Double Error


J 8 6 5 4 3
J 5
10 6
10 6 5
A K 7 2 Q 10
K 10 8 6 2 A Q
7 4 A K Q J 2
A Q K 9 7 4
9
9 7 4 3
9 8 5 3 Vulnerability: E-W
J 8 3 2 Opening lead: 6 of hearts

SouthWestNorthEast
Pass 1 2 Dbl
4 Pass Pass Dbl
Pass Pass 4 Dbl
Pass Pass 4 Dbl
5 Pass Pass Dbl
All pass

I haven't been entering many cockamamie sac bids lately, but this one seemed not only unduly reckless but a violation of good partnership relations, deference (not obsequiousness) when it is called for. For the record, N-S in their 11-trick contract went down exactly 11 tricks, for minus 2900 and a zero matchpoints. I confess that I cannot begin to explain such bids as South's leap to four diamonds, nor North's second bid of 4 hearts. I have no idea what they're up to. But I do believe every bid up to that 4 diamonds leap was normal and proper.
But the really costly bid was South taking his partner out of 4 spades doubled. It looks to me as though North would've had a reasonable chance of picking up two long spades -- and that's all the defense would've needed.
The E-W players were mostly, not always, reaching a grand slam for 2210 points, and two tricks in 4 spades would mean down eight for um-m-mmm, one, three, five and five times 300 or 2000 points.
No, I don't regard it as a certainty that N-S would wind up with the two long spades. There'll be a lot of decision made, and if the defense can pick up one -- or two -- of North's long spades with the short hand, then he won't have the long spades. On the other hand, if East should overruff some low spades from North, West would be looking at A K 7 2 of trump and couldn't simply draw North's holding. So I rather suspect North would've come through with two solid winners anyway, rather than none.
And I think it behooves South to trust his partner's 2 spade overcall. Period. You're not going to get a better fit. North's 4 heart bid was just a nuisance call, given that West had bid the suit very early. In any event, South has nothing to say, no points, no long suit, opposite a long suit, and he'd do well to let his partner have his way.
I have often inveighed against the foolishiness of making a sac bid with unfavorable vulnerable. I have said that I have one rule for that: Don't. Both vul gives you a little more leeway for the bid to work, but those vulnerable penalties add up. Which would seem to make sac bids at favorable vulnerability right up your alley, no? But the problem is that just because they're considerably safer than sacs at other vulnerabilities, they do invite sheer recklessness, as here. And I've seen plenty of others of like recklessness and like matchpoint score. No, you've gotta get some winners, and it behooves the careful bidder to reckon how many winners his side can count on and how many they might reasonably expect. I suspect that many of these expensive sacs weren't given consideration in either regard, i.e., that neither the number of tricks needed nor the number the bidding would indicate was taken into account.
How many points did South lose by taking his partner from 4 spades to 5 diamonds? It looks like 900 to me: He lost 600 for not having any winners at all, and another 300 for being at the 5 level instead of the 4. Make sense? Minus 2000 would've yielded a fair number of matchpoints.