[Neobas]

Last Sunday me and my partner failed to qualify for the Channel Trophy, a youth even between the juniors schools and girls of the Channel countries France, Belgium, England and the Netherlands.

Against an especially youthful partnership (13 and 12) the following happened:

Scoring: IMP

---

W N O Z
- p 1♣ p
1♦ p 1NT p
p 2♥ p p
X p 3♣ p
3♦ p p p

I apologize for the messy auction both in real life and the way it came out in the post Now that we discussed this hand we figured X should be for penalties, because one wouldn't want to speculate on a possible 3 card ♠ with p if E has 4 or 5, since it might force you to play 3m like here.

Comments are welcome!

[Codo]

I play "in doubt any X is negative/take out". I have some well defined sequences where a double is penalty and this one is not in the list.

But still, it surely is penalty. There is zero sense to play it as take out.
I really think you should use 2 spade as showing 4 spades and short hearts here if you want to fight for the partscore. There is no other use for this bid.

[helene_t]

Makes sense but 2♠ could easily be perceived as forcing.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Nov 17 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

Makes sense but 2♠ could easily be perceived as forcing.

After passing 1N?

[helene_t]

lol sorry, you're right. I should have kept my first reply when I just wrote that I agree with Roland.

[andy_h]

I would have responded 1♥ rather than 1♦.

[Gerben42]

Responding 1♦ is normal.

On the meaning of Dbl: I 100% disagree with Codo, there's no way this Dbl is penalty if you have the meta-agreement (I also have that one). On the actual hand there is no reason to bid anyway, so they have a 5-2 fit and the suit splits 4-2. The cost of 2♥x making is so high, it's not worth the risk with about ANY hand that passed 1NT.

I would Dbl on

Axx
xx
Kxxxx
Qxx

expecting to fight for the part score.

With the actual hand I have no reason to think we have a fit or we can beat 2♥ by two tricks, so I would simply have passed it.

[Jlall]

X is penalty.

Gerben, there's no reason to see why we might beat 2H more than 1? What?

LHO couldn't even overcall 1H, and has now stuck their neck out to bid 2H so we know they have nothing. We know they have at most 7 hearts and could easily have only 6. We know we have at least have the deck. We know our heart spots are great. We know we have a stiff in partners suit which is good on defense. We know the opps are 12 and 13 which increases the inevitability that LHO has a really stupid hand (12 and 13 year olds like to bid 1H over 1D, they are not passing with anything marginal, meaning their balance is even more marginal).

I mean this north hand is very typical. Meanwhile partner only had 3 hearts (unlucky!), had neither black ten (unlucky!), had no aces, the clubs are onside, the diamond is onside, and you still beat it at least 1, and that's if they play it perfectly. It is easy to see how if we changed this layout around slightly we could beat them 3.

It is criminal not to be able to double them on this auction.

[jdonn]

Totally agree, double has to be penalty. How many suits can we either deny a fit in or investigate a fit in and not find one before doubles finally become penalty? And if I was west here I'd be disappointed they aren't down even more, the 2♥ bid was a gift from heaven.

[P_Marlowe]

# 1C ok
# 1D ok, obviously you play no Walsh, which simplifies life
# 1NT ok
# Pass
# 2H by North - the right spirit, but the wrong hand
# X by West is unclear, ..., I think both penalty and t/o make
sense, although the case for penalty is stronger, since opener
wont have a card major, which he denied with 1NT
The alternative is, to play the X as optional, showing max. and
at least 3 cards, wont have helped a lot in the given situation,
but the frequency will be higher
# 3C makes sense, if the X was understood as t/o
# 3D similar as 3C

All in all, the auction was not big disaster.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Playing 2S over 2H as some kind of t/o makes certainly sense,
which means the case for X being t/o looses lots of his arguments.