I have great respect for all four players at the table However I do not agree to the takeout double of 1NT by north at vulnerable position.What was his intention ? To compete at the two level or three level? West has opened 1SP which shows at least 12/13 points. East has responded 1NT generally shows no support for spades unless he has 3card spade support and invitational values So this is going to be part score competition against spades Pl note that E/W are still unlimited west upto 11/12 points If East had 6 spades he is going to bid 2SP anyway. So what is the point in doubling 1NT for better score ? Had north quietly passed 1NT ( assuming it as forcing) East would have bid 2Clubs ( better minor) and west would correct to 2SP which will be passed all around North now knows that west has got 5 spades . The hand should therefore be defended As you can see 2SP goes one down at least So instead of going for - 300 N/S could have got + 100 I was surprised to see 2H was bid at other table also and was allowed to make Submitted for your comments . Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks for the comment. You certainly have a point there. Is the double of 1Nt a good idea here? Are 12 HCP sufficient in terms of strength? A simulation alone can answer that question. My sense is, without a top honour in Hearts, there is an additional risk of an unfavourable lead if Opener ends up conducting a Spade contract. That, too, should be taken into account. Still, I wouldn't like to offer any firm opinion. Let us say it is a borderline double.
Thanks for a prompt reply to my comment on the above hand It was an error on my part, it was east who opened 1SP and west responded 1NT If the bidding had gone 1SP- P - P then it was correct to double in balancing seat But if the the bidding was 1SP - P - 1NT , Double by North is dangerous at vulnerable position because he knows that at the most this can be only a part score competition and double by north is not good and asking for trouble
I have great respect for all four players at the table
However I do not agree to the takeout double of 1NT by north at vulnerable position.What was his intention ? To compete at the two level or three level? West has opened 1SP which shows at least 12/13 points. East has responded 1NT generally shows no support for spades unless he has 3card spade support and invitational values So this is going to be part score competition against spades Pl note that E/W are still unlimited west upto 11/12 points If East had 6 spades he is going to bid 2SP anyway. So what is the point in doubling 1NT for better score ?
Had north quietly passed 1NT ( assuming it as forcing) East would have bid 2Clubs ( better minor) and west would correct to 2SP which will be passed all around
North now knows that west has got 5 spades . The hand should therefore be defended
As you can see 2SP goes one down at least So instead of going for - 300 N/S could have got + 100
I was surprised to see 2H was bid at other table also and was allowed to make
Submitted for your comments . Please correct me if I am wrong
Thanks for the comment. You certainly have a point there. Is the double of 1Nt a good idea here? Are 12 HCP sufficient in terms of strength? A simulation alone can answer that question.
My sense is, without a top honour in Hearts, there is an additional risk of an unfavourable lead if Opener ends up conducting a Spade contract. That, too, should be taken into account.
Still, I wouldn't like to offer any firm opinion. Let us say it is a borderline double.
Thanks for a prompt reply to my comment on the above hand
It was an error on my part, it was east who opened 1SP and west responded 1NT
If the bidding had gone
1SP- P - P then it was correct to double in balancing seat But if the the bidding was
1SP - P - 1NT , Double by North is dangerous at vulnerable position because he knows that at the most this can be only a part score competition and double by north is not good and asking for trouble