[Free]

Might be trivial, but what the hell... This deal was one of the conversation topics at the bar afterwards. Here's what happened at our table (don't remember the exact play though)

---

♠ lead, result 7♣x-1

[broze]

It's not particularly constructive to assign much blame on these goulash deals but East's bid seems ridiculously unilateral. He deserved to find Jx opposite instead of QJ to 6! 100% East, even if the pen x is a bit weird.

[kenberg]

I am wondering if the X was intended to elicit a diamond lead. The 2H call promised only 4+ hearts and if we trade the heart 4 with the diamond 4 then 7C comes in after the spade lead.
Because of the rapid rise to the 6 level, E must do some guessing. He might (and did) guess 7C without being sure of all suits being under control but it seems unlikely that he would do it without a spade control.

But auctions such as this are always a guess. Very suitable for discussion at the bar, but don't expect a clear resolution.

I don't think 7C is crazy. Unsuccessful, but not crazy

[steve2005]

kenberg, on 2015-August-02, 06:01, said:

I don't think 7C is crazy. Unsuccessful, but not crazy

Partner doubled major 2-suiter for penalty. Sure he could have some strange hands doubling this unusual 2♥ bid. However there is so reason to expect A♦ and a club fit needed to make 7♣.

[gszes]

I hate the 2hx bid since it should be reserved for a 1 suited heart hand. Partnership agreement on the meaning of 2s is important since if it is michaels that would be a better choice than x. W/O michaels 2s can be a relay to 3c (intending to POC with a competitive minor suit hand or some kind of game forcing hand) and if not that it would seem vastly superior to pass since bidding 3c here is a massive overbid. This would seem to make it 100 % west but that is not what I mean at all since partnership understanding might prevent west from doing anything useful.

East must realize there is a huge difference between an actual guess and pure masterminding. There is little to no rational reason to assume 7c is the right place to play (I would have a ton more sympathy for 7h). Eest can easily have 6/7 hearts 1/2 spades and 3+ diamonds and can certainly be void in clubs. On the other hand x of 6s seems clear cut so the decision to bid 7c on a whim is masterminding in the extreme and got the zero it deserved (and even worse east would probably be proud if 7c had made sigh).

100% east

[Cyberyeti]

steve2005, on 2015-August-02, 09:43, said:

Partner doubled major 2-suiter for penalty. Sure he could have some strange hands doubling this unusual 2♥ bid. However there is so reason to expect A♦ and a club fit needed to make 7♣.

I would like to know what their definition of a penalty double looked like, I was surprised to see an 8 count there, E might have been expecting something rather bigger, but he does have a lot of diamond losers.

[Free]

The strength of the penalty Dbl isn't clearly defined actually. The agreement is:
Dbl = penalty
2♠ = like a takeout Dbl

[Fluffy]

with those agreements you don't have any option but to double. Its your only way to recover a heart fit.

East gambled too much.

[frisbee]

If this were a Goulash event, I would dislike West's Double and I would have no strong objection to East's bid (but I would Double instead of bidding 7♣). If this were a regular event, then I would disagree completely with both East-West bids.

I do not consider this Double of 2♥ to be strong enough to be a penalty double showing ♥s. Also, when a Double is supposed to be a penalty double of a two-suiter, the Doubler needs stuff in both suits. Here, all the Double did was encourage North to make a great bid of 6♠ to put maximum pressure on the opponents.

Assessing blame: 70% West and 70% East ... yes, that is more than 100%, but both bids were poor choices.

[ggwhiz]

A fundamental rule I learned early was to never double the only thing you can defend. Did west really expect them to sit for this?

Whatever happens after the double wests hand is criminally inadequate.

[rmnka447]

East's 7 ♣ bid deserves the result it got. There's no way to know if 7 ♣ is a make. East can't know if West even has a ♣ fit. So the bid is strictly from another world.

The only thing East knows is that 6 ♠ is unlikely to make. Holding the ♠ A and on opening lead against 6 ♠, East is sure to get 2 shots at defeating the contract. If North/South have compensating voids and can rough out East's side A's to make so be it.

East should sit for 6 ♠ as it is the most likely positive.

[helene_t]

West gets the blame. What's the point of doubling 2♥ just to show hearts. You know they are bidding spades and your double is not helpful at all then. You don't even particularly want a heart lead.

[BillPatch]

rmnka447, on 2015-August-11, 19:55, said:

....
East should sit for 6 ♠ as it is the most likely positive.

Agree with everything but that last sentence. With any rational partner E should make a penalty double. But maybe E has seen similar bids from this partner before?

[BillPatch]

helene_t, on 2015-August-12, 02:04, said:

West gets the blame. What's the point of doubling 2♥ just to show hearts.(sic) You know they are bidding spades and your double is not helpful at all then. You don't even particularly want a heart lead.

I agree that West call deserves 100% blame. But East call is worse. Bidding a grand slam when partner has promised zero support. 110% blame!

[cherdano]

Free, on 2015-August-02, 14:11, said:

The strength of the penalty Dbl isn't clearly defined actually. The agreement is:
Dbl = penalty
2♠ = like a takeout Dbl

Sorry, you have to define what double means, "penalty" doesn't fit for constructive continuations. Either it's like a heart overcall, or its strongish balanced-ish, you can't use it for both.

Mind you, no matter which agreement I don't think West has a double, and East's 7♣ bid is obviously crazy. But if you want the discussion to be constructive, you also need to sort out the agreement.