Lobowolf

Reminds me of the affirmative action protests at my former law school, and the corresponding charges of racism. The main difference between the liberal protestors and the people they considered racists was this: The protestors thought that certain people should be admitted to the law school, and others kept out, on the basis of race; and the "racists" didn't. Somehow, "entertaining" just doesn't quite say it (to paraphrase Will Smith in 'I, Robot').

I have to say, I'm partial to the American "If my aunt..." cliches.

We country folk often use this phrase, and so do politicians: 'Lipstick on a pig': Attack on Palin or common line? Interesting that the republicans got their panties in a wad over this. Otherwise innocent phrases pick up significance in context. If McCain were running with Romney, Obama might have used the same phrase, and it wouldn't raise eyebrows; however, he's running with a woman, and a woman who made an oft-repeated lipstick reference in front of tens of millions of viewers. Different story. Same idea, different version: Let's say a journalist asked McCain about Obama's plans for "revenue enhancements," and McCain said, "Revenue enhancements?! Let's just call a spade a spade -- he wants to raise taxes." We'd stop hearing about it ohhh...say...never. Even if McCain might have said the same thing about Hillary's economic plan, had she won.

Also worth noting that north, with the heart length, is better placed to know whether that length will suggest defending (with minor honors such as KJx, QJx, QTx that might be useless on offense) or justify competing (with either no wastage (xxx) or primary values that will be just as good on offense (Axx or even the actual holding of AKx).)

Looks more like a painful double to me, with a 10-count opposite a passed hand and with a virtually unlimited LHO (ok, he didn't open 2♣). North is the one who knows his partner has his fair share of the missing points. The 2♠ balance has some risk, and certainly isn't ideal, but I still like it. Though going for a number (even if that number's "only" 500) is a bigger disaster at IMPs than matchpoints, that danger is reduced by the opponents' being less likely to double a low-level contract at IMPs (no "matchpoint doubles" where they know they're getting a bad score if the contract makes, anyway). If the story of the hand were that south doubled with his 10-count and partner got his head handed to him in a 4-3 club fit at the three level, I wonder how many voters in an "assign the blame" poll would characterize the double as "obvious."

I guess 1d opening is nonexpert? hand not good enough for reverse?..lousy spots? Since nobody's commented, I imagine it's agreed that the hand qualifies for a reverse, though I know players who would disagree and open 1♦. It's definitely strong enough for a reverse by my standards, so I'm fine with the 1♣ opener, intending to reverse into 2♦. Pesky RHO thwarted that plan, though. I don't know that you'd get complaints if you chose not to revese either, though.

I've seen the error of my ways. I'm down with the double.

I think the "Pass wtp?" responses really fail to acknowledge the position partner faces in the passout seat when he knows he's opposite something between an average 12-count and a good 17-count. Yeah, we're worth less when partner bids our singleton, but we still have 3 aces, 4 quick tricks (and 5 sure tricks), a couple of tens, and a 5-card suit.

If I were tempted to bid anything, it'd be 2♥. But I'd hate to end up in one of those 4-3 fits where each partner thought the other had the 4.

Partner didn't know that 7 of your 10 points weren't with your RHO. I'll go out on a limb and say they have an 8-card fit.

What would 4♦ mean over 4♣?

4♣...way more offense than defense and no interest in partner sitting for 3♣x

I'd lead a low diamond, fully prepared to give my wife hell for not doubling for lead ERRRRRRRR apologize if a spade is right. That's probably why I'm unmarried.

I'd bid 2♠, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

guess I'm deluding myself :blink: I think it's clear to butt-in 1♠. However, I do agree it might not be clear to others. What would your borderline 1♠ overcall look like?

Can't say I've given this one much (any) consideration. With that disclaimer, since RHO can only tolerate 4♦, but at least 5♣, it seems that other things being equal, LHO's suit is more likely to be diamonds, and it would be better to have the double be takeout of diamonds than takeout of clubs.

Just to clarify, by "(at some point)" I mean to say that it's not necessarily inconsistent on this hand; I just mean that the more likely you are to intervene (i.e. the worse your own person "borderline overcall" might be), the less likely you (your partner) should be to balance.

Very good point emphasized by this point -- the interrelationship between the direct action tendency and the balancing action tendency. Within the same partnership, it's inconsistent (at some point) to stretch both to overcall and to balance.

