[benlessard]

Imps vul/vul

pass (1D) X (3D)
3H all pass

north deal

Kx
QJxxx
JTxx
Kx


AJxx
Axxx
Q
Axxx

[aguahombre]

There are so many different (worse) hands the original doubler (South) could have. I think he just has to raise to 4 on the theory no-one likes: it probably isn't making exactly 3.

[the_dude]

North has a 5cd suit, great black suit values, and assurance of singleton or void in D. And since there's no room for invitation, he needs to belt it out.

[pooltuna]

South took a very conservative view

[nigel_k]

South 60%.

I think both should have bid more, but having seen the kind of hands people double with on this forum, I have more sympathy for North than South.

[mike777]

South 25%

North 12.5%

[655321]

I think North should bid 4♥. Almost any time South has a small singleton diamond 4♥ should be a playable contract.
I think South could bid 4♥. At some point a hand will be strong enough that raising 3♥ to 4♥ isn't punishing partner for competing. This hand looks to me as though it is strong enough to have crossed that line.

So I give some blame to both, but more to North.

[scotty]

You wouldn't be surprised to make slam on these cards - in fact you're the H10 away from it being good. I have a rule: when you play a slam in a partscore bOTH players are at fault. Both players should clearly have bid 4H

[peachy]

Both players are at fault. IMPs vul it doesn't pay to go conservative.
North made the first mistake, he could easily have only a 4-card (or even 3-card suit if worst comes to worst) heart suit and close to no values, whereas his actual hand has nine (9) working HCP, a five card suit, and an auction that gives partner singleton or void in diamonds. South's error is less glaring, so I give North most of the fault. But even South could have just raised to 4H and hoped for the best; his TOX could have been on slightly slimmer values so he is not minimum. 80 N / 20 S.

[dake50]

Partner came in with 3H to play right there!
NOPE. 4H --his suggestion is well-agreed with this hand.

[Fluffy]

Bidding 3♥ is just wrong, passing 3♥ is just a close decision.

[mcphee]

3H seems to be a big underbid to me, this hand has an easy 4H bid in a position where they believe game has a play. Kx in both blacks is not at all shabby plus the D length even when facing only 3 card H support is not so horrible. Although the S hand might have bid more the N hand created a problem where there was none.

[MFA]

North underbid more than south.

[gwnn]

I can imagine falling asleep from N and bidding just 3, but I'd definitely raise from South. Maybe it's just because I like doubling on a lot of 4333's but that should be a moot point since they jumped to 3♦ so I shouldn't really fall asleep from N either.

[jdonn]

Um both? lol Either player belonged in game if you made his partner's hand worse, hmmm!

[neilkaz]

Both players should bid game Red at IMPs but I give 60% of the blame to N.

[bucky]

peachy, on Aug 11 2010, 10:44 PM, said:

Both players are at fault. IMPs vul it doesn't pay to go conservative.
North made the first mistake, he could easily have only a 4-card (or even 3-card suit if worst comes to worst) heart suit and close to no values, whereas his actual hand has nine (9) working HCP, a five card suit, and an auction that gives partner singleton or void in diamonds. South's error is less glaring, so I give North most of the fault. But even South could have just raised to 4H and hoped for the best; his TOX could have been on slightly slimmer values so he is not minimum. 80 N / 20 S.

North could (and probably should) bid more. But I disagree that "he could easily have only a 4-card (or even 3-card suit if worst comes to worst) heart suit and close to no values". I think 3H here clearly showed 4+ hearts with competitive values. It is clear for South to raise.

[dburn]

scotty, on Aug 11 2010, 10:29 PM, said:

You wouldn't be surprised to make slam on these cards - in fact you're the H10 away from it being good.  I have a rule: when you play a slam in a partscore bOTH players are at fault.  Both players should clearly have bid 4H

Perhaps, but depending on partnership style one player should far more clearly have bid it than the other.

If, as very many good players can nowadays, South can double 1♦ even opposite a passed partner with ♠Axxx ♥Axx ♦Qxx ♣Axx, then North should not bid 4♥ (even three might go down, losing two diamonds and a ruff and a trick in each major).

If South can't double 1♦ with that, then North should have bid game and gets 100% of the blame; if South can double 1♦ with that, then South should have bid game and gets 100% of the blame. If the partnership doesn't know whether South can double 1♦ with that, then they both should have bid game and both get 100% of the blame, and are enjoined to talk to one another every so often.

[655321]

dburn, on Aug 12 2010, 06:45 PM, said:

If, as very many good players can nowadays, South can double 1♦ even opposite a passed partner with ♠Axxx  ♥Axx  ♦Qxx  ♣Axx, then North should not bid 4♥ (even three might go down, losing two diamonds and a ruff and a trick in each major).

Opps have bid and raised diamonds to the 3 level and North has JTxx, he isn't worrying that South might have Qxx on this hand whatever their takeout doubles might look like in general.

Also peachy's suggestion that North might have bid 3♥ on a 3 card suit and no values is eccentric to say the least.

[gszeszycki]

Imps vul/vul

pass (1D) X (3D)
3H all pass

north deal

Kx
QJxxx
JTxx
Kx


AJxx
Axxx
Q
Axxx

100% N south saw N pass and unless S is X just because they paid their entry fee they should have reasonable values. The lack of power in diamonds opposite a virtual guarantee short dia suit make the jump to game mandatory at IMPS and I like my odds even at MP.