[mikl_plkcc]

I held:

---

I didn't know what 1NT meant in this sequence - I suspect it meant some form of ♠ stopper. I wanted to force partner to bid a 4-card unbid suit but turned out he was 4♦333, and their doubled contract made.

He got angry and told me that his 1NT meant he was forced to bid with a rubbish hand (his hand was really rubbish) and he told me I should know his hand was rubbish because they had all the points because they both had bid, but I treated it as a free bid showing willingness to make 1NT because N had XXed.

Who's fault here?

[Cyberyeti]

Nobody forced partner to bid with nothing to say, 3343 is not implausible for 1N, but should have some values if that's the shape.

[smerriman]

Your partner can pass the xx with nothing to say; it's obviously not a penalty pass.

But you've already doubled twice; partner has already denied a fit and clearly doesn't want to bid on over 2♦ so doubling a third time seems crazy.

[P_Marlowe]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2021-November-03, 10:12, said:

I held:

---

I didn't know what 1NT meant in this sequence - I suspect it meant some form of ♠ stopper. I wanted to force partner to bid a 4-card unbid suit but turned out he was 4♦333, and their doubled contract made.

He got angry and told me that his 1NT meant he was forced to bid with a rubbish hand (his hand was really rubbish) and he told me I should know his hand was rubbish because they had all the points because they both had bid, but I treated it as a free bid showing willingness to make 1NT because N had XXed.

Who's fault here?

The 2nd double asks to choose between clubs and hearts, if there was no XX, he should do so.
XX allowes him to say, no preference with Pass, you get another chance to bid.
1NT showes stoppers, mainly in diamonds and some values.
Given that, the 3rd X is not unreasonable.

Now there is a school, that plays pass of XX as saying, I wanted to convert the TOX, but this
cant be the case, he had the chance to X the 1S bid to show spades ... unless you played it
as responsive, in which case he would have values / and length in hearts and clubs.

Finnally unless this is a deal in a championship, there is no reason to get angry, the auction
in unusual, and there are some points up to discuss for the partnership.
Use the deal to discuss some of the above points.

[Winstonm]

This auction is weird. Opener passed what is considered a forcing bid by anyone I know so he either psyched his opening or has made a gross error. I suspect the latter as partner would have been able to expose the psyche by bidding. So I don't see at this point any reason to further describe my hand to my opponents and give them a second chance to find the correct contract.

I would have let them struggle in 1S; however, as that is not an option in the OP, I would say after the second double partner should not make a free bid unless holding some values worth expressing.

Therefore, I acquit myself unanimously.

[LBengtsson]

50/50. your partner should have not bid 1NT with garbage. you should not have X opps. 2♦ (that is for partner to do as you have shown a better hand with the second X) partner knows you have ♥/♣ after the second X: he does not pick a suit but bids 1NT. that is warning, even though 1NT is a bad bid.

you do not have enough to X a third time. you should be able to work partner is 3343/4333 shape here. all his points - should he have some - are under the opening bidder. your four controls gave you impression that you had a better hand than you think. the opps may have arrived in a nine card trump fit in 2♦. it is not surprising they made the contract.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Winstonm, on 2021-November-03, 14:43, said:

This auction is weird. Opener passed what is considered a forcing bid by anyone I know so he either psyched his opening or has made a gross error. I suspect the latter as partner would have been able to expose the psyche by bidding. So I don't see at this point any reason to further describe my hand to my opponents and give them a second chance to find the correct contract.

I would have let them struggle in 1S; however, as that is not an option in the OP, I would say after the second double partner should not make a free bid unless holding some values worth expressing.

Therefore, I acquit myself unanimously.

If they were red I would certainly pass the 1♠ and pocket the penalty. However, given that they were white, if they could get a -1 instead of we making a partscore on a 4-4 fit we would have lost a few IMPs.

What my partner held was a single K in ♣, with no other points. I thought he should pass after the XX but he thought he had to bid something there, and he had no stoppers in ♠.

[Winstonm]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2021-November-03, 16:46, said:

If they were red I would certainly pass the 1♠ and pocket the penalty. However, given that they were white, if they could get a -1 instead of we making a partscore on a 4-4 fit we would have lost a few IMPs.

What my partner held was a single K in ♣, with no other points. I thought he should pass after the XX but he thought he had to bid something there, and he had no stoppers in ♠.

I agree your partner should pass. But I think you are overvaluating your hand.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Winstonm, on 2021-November-03, 17:43, said:

I agree your partner should pass. But I think you are overvaluating your hand.

What's the reason that you think 2♦ by them making would be the best result of us? Remember that at balancing position bids are made lighter than at the direct position.

[DavidKok]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2021-November-04, 05:58, said:

What's the reason that you think 2♦ by them making would be the best result of us? Remember that at balancing position bids are made lighter than at the direct position.

The point is that your partner knows all this, and chose to pass anyway. You need to have a significant extra message to to overrule that decision - usually an extra ace or so.

