Only me to blame? Bad result
#1
Posted 2013-March-10, 20:10
#3
Posted 2013-March-10, 22:17
#4
Posted 2013-March-10, 22:41
- billw55
#5
Posted 2013-March-11, 00:10
I point to the SAK in doubler's hand as the reason it was such a bad result, instead of being either a make or a paying sacrifice against a making 4S.
#6
Posted 2013-March-11, 02:09
George Carlin
#7
Posted 2013-March-11, 02:50
However for me 5♣ is equally awful it's the kind of hand where it doesnt look like making and it doesnt look like a good sac. Either DBL or pass for me
Eagles123
#8
Posted 2013-March-11, 03:22
Having said that, I would not have doubled on the East hand with a passed partner, vul vs not at IMPs. And I wouldn't have bid 5♣ on the West hand.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!), but Thats funny Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#9
Posted 2013-March-11, 03:39
E's double is really bad under these circumstances. I would consider doubling a 1st seat opening with that hand, but a 3rd seat opening ... argh. Especially at this vulnerability.
It is unusual that nobody can make 9 tricks when opps have a 10-card fit, and S's final double was really inspired. If the LOTT had held then 5♣ could have been the winning decision (EW 11 tricks, NS 7) although it would more often be wrong.
#10
Posted 2013-March-11, 03:55
helene_t, on 2013-March-11, 03:39, said:
E's double is really bad under these circumstances. I would consider doubling a 1st seat opening with that hand, but a 3rd seat opening ... argh. Especially at this vulnerability.
It is unusual that nobody can make 9 tricks when opps have a 10-card fit, and S's final double was really inspired. If the LOTT had held then 5♣ could have been the winning decision (EW 11 tricks, NS 7) although it would more often be wrong.
The LOTT didn't hold in large part because of South's violation of it; Application of the Law is more than just counting one's trumps, and South has two subtractors in the rounded suits. His double was truly as "inspired" as his 4S bid was.
#11
Posted 2013-March-11, 04:51
West 5♣ is insane. Was he really expecting to make 11 tricks? Give East the ♣K and ♥A instead of ♠AK and 5♣ is still down on normal breaks.
When South triple raises West DBL does not show spades but some strength, nothing else. It is a good description of West hand.
South bidding was super aggressive, but understandable at these colors.
So yes, all blame goes to West in my opinion.
Rainer Herrmann
#12
Posted 2013-March-11, 06:57
#13
Posted 2013-March-11, 07:01
I would double instead of bidding 5 ♣, but this is a matter of partnership agreement- if this is pure penalty, I would bid 4 Nt, but 5 ♣ is not too bad.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#14
Posted 2013-March-11, 08:22
#15
Posted 2013-March-11, 08:59
Sorry, I think the double IS insane and insulting to both partners balancing abilities.
What is baby oil made of?
#16
Posted 2013-March-11, 10:21
By contrast, 5♣is merely misguided, and may be caused by poor methods or a lack of understanding at this level. West cannot comfortably pass 4♠. I'm not saying that he 'has to bid', should double be penalty. He may be playing in a partnership in which double would be taken as penalty. As others have noted, this isn't the usual use of double by advanced players: it is more commonly played as 'cards' or 'transferable values', basically announcing ownership of the hand and willing to defend if partner lacks 'extra' offensive values (which can be shape or hcp or both) and willing to compete to the 5-level otherwise.
The reason that double now usually has the 'cards' meaning is exactly the sort of dilemma that W faced here over 4♠. He has way too much to want to pass and not enough to insist upon the 5-level.
If double was penalty for this partnership then West can't be blamed for not doubling. He might have chosen a conservative pass, or an aggressive 4N as two places to play, but that latter call wouldn't make the end result any more palatable.
So E was definitely, imo, at fault and West was either at fault for not doubling or a victim of poor methods/lack of knowledge if double was penalty.
#17
Posted 2013-March-11, 11:17
#18
Posted 2013-March-11, 11:26
neilkaz, on 2013-March-11, 11:17, said:
Give partner what he rates to have: ♠xx and 12 HCP in the other 3. On many of these layouts 5C has play. I mean -- if partner has his bid, it's a 30 point deck, of which we have at least 21, and partner's most likely shape gives us a double fit with one loser in spades.
I still think dbl to show cards is best, but I don't think 5C is out in left field -- especially absent a "dbl = cards" agreement.
I hate east's TOX though.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#19
Posted 2013-March-11, 11:31
The question you want to ask is bidding 5♣ red vs. white on this specific hand a good idea opposite a whole set of hands that have this auction. I like pass and 4NT better, but I really like a value showing X if the opponents are playing a modern style.
Likewise your partner could ask if P-P-1♠-X is a good move on a whole set of hands.
#20
Posted 2013-March-11, 12:02
glen, on 2013-March-11, 11:31, said:
Yabut. Double at imps, these colours and position is so far out there that blaming pard 100% for the 5♣ bid (instead of the above approach) is north of ludicrous.
Your partnership principles (ask, don't tell) are bang on but this one breaks all of them.
What is baby oil made of?