[DWM]

Scoring: IMP

---

East dealer

(1♣) - 1♠ - (X) - 2♠
(3♦) - 3♠ - (4♦) - X

Who is to blame North, South or a split?

[TimG]

I think north is to blame -- one defensive trick and a doubleton trump is not enough to make a penalty double, or even suggest penalties.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I think north is to blame -- one defensive trick and a doubleton trump is not enough to make a penalty double, or even suggest penalties.

I agree. I would have bid 4S, as 3S by partner suggests either 6 trumps or extra values. Pass is not as good, but much better than double.

However, I wouldn't have bid 3S as South, with a flat 11 count and 5332, in spite of the good trump suit.

South's error doesn't excuse North's error.

Peter

[skjaeran]

North has an extra ♠, which is bad for defence, one trick, only a doubleton in trumps and hardly anything else. Partner competed to the 3-level, but that doesn't promise extra defence, rather more offence.

North is far from a double, and must take (almost) all blame.

[P_Marlowe]

North, if I got it right, the guy,
who bid 2S, what is he doubling
on? He may even face a partner
with a 6 card spade suit (he does
not, but how did he know?).

The 3 spade bid is unwise, but that
happens.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikeh]

It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3♠ as South, but that should have had no impact on the result, in that, as North, I would have competed to 3♠ myself, if need be.

I strongly believe that one needs shape to compete to the 3-level when the high cards are more or less evnely distributed: the most comon 'shape' is an extra trump, but extra side suit length can suffice on occasion.

I suspect that North thought that S's 3♠ was a strong, invitational hand, not merely an attempt to compete, and thus he felt that his Ace was extra defence.

Of course, this is not good bridge logic, but if we all saw the game in the same way, we'd quit playing... and certainly quit posting.

North gets 100% of the blame, but S shouldn't feel good about his role in this debacle... that 3♠ bid was almost as bad, in isolation, as the double.

[whereagles]

Dbl on the North hand is quite uncalled for. Opps are in no-man's land and he dbls? LOL

[Echognome]

DWM, on Jul 4 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Who is to blame North, South or a split?

Graham. Which one was he?

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 4 2007, 03:57 PM, said:

North has an extra ♠, which is bad for defence, one trick, only a doubleton in trumps and hardly anything else. Partner competed to the 3-level, but that doesn't promise extra defence, rather more offence.

North is far from a double, and must take (almost) all blame.

Ditto.

[neilkaz]

North's dbl of a 4♦ contract is awful ! When you double the opps to game at IMPs you should expect a 2 trick set rather than hoping to luck out with a 1 trick set. North really has only 1 trick on defence and two worthless trumps. By doubling he is most certainly bidding the same values twice when he really should be downgrading since S may have 6♠ and then at most his side gets 1 trick in that suit.

If I were North I'd jump to 3♠ right over the neg X to show 4 card support, or I'd bid what ever I used to show a mixed raise (4 trumps and decent HCP and some defence).

South stretched to bid 3♠ with only a flat hand and 5 trumps (I'd pass) due to good trumps, but North's dbl is simpy awful at imps.

.. neilkaz ..

[foo]

I vote with mikeh here.

[neilkaz]

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 09:45 PM, said:

I vote with mikeh here.

South's 3♠ (in reply to mikeh) should be only competitive since after the raise to 2♠ there is an inbetween suit to be used for game tries. ..ie 3♥ should be any kind of game try and 3♠ simply competing.

.. neilkaz ..

[skjaeran]

neilkaz, on Jul 5 2007, 04:55 AM, said:

foo, on Jul 4 2007, 09:45 PM, said:

I vote with mikeh here.

South's 3♠ (in reply to mikeh) should be only competitive since after the raise to 2♠ there is an inbetween suit to be used for game tries. ..ie 3♥ should be any kind of game try and 3♠ simply competing.

.. neilkaz ..

That's true, and I'm quite sure Mike agrees on this.
I agree with Mike that 3♠ was an overbid with the south hand, and I wouldn't have made it either. 5 trumps and a balanced hand vs a 3-card support doesn't qualify for 3♠.

[DWM]

Echognome, on Jul 4 2007, 05:36 PM, said:

DWM, on Jul 4 2007, 12:28 PM, said:

Who is to blame  North, South or a split?

Graham. Which one was he?

Erm

This one was mine. Got a habit of doubling (not in league matches) when I think oposition should not be in contract they are in rather than knowing I should be taking them off.

Another problem of mine is hiding Partners smaller mistakes behind some of my klangers.

Would it be any defence if I said that I know my Partner would make a game try bid with a minimum and a 6 card suit