Put differently, after your two doubles partner has a much more accurate picture of your hand than you have of their hand. Therefore the partnership will do best if your partner makes the final call. And they have, it was the pass over 2♦. Only if you have reason to suspect partner has an entirely inaccurate view of your hand is it right to take further action.

[mycroft]

Agree with David. I am a zealot when it comes to "opps don't play 2-of-a-fit", but I've shown my hand with the first two doubles. Partner has actively resisted my efforts to play in a suit other than diamonds. He won't have totally forgotten my strong interest when his attempt to play 1NT got overridden. Normally, I believe "the short trump holder goes", but we have already said - twice - that we're the short trump holder. And partner believes it's still right to let them play 2♦ undoubled. I trust him - he knows lots about my hand and I know almost nothing about his.

I do also believe that after the redouble, that 1NT shows cards - pass still allows partner an action. But this partner obviously believed that pass would be "interest in defending 1♠xx", which is a reasonable, if old-fashioned treatment, and so did what he could to slow you down. But even if it does show cards, he still had no interest in playing this hand.

[Edit the obvious contract typo]

[Winstonm]

 mikl_plkcc, on 2021-November-04, 05:58, said:

What's the reason that you think 2♦ by them making would be the best result of us? Remember that at balancing position bids are made lighter than at the direct position.

What makes you think the best result can be: 1) discerned by looking only at your hand and 2) that you can always reach the optimum contract?

Bridge is more a game of minimizing errors than brilliancies.

[mikl_plkcc]

 DavidKok, on 2021-November-04, 07:44, said:

The point is that your partner knows all this, and chose to pass anyway. You need to have a significant extra message to to overrule that decision - usually an extra ace or so.

Put differently, after your two doubles partner has a much more accurate picture of your hand than you have of their hand. Therefore the partnership will do best if your partner makes the final call. And they have, it was the pass over 2♦. Only if you have reason to suspect partner has an entirely inaccurate view of your hand is it right to take further action.

Can't partner have a "trap pass" hand which want to penalise 2♦ but can't because an X in this position will still be a takeout double? As partner had refused to bid a suit multiple times, but he bid 1NT, I suspect that he would had a hand long in an opponent suit, a little strength (~5 HCP), and have some stoppers in both opponents' suits.

[DavidKok]

After you doubled twice double by partner is not takeout. As I said, whatever partner chooses to do over 2♦ should end the auction. That may be pass, double, or some other bid.

I don't like the 1NT call, and it was a clear misunderstanding, but your third double was sheer folly. Nobody invited you to take further action of any kind.

[Winstonm]

Hi, this is not an attack on you but a criticism for improvement. You can chose to ignore it. But first, partner made an error bidding 1NT. That is a given. But there is ,more in this hand than that.

I'm isolating 4 statements of yours in order to emphasize a correlation I see among them. My main point to you would be that improvement will only come with higher quality partners, and playing with higher quality partners only comes with accepting bridge as a partnership game. Even great partnerships will have misunderstandings - so throw those out other than to discuss them dispassionately after the game.

Quote

I wanted to force partner to bid a 4-card unbid suit

If they were red I would certainly pass the 1♠ and pocket the penalty.

What's the reason that you think 2♦ by them making would be the best result of us?

Can't partner have a "trap pass" hand which want to penalise 2♦ but can't because an X in this position will still be a takeout double?

Here is my take on the statements I chose to post:
First, if I picked up this hand and RHO opened 1D I would double - but I wouldn't do so to force partner to do anything. The purpose for my double is to inform my partner. After this, partner and I together will try to determine the best actions to take.

Second: I see no reason to think I can beat 1S. I also see no good reason to bid again for the reasons I previously stated. My hand isn't nearly that good because of the singleton ace of diamonds and the 4 miserable hearts. Give me Axxx of hearts and the 2 of diamonds and a second double makes some sense, although why I'm reopening the bidding when the opps have passed a forcing bid is still an open question.

Third, sometimes it is not about what we can score our way but about if the opponents are in the wrong contract, If they are they will score less than they should and that is our best result - or best result possible. This is why 1S looks better to me. But the 2D bid is my fault, not my partner's as I was the one who reopened the bidding with my second double. If I chose to do that, I must now assume that 2D by them is our best contract and pass.

And finally, there is no reason to think that after partner has passed one spade and bid 1NT that double by him or her would be anything other than penalty so there is no trap pass possible.

My overall suggestion would be to quit trying so hard for perfection of score and try instead for clear thinking (Try to analyze as chrystal-clear-headed as Bob Hamman would be my suggestion)

[Douglas43]

In partner's shoes 2♦ doubled and made might be a sensible way of cutting my losses. It's not game. 2♥ X on a 4-3 fit and suffering forces might be really expensive.

[Gilithin]

Did 1♠ get alerted? I would certainly be asking Opener about their agreements before making a second call here. Non-forcing calls that sound forcing is an automatic alert in most jurisdictions so it seems like there may be misinformation here.

Beyond that though, your first double showed takeout of diamonds and your second showed extra values. What is it you think you have in addition for a third double? You showed your hand...twice already - at some point you have to trust your partner to make a good decision.