It's more basic from the standpoint that it's fairly generally accepted that you show your majors (though see other thread for a hand where people were fine with supporting diamonds in lieu of showing a FIVE-card major). However, from a valuation ("Why'd we miss game?!") standpoint, the 3♦ call really undersells the value of a 5-loser hand that has a void in the opponents' suit.

I think the average life expectancy for an NFL player is under 60 years. Tough way to make a living.

Just my reading, but I certainly didn't find Fred's comments to be particularly pejorative, and to the extent that they might be perceived that way, they'd read as far less so than comments directed to Mike, who was just asking for some elaboration as a learning opportunity.

I play 3♥ as a stopper ask when I play leaping Michaels.

I must have missed it.......I really thought this was far far from clear............hope for more explanation..... btw not my hands this was a star table and south passed..... As for me, I admit I find it very frustrating when expert players say easy one spade. I play one spade shows excellent suit vul or sound opening hand. But....ty for feedback Mike - When you distinguish between vulnerable and non-vulnerable overcalls, the distinction is based on insurance against getting nailed. That's probably not going to happen at the 1-level (and if it threatens to, with a trump stack behind you, you have further insurance in that if partner chooses to make an SOS redouble, you have hearts, and if partner runs to clubs, you have those, too.) Furthermore, if you go down a few, then the opponents presumably had a game, and anyway, they're very, very rarely looking to double you at the 1-level. What's potentially more likely, when you make an indiscreet vulnerable overcall, is that partner with a fit might raise you to a higher level, and you get nailed THERE. This hand is better than it looks at first glance, though, on a couple of counts. If you're familiar with losing trick count, you'll see that the south hand is an 8-loser hand, which is generally a trick better than you'd expect from a 7 HCP hand. If a fit with partner is established (and we're talking about situations where partner with a fit raises you), then this hand has the trick-taking value of a limit raise, more or less; so if you're thinking of it as just "a 7-point hand," you're undervaluing it. Additionally, the hand has outstanding spot cards in its long suit, which really firm up the trick-taking potential and the safety value. QJTx is markedly better than Q852 with a jack in a side suit, though both situations account for 3 HCP. ATxxx isn't the best suit ever, but AT976 is better than AT642. So, again, the "filler" cards, which don't factor into the 4321 point count, suggest that the hand is worth more than you'd think if you were just counting points. This hand also has potential to find a fit with partner in hearts, which might get mentioned in a competitive auction. The shift in bidding theory, which has evolved from where overcalls looked quite a bit like opening bids to the point where the 7-point overcall is commonplace (though I wouldn't call it automatic), is reflective of a general awareness/respect for competitive bidding, the trick-taking value of fits even with a minority of the high card points, and the realization that by not fighting for the contract, you're not only getting enough of "yours," but you're making it too easy for them to get "theirs" if they always play their part-scores at the 2-level. The chance to make something, or to push them (particularly to the 3-level) to a point where they're going down is just too valuable to be overly conservative when it comes to taking action when they've gone first. In the long run, it doesn't pay to give them a free pass every time you don't have 2 of the top 3 honors or an opening bid. So the main factors that are going into "easy overcall" comments are (in no particular order) 1. The importance of competing for the partscore, particularly with 9 cards in the majors. 2. The increased trick-taking potential of the hand based on losing trick count. 3. The increased trick-taking potential of the hand based on suit texture (spot cards in the long suits). How "clear and easy" it is is a matter of partnership agreement and style. I think it's close to borderline; I don't know how much worse you could make it and still want to overcall. But since you wanted thought processes and explanations, this is sort of what you're looking at. If you wait for great suits or opening hands, then you're probably losing the partscore battle quite a bit - going -110 at both tables, for instance, and you should consider (at least on a trial basis and after discussion with your partner) loosening up your requirements for coming in, particularly at the 1-level. Spot cards, distribution, and losing trick count are all good things to look at when deciding which of those hands to make "non-passes." The reason that most of these hands pass largely without comment is that experts have generally considered hand evaluation and competitive bidding decisions like this thousands of time, and have a large bank of experience to draw from when weighing the pros and cons of bidding and passing. So very often, the internal calculus is almost automatic, the way an expert golfer might look at a lie and say "It's a 4-iron."

4♥

I don't like the ♥9 here; if West has the ♣A and no ♦A, you want him to lead a small club. Just a middle heart should suggest no glaring preference between the minors, and west should underlead the ace he has.