Kalvan14

[hv=n=s32haq76d2ckqj976&w=s74h9852dkj4cat84&e=sqjt65hkjt43d93c5&s=sak98hdaqt8765c32]399|300|Bidding is: 1D-(P)-2C-(2N)- X-(3H)-X-P-P-P[/hv] Welcome to the real world, guys. W jumped in with a crazy bid (7 losers without indications of possible fit, and with oppos committed to try for a game :) ) but he found E holding a treasure. 3♥X went 2 down. Peanuts, but try playing 3N or 5D. There is not a single card well placed, and you get to N hands a couple times if you are lucky. Bridge is a game of fits, and of fitting hands. This is not one such, and the bidding warned you of this. There will be difficulties in communications (which will be just in clubs). Spades is out as a possible trump; with 7 diamonds in your hand, you will be lucky to find pard with 2. You have 5 losers to place. Should I go on? I looked at the results at the end (this was the 1st hand played) and we were the only one to write in our column. The score included a slight majority of 3NT, one 6♦X and the balance were 5♦. All down.

What goes today for an overcall over 1NT would have been off-limits 20 years ago :) However, the theory of assumed fit does promises that you have 2 chances in 3 to find a fit when you bid with two 4-card suits, and it is a clear incentive not to be shy. Which is really proven by facts: you may have to pay the occasional 500 or 800, but, on average, you gain. Kindly note that this applies to both MP and IMP (and I would assume to BAM too). I am a big supporter of DONT to overcall 1NT. It is simple and quite effective (IMHO the most effective overcall system). The advancer has just one rule: be always a pessimist, and don't {DONT :lol: } change suit unless you're doubled and you have reasonable chances to find a better fit; a less-known corollary to Murphy's law states that if you hold a 9 cards 2-suiter, pard will have no fit :P . The theory of assumed fit should be used as a general pre-emptive tool: I am not sure how ACBL rules are; OTOH, Australia is quite a free country, and EBU has relaxed a number of the most stupid rules. My recommendation is to go for the maximum that you're allowed in pre-empting at the 2-level. I play 2♦ multi, 2♥ weak with 4/4 in the majors, 2♠ Dutch style. I am even thinking to ditch 2♣ GF to play 2♣ as a weak 3-suiter (or 5-4-3-1) with clubs as anchor suit. Which anticipates the last suggestion: it is better (much, much better) when pard can pass your bid ;) Which is another reason for liking DONT.

I doubled: I agree that defending against 3♥ based on a fit of (8)9 trumps (CHO would not double without 4 hearts, and there is say a 10% chance that he might have 6 clubs and 5 hearts) might not be best; OTOH, if really pard has 9/+ cards between clubs and hearts, what are you going to play? 3NT? Double here means that you can (and will) double for penalty at least one of the oppos 2-suiter. According to expectations, LHO bids 3♥, and CHO doubles.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=sak98hdaqt8765c32]133|100|Scoring: MP 1D-(P)-2C-(2NT)* ??? *Major 2-suiter[/hv] You're playing a SAYC equivalent system

You would prefer to ruff a ♥ then win when they are 4-3 whoever has the J. Our line doesn't allow these even on ♦3-3. And what is worse,even if LHO is squeezed on 4th trump you do NOT KNOW yet, and your discard from dummy will be blind. That's why I realice now playing ♥KQ after ♣ruff might have a point. (Dunno the exact % of 4-3, but it is above 60%), problem is if they aren't, being ruffed by EITHER opponent will leave you with no chacne at all. Fluffy, if I ruff a club, I reach 11 tricks, and squeeze combinations are better. I know I loose the chance of Jxxx in hearts. It is untrue that I have to make a blind discard. After ruffing club, I come back to my hand with A♥, draw a trump ,and - if diamonds are 3-3 - I go back to dummy with K♠ to cash K/Q♥ (and see if the J♥ tumbles down). If diamonds are 4-2 I have to decide what to play on. If RHO opponent holds 4 diamonds, I can once again follow the same line of play. If LHO holds 4 trumps, I have to decide what suit is better (hearts is more likely, but spades leaves open squeeze chances (Spades/clubs).

