[Apollo81]

I would say South, but my IMP style is to GF and invite very aggressively and to accept conservatively. I might say North at MPs.

edit: on second thought I blame South regardless

[inquiry]

South, this is clearly a game foring hand at imps...

[mikegill]

I blame South. North has a 6th trump, but otherwise an unremarkable hand, and a dead min in high cards. South has a 7-loser with 4 trumps, and all his cards are behind the doubler. That means game at IMPs to me.

[mike777]

I think North has Roth Stone 2s bid for starters.
Now south may think of game or invite game if p is max.
At least you know you have a ten card fit and pard has a very decent hand.

Not sure if r/s allowed in Texas.

[skjaeran]

This was an easy one IMO.
South has to bid game with this 7-loser hand sitting over t/o doubler at IMPs. I'd not consider stopping below game at MP either, BTW.

[Fluffy]

blame the hand, or if not satisfied blame also the lack of agreements on what 1♠ promises, seems South though openings were very light.

[Free]

North chickened out, but South is imo to blame. He has GF values

[han]

Playing fairly light openings as I do it is not at all clear who gets the blame. I would bid game with the north hand, so maybe I shouldn't be forcing to game with the south hand. On the other hand, the south hand has improved after the takeout double, so maybe I should.

With an unknown partner I think S should bid game... but I shouldn't be posting this because I know what happened.

[jdonn]

It's certainly easy to blame south on general principles since he has 12 points and a doubleton, but if people think south is all to blame then who is to blame when south has the same hand minus the queen of diamonds (Qxxx Kxx xx KQxx) and the auction goes this way? Or Qxxx xxx xx AKxx when game is (essentially) 100%? Qxxx Axxx Qxxx x? Axxx Kxx Qxx xxx? Axxx xxx xx Kxxx? Axxx x Qxxx xxxx? When you are vul at imps and game is making opposite balanced 9, 8, and 7 counts, some of which are not even good enough for a limit raise, north can not get off scott free. 50% each.

[hotShot]

I don't think it is clear who is at fault and if even a fault happened.

Obviously north is opening light and he showed a 5(332) minimum hand.
But his distribution is 6232. An extra trump and 2 doubletons is some distributional extra power and his side values are worth 2 sure tricks. On a good day I'll bid 4♠ with this.
South has 12 HCP 4324 distribution, ♦Q probably wasted. Not much ruffing on both sides and a partner who opens light, I guess I would have passed too.

Both player have maximum for their bids and the hands fit nicely, but still game depends on a finesse.
It might not pay off to be in games that close.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't think an aceless 12-count is a game force.
I think this is tough, but North is worth 3D over 2NT and South will then bid game, but it's a lot easier seeing both hands.

[helene_t]

I count 7,5 loosers in South and 6,5 in North (adjust +0.5 for each queen in a long song suit, -0.5 for each queen in a short suit, and -0,5 for each ace). This suggests that the blame be shared 50/50, South's well-placed honors makes it easier to bid but even without that adjustment, LTC suggests that game is on. So it's not like the to hands fit extraordinarily well and a more subtle game try would help - the two hands are simply strong enough.

Fluffy says that lack of agreements are to blame at that may be true, but even with good agreements there will still be deals where both hands are borderline and this may be such one.

[SoTired]

I consider a 12-count with 4-card support a game-force, especially with the outside strength location known. So I would bid 4S with South's hand.

Can't blame North with an 11-count and no singleton.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 22 2007, 02:17 AM, said:

I don't think an aceless 12-count is a game force.
I think this is tough, but North is worth 3D over 2NT and South will then bid game, but it's a lot easier seeing both hands.

My thoughts too. South has a pile of quacks, and 4 card limit raise is spot on.

But North? 7 losers, but a known 10 card fit. I think the game try is in order.

[mikeh]

I agree with the actual table auction. I think that N has a maximum but entirely reasonable 3♠. The extra trump and the 4 controls are pluses, but he still has a losing trick count of 7, which is more or less what one expects in a minimum hand. The knowledge of the trump fit makes an LTC valuation of 2 in the trump suit conservative, but partner knows what he holds better than we do.

The 4♠ by S is also close: this time it is a minimum. However, he has a LTC of 7, and if he places partner with the same, then the trick expectation is 10.

Add to this the favourable placement of the opposing hcp: if the round suit Aces are missing (and at least one of them rates to be) then S's honours grow up a little compared to their initial evaluation. And it is a truism that declarer is at an advantage (unless he is down on straight power) when he knows the missing hcp are concentrated in one hand.

So I think that Justin and his partner bid well.

Obviously, style counts: if N would routinely open with KJxxxx xx AJx xx, then he should be making a gametry and S should respect a 3♠ signoff... but, in the style I am comfortable with, the actual auction makes perfect sense.

Yes, I know that one can weaken the S hand and preserve the game, but that doesn't worry me. I am never going to bid every making game... not even vulnerable at imps... and I'm not going to stay up late at night wondering how to diagnose perfect fitters in these auctions.