Take a look at following auctions:
pass - 1♣ - pass - 1♠
pass - 2♠ - Dbl - pass
3♦ - pass - pass - pass
2♦! - pass - 2♠! - pass
pass - Dbl - pass - 2NT!
pass - 3♣! - pass - 3♦
pass - pass - pass
Yes, these are the auctions from 1 board played at 2 tables! It was the match we played against one of the Danish teams (Blakset). At both tables we were doubling our opponents in 2♠ (both down), and at both tables our team ended up in 3♦!
The board was not fouled, everybody was sitting in the right direction, nobody was psyching,...
Here it is:
In the open room, the auction started pretty standard. The raise to 2♠ seems unnecessary to me because there are lots of values in the doubleton. Nevertheless the North player decided to raise. Now East had a clear Double, showing his values, red suits, length in ♣ and shortness in ♠. West was afraid to leave it in and decided to play 3♦.
In the closed room, West started with a "trash mini-multi", showing a poor hand with at least a 5 card Major. North (me) couldn't double that, because we play Dbl as takeout opposite a 2♥ opening. Whatever action we want to take opposite a 2♠ opening can usually wait a round. So East bid a 2♠ P/C which went back to me. Now I had a takeout Double, although my ♦s were a bit short. South was too afraid to leave that in, and started a Lebensohl sequence to 3♦.
Our team mates in the open room made 7 tricks, we only made 6, for a nicely combined total of 13. Christina Mortensen (= West in the closed room) claimed they defended better! :-)
So where did it go wrong? I'm not entirely sure (and my opinion is biased anyway), that's why I posted 2 polls on the Bridgebase forums:
At the moment, it seems like people agree with Gert's decision to run, while they don't agree with the decision in the open room.
Maybe some will not agree with my takeout Double, who knows? An auction like 2♦ - 2♠ usually points out the weakness of the ♠ fit, so I really thought my partner would probably pass 2♠x. Well, he didn't, but I can't blame him.