Robert, 3♠ is not a splinter raise in diamonds. 3♠ (as Western Q bid) asks partner to bid 3N with a stopper ib spades (if LHO had overcalled in hearts, the Western Q would have been 3♥). It is just a coincidence that I have diamonds, and/or a shotness in spades. My hand might have been: xx xx xx AKQTxxx. Regards

IMHO, it was quite lucky that LHO bid 3♠ :D I would not be surprised if CHO has a singleton diamond (for simmetry with my singleton heart :P ) and over 3♦ bids 3♥, confident to find at least tolerance in my hand. This is one of those funny hands where everyone is bidding. The only sure thing is that my hand and LHO's hand total 3/4 of the deck's honors. CHO and RHO have to do with a bare 10- HCP between themselves. A very good hand for CHO would be xx KJTxxx x Q(orJ)xxx. Anyone cares to defend 3♠ doubled with that lot? If EW can make 3♠, it is the normal par for the hand. If they go 1 down it is very good, doubled or not. 3♠X= would be an obvious zero. Pass, be quick!!

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqjxhqjtdaj9xcqtx&s=sxhxxdktxxxxxcaxx]133|200|Scoring: MP 1D-(1S)-??[/hv] Well, 5♦ was also my choice. It is quite unfortunate that CHO's hand was not exactly suited for a 5-level contract. You will note that 3NT is 99% a laydown (ok, there is always the chance of LHO playing a small heart for RHO, who returns the ♠T; after smothering the 1st small honor, LHO plays a small club :D ). In practical life, 3NT IS a laydown. 5♦ is one down, next hand. Thinking about it afterwards, I almost became convinced that 3♠ (asking to bid 3N with a spade stopper) is the best bid. And please note that I am not spoofing: if pard bids 3N, I will be perfectly happy to play it.

I agree with Hannie. IMHO, this new overcall gadget does not show any advantage over DONT or Cappelletti (which I consider quite effective, in particular DONT). The 2♣ interference is very weak: no interdictive value, and you already show both your suits. It makes easy for oppos to decide if they are in fit, or want to penalise. Double to show values is a wasted bid. 2♦ either major would not be a big disadvantage, but you loose all the hands with diamonds and a major (or you have to take the push to level 3). A 3-suiter is one of the worst hand in bridge, neither fish nor fowl. Committing to play at 3-level (even if the chances of assumed fit are obviously good) is way too risky. In general, I find it more useful to make an overcall over which pard can (and most of the time will) pass. A transfer bid relieves the pressure on the responder to 1NT. I would not be very excited at the idea of reaching a playable game after oppo has opened 1NT (strong). The frequency of such an auction is way too low to justify a bidding structure. The guy who opens a strong NT is already showing 35% of the HCP in the deck. The aim of an overcall is disturbing the opponents' auction, and ideally push them toward a wrong contract

The only case in which you might find 3 diamonds in front of you is if he has 4-4-3-2 exactly. Reasonably you should assume a 4-card suit. I am surprised by the number of 2♠. I would have expected that 3♠ (Western Q) would be more effective if you target a 3NT contract. 2♠ is a less interdictive bid, and might not convey the message. There is the non-irrelevant issues of who has the hearts. In any case: over 2S, LHO bids 3H and CHO passes over 3S, LHO doubles and partner bids 3NT

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=s5h65dkt87654ca52]133|100|Scoring: MP 1D-(1S)-??[/hv] Surprise, surprise. System is 2/1 (better minor)

I would had played this way, then found dummy is squeezed too late. Dummy is squeezed, but you can control the situation. The 5th heart can be discarded without any problems. If diamonds are 3-3, everything is fine. If not, I can check the hearts before it is too late.

2♣, and then 2NT is the book bid. I admit I would be sorely tempted to bid 3NT :) (and possibly i would take this action at the table)

T3: A♣ T4: small ♣ ruff with small ♦ in dummy T5: A♥ T6: K♦, discarding small ♥ (if ♦ are 3-3, small spade to K, K & Q ♥; if J♥ has come down, 12 tricks. Otherwise back to hand with ♠A, and ♦T for a squeeze). If ♦ are 4-2, with 4 cards in RHO, I am still going to dummy, and playing K & Q ♥). If LHO has 4♦, I would play the last round of trumps, discarding a heart. Then K♠, K & Q ♥, and back to hand with A♠. I win with spades 3-3 or spades 4-2 with control in clubs in the hand with 4 spades. This is a line of play i would selet at the table. i have not gone through the calculations of all the percentages. However, leading a trump against this slam might make me feel that RHO has a slow trick in both majors. If trumps are 4-2, I would expect that LHO has 4.

