♣!
There is nothing in ♥ to add to the 1♥ overcall. In North place I would think that south is something like: Axx, AKJTxx, x, Axxx (and I am generous, doubleton spades is absolutely a possibility). Frankly, if North thought that 3♦ was understood correctly I dont get the 3♠ bid.

The 10% of the blame is only for not leaving the dbl, when not sure about what partner might or might not understand from your cuebid.
Once I was given a great advise by an exceptional player - "when in doubt first make sure the score is on your side. Only then start worrying how much that score would be."

[JLOGIC]

North bid perfectly, well done, I'd be happy to play with that person any time. South was ridiculously bad.

[wank]

castigating north for not doubling on the first round is ridiculous.

he's got a void heart and atxx of the opps' suit.

why wouldn't he want to defend 2D if his partner can't act again? he doesn't want to encourage partner to bid hearts.

[OleBerg]

Oops, misvoted North 100%. Meant South.

[hotShot]

I think that North should not pass over 2♦, but bidding is risky and he made up for this by bidding 3♦ and 3♠ later.
South has both majors and enough strength to dbl 1♦ and should bid 4♠ over 3♠, I think that both decisions are much worse than what North did.

[han]

JLOGIC, on 2011-April-06, 22:06, said:

North bid perfectly, well done, I'd be happy to play with that person any time. South was ridiculously bad.

Agree, I don't understand how north gets any of the blame here.

[Free]

han, on 2011-April-07, 04:00, said:

Agree, I don't understand how north gets any of the blame here.

Because he thought his partner would understand him instead of using a practical bid which can't be misinterpreted. If it's a valid argument or not is another question ofcourse.

[whereagles]

north could have dbled 2♦, but pass certainly is ok due to misfit signs
north could have bid 3/4♠ over overcallers' dbl, but 3♦ certainly is liveable

south was just plain falling asleep lol

In short, North didn't make it easy, but South really needs a shake-up to awake to pard's strong bidding

[han]

Free, on 2011-April-07, 04:35, said:

Because he thought his partner would understand him instead of using a practical bid which can't be misinterpreted. If it's a valid argument or not is another question ofcourse.

A less than perfect call can be practical, but a really bad bid rarely is.

[Hanoi5]

I was gonna blame North for not doubling 2♦ but the guy is void in hearts and so I put it all to South. But North could get some 5-10% blame.

[manudude03]

Thanks, results were as I hoped. I was North, partner said I had a clear responsive double and if I had done so we wouldn't have gotten into that mess. I never did figure out what he thought 3♦ was. Curiously, +230 only lost 1.33 imps, and even that was mainly due to 1 EW pair going for 1700 in 5♥X....

[bluecalm]

I wonder what should dbl show btw.
For sure some spades and some ♥ tolerance but dunno about details.

[MrAce]

Interesting topic

As North i would double 2♦, opps opened and raised ♦ when i hold ATxx, makes it likely that we have a fit in ♠ or ♣.

I think North handled very well afterwards and south should not really try to get away from guilt just because N did not dbl(at least not in this hand)

But failing to show a hand, doesn't mean you will be lucky to recover from it everytime, as it happened in this example for North.

One thing i do not understand is, the concern about responsive double with short in pd's suit (in this hand specifically. Pd is short in ♦ and he will reopen this somehow.

-Pd reopens it with DBL, and makes u happy, but in this case if u made a responsive DBL it would be the same, so lets take that option out.

-Pd reopens by bidding 2♥, a possible 6♥+4♠ and a not suitable hand for DBL such as KQxx AT98xx x Jx thinking pd is allowed to pass 2♦ with Jxx xx xxx AQxxx or such. And of course he will bid 2♥ without 4♠ too.

What can happen when we make a responsive DBL ?

-We may find a ♠ or ♣ fit, even when pd has 6♥ and was about to bid them again had we decided to pass
-We have no fit, pd bids ♥ again, which he would probably bid anyway and freeze us, when now we have a clear pass since we got it out of our chest at the first place.

[gwnn]

MrAce, on 2011-April-08, 16:04, said:

One thing i do not understand is, the concern about responsive double with short in pd's suit (in this hand specifically. Pd is short in ♦ and he will reopen this somehow.

Not always, reopening here shows extra values. If partner's minimum, it will be great to defend against 2♦.

[MrAce]

gwnn, on 2011-April-08, 16:15, said:

Not always, reopening here shows extra values. If partner's minimum, it will be great to defend against 2♦.

You are in pass out seat, just because u have 1 Ace or K less u will let them play 2♦ when they sit on it and u are short in ♦?

Not an option for me, but since you opened it letme go with your logic...You passed with the N hand and pd has no extras so he passed too in peace, i don't know what you find so great about defending their 8 cards minor suit fit when your side has an 8 card major fit ? What does partscore competition especially at 2 level has anything to do with bean count ?

The point is, the style u are suggesting, should be more concerned passing N hand, since u seem to balance very conservatively.

[gwnn]

No I should not be concerned about passing the N hand, because I have a void in hearts! Finding partner with four spades would be cool but there's no guarantee. It might just be that our only fit is 5-3 in clubs and we can't find it. You're misrepresenting me when you say that I balance "very conservatively". I overcall on a lot of quite weak hands, and it's just not worth it do bid them twice. I won't reopen with the 8 and 9 counts that I happily overcall on. I believe this is common bridge behaviour, and not just my "very conservative" style.