I think there's far more than 100% of the blame to spread around
here. North's 2 bid was definitely awful. The partnership was
not playing EHAA (I would have mentioned it if so) so 2 just begs
for an adverse game swing. I'd guess that -10 is about average
for that action...what if partner had AJxxxx --- xxx AKQx? He
might pass 2 and watch it go down when 6 is making. Ouch.
2 is a sick, trite, perverted, stupid little psych. And I
don't like it, either It just begs to go for 1400.
4 was given way too much credit.
North didn't ask if the double of 2 was business or penalty.
I play that the double is takeout of hearts, but promises
adequate defense against spades, should partner work out the
psych. With AKQ10xx, just bid 3 natural. So, to run from
2x to 4x is, by my standards, abjectly stupid, clear evidence
of overuse of hallucinogenics, surely recent, almost certainly
within the previous half hour. Let's say that North knew that
the double of 2 was takeout. In that case, I'd rank 4 as about
my sixth choice, after redouble, pass, 3, 4, and 4. 4 is so
clearly superior to 4 that ... I'm running out of insults. Just
the fact that North would consider 4 shows how bad 2 was. South
is allowed to bid 2, knowing that partner won't jump to game,
because he can't have the hand to do it.
Should South pass 5? I'm really not sure. Anyone who thinks
that a pass there is forcing is hereby banished to tiddlywinks.
But South already knows that he's playing with a madman, someone
whose bidding cannot be trusted. The 4 call without seeing
North's hand is prima facie evidence of this. I'm sure South
just passed without thinking, relieved to avoid -1400. If South
had been thinking, he'd've doubled 5 to prevent partner's third
blatant error on the hand. After all, he knows that partner has
already made two howlers and cannot be trusted not to make a third.
5. What can I say about 5? Anyone who, in his right mind,
would bid 5, is not a bridge player, doesn't understand competitive
bidding, preemption, the scoring charts, ..., and has an abject
lack of common sense. But we already know that North was in
some other realm of consciousness...maybe he had his nines mixed
in with his aces.
So, I give North 77% for the 2 opening. The team only lost
13 IMPs on the hand, and 10/13 is 77%. (I figure that 2 deserves
to lose ten.) I give South 100% for 2. It's a stupid psych,
and anyone who psychs on a hand gets the blame for the disaster.
Which brings up a techical point of blame management---here each
partner psyched. How can they each get all the blame? Onward.
4 is moronic---forgetting to find out if the opponents were
in a misunderstanding, failing to realize that 2x was a likely
final contract...all that costs 600 points (vs. 3x). That's
another 13, which is 100%. South's pass of 5 is worth about
10%. I don't think anyone in the whole world would think of
doubling at the table after East has let South have his pants back.
We'd all be too busy putting them back on. Finally, 5 is so
egregious, such a stupid error, that I'm giving it credit for
the 13 actually lost plus another 13 for the 700 that could have
been gained if 5 went down, so it is worth 200%. That's 377%
for North, who personally, by my count, blew 49 IMPs on one board.
I hereby nominate this for a record. So, 377% North, 110% South.
Oh...a little excoriation is due East/West. 5 was really really
stupid. The first double was a little bit of a stretch; I'd pass
and double back in to show a good defensive balanced hand. After
all, 2 was forcing.