This looks the most sane auction on this hand. I would pass: I have already shown a GF hand, with 18/+ HCP. NT looks the best denomination with my cards. Why should I penalise N with his 7-8 HCP? The problem will be landing this 3NT contract (there might be communication problems)

N is the oddest fish, without any doubt. He decided to swing, not showing his pre-empt either on the 1st or on the 2nd round of bidding. Then, when an "impossible" 2♦ contract comes back to him, he suddenly decides it is time to show his hearts???? This hand is something out of Bridge Menagerie :)

Most of the fault is with bad luck: duplication of values and mirrored hand. N might have overbid a bit.

I would have never passed (3♦). Opener's hand is worthwhile in attack values, but is likely to be quite a disappointment in defensive values. I am not surprised by partner holding a fit in hearts. In my book, this shows a limited fit for sure (no more than 3 cards) and better than minimum values for his redouble. Assuming I passed, I would bid 5♥ now. I have given partner a completely wrong picture of my hand. Trusting him to make the right decision now it would be a bit too much (and as they say 2 mistakes might cancel out :) )

3♥ is really going for a swing. I would pass most of the time on this hand. Last but not least among the reason for a pass is that EW might be 4-4 in spades (with N holding 5 :) ). It would be quite funny if my 3♥ overcall succeeds in steering them away from the bad 4♠ contract toward a 3NT making (or penalising my 3♥ :( )

My vote here is for 2NT: the hand has a good play in 3NT if partner has a decent diamonds suit (and before you ask, 2NT should promise a fit in diamonds). With the given hand, advancer would certainly accept the invitation to 3NT. I believe that pass would be a very shy action, considering the 4 quick tricks (and - strange to say - the opener's hand is not really very strong in defense, even if there are the same 4 tricks). To complete the picture: 2S should be either a GF hand with fit in diamonds and unbalanced hand or a balanced hand with diamonds fit but no stopper (or insufficient stopper) in spades. Clearly the latter option is the priority for advancer. 3D is an unbalanced hand, invitational in diamonds (the GF hand is included in 2S)

It is a clear invitational hand: nice controls, and nice intermediates. Passing would be against the field if opener has a 15 HCP hand.

IMHO, the difference between SAYC and other systems is that SAYC is what its name says, i.s. Standard American Yellow Card. A system which should be well defined, since it is the basis for most of the propaganda efforts of the ABCL (as an aside, I do not have anything against this. It is reasonable, and advisable, that a federation promotes a standard system). I would even go forward, and would make it mandatory to use SAYC for beginners bridge lessons, and for events below a certain rating. I have truly difficulties in believing that a sequence 1M-2m-3m can be passed. Opener has not defined at all his hand, he has just shown some shape. Given the nebulous range of a SAYC 2/1, I am strongly convinced that this sequence is forcing up to game or 4m. Anyway, my partner on that hand must have had his own doubts, since he came back with a (forcing) 2♦. Obviously, the bid tray comes back with a 4♦ by S. What now?

Overcalling a 15-17 is quite often a valubale opportunity. I play DONT too, and th method is quite effective, provide you handle properly this aggressive tool. It is more a matter of losers (and of having decent intermediates in your suit) than of holding points. And I dound out with pleasure that a 5-4 shape is more than adequate. The posted hand does not match any of the criteria for a vulnerable overcall; the answer should be "never". OTOH, at times you might be in need of a swing, or you might be playing weak oppos or whatever, so I'll amend my answer to "almost never"

I would upgrade the Kxx x AKJxx Axxx hand to 16 HCP, and open 1♣. The nice shape and the control richness make it almost automatic :( . Going back to the original question, the real choice is between pass and double. I have voted for pass, but IMO it is not the landslide consensus that is being recorded here. It is just the most conservative auction, and the one which avoids possible disasters. You may often end up with both 3♥ and 4♣ making. A support double at 3 level is not so rare. I play the convention up to 3♠ level, and I do not remember any astounding problem. Bidding style is a matter of choice and personality (IMHO, the bidding system you choose and in particular the convention/treatments you add should give a good indication on your personality). However, aggressive bidding style has always paid; it is a legend that an aggressive style is just a modern trend. Obviously, aggressive does not mean reckless; and your aggressive bidding style must be backed by sound declarer's play skills. Otherwise you will reach a lot of marginal contract, and will go down in most of them :)

Scary hand. 1♣ doubled was taken out by opener to 1♠, and you want to jump to 3♣? The 5 points you hold may not bring a trick, and your fit in ♣ consists of 4 small ones. IMO best bid might be passing 1♠, and going back to 2♣ if oppos double for penalty.