This was our first hand, and it put us in a hole from which we never recovered.
Board #1
North dealer
Neither side vulnerable
| | North
♠ Q 9 8
♥ J 10
♦ K 10 6 5 3 2
♣ A 3
| | West
♠ A K 5
♥ Q 5
♦ J 9
♣ K Q J 8 5 4
| | East
♠ 10 7 4
♥ K 9 8 7 6
♦ Q 8
♣ 9 7 6
| | | South
♠ J 6 3 2
♥ A 4 3 2
♦ A 7 4
♣ 10 2
| |
|
| | | | |
| South | West | North | East |
| | 2♦ | P |
| 3♦ | 4♣ | P | P |
I am old, and I have played (not counting the games with the robots) more than two hundred hands since this one. I am therefore not certain about the auction. If it was as stated above, West made a very risky 4♣ bid, but neither North (me) nor South felt that their hands had the wherewithal to double. I think that, given the auction, both of these evaluations were sound.
So, West managed to find eight tricks for down 2. The -100 result was a top, because everyone else made nine tricks in diamonds, and one pair found a tenth.
The problem, as I see it, was my first bid. A bid of 1♦ violates the Rule of 20* which I almost never do. However, at this vulnerability I would certainly have opened 2♦ in the first seat even if my hand had lacked the ♣A and the ♥J. South knew this very well. If I had made a slight overbid of 1♦, South would have had a better idea of the floor level of my strength. Of course, he would have a more distorted view of the ceiling.
After a 1♦ opener by North, East would pass, South would bid 1♥ (four-card majors up the line). West would probably bid 2♣. North would be very grateful for the opportunity to bid 2♦, which limits the strength of his hand and at the same time advertises his suit's six-card length. It also denies three hearts because a support double would show that. At this point North's original lie has become just a tiny fib that could be explained by saying that the ♣3 was in with his spades. Who hasn't done that?
Both East and South will presumably raise, and West will bid 4♣ as before. I have already overbid my hand, and so I must pass, as will East.
South is now in a much better position to determine whether to double. He thinks that his side has at least half of the points. This is not true, of course, but he has two tricks of his own, and surely an opening hand behind the declarer can probably match that. So, at the very least doubling is much more attractive than in the scenario that featured the 2♦ opening.
Whether South decides to double or not should take into account how the game is being scored. In a team game using IMP scoring, the double is more dangerous because it could turn a successful East-West contract from a relatively innocuous 130 to a potentially disastrous 510. In matchpoints the reasoning is different. East-West is apparently on shaky grounds. If North-South can make 3♦, then North-South must beat 4♣ by three tricks to do well. Doubling lowers that threshold to only two tricks.
On the other hand, when North opens 2♦, the responsibility for doubling is his. He has an absolute maximum, and there is no other way to get this information to South. Unfortunately, at that point the only thing that North knows about South's hand is that it holds three diamonds.
As I mentioned, we beat 4♣ by two tricks. If the contract had been doubled, our 0 would have been transformed into a top, and we would have won.
Kudos to East-West for being so aggressive. As they say, Fortune favors the bold. Sometimes.
* Rule of 20: Add the number of high-card points to the number of cards in your two longest suits. If the total is 20 or more, the hand is eligible for opening at the one level. In this case that would result in 10+6+3=19.