Which of the two?

[nikos59]

At game all, you hold

 

A 10 3

J

A J 10 4

A J 8 6 4

 

LHO deals and passes, pard passes too and RHO opens 1D.

I guess that double or 1NT is not an option

for most of us (but I may be wrong), so there are

but two options:

2C or pass.

 

What do you choose?

 

ns

[Elianna]

I like to bid 2♣ over 1♦ whenever I can, and this hand looks quite reasonable for that, so I'll venture a 2♣ bid. I avoid playing imps when I can, so consider this answer as if the question was matchpoints. :blink:

[Guest Jlall]

Pass. Hate my suit for bidding, and I'm not too worried as pard is a passed hand. Admittedly I could get stolen from.

[Walddk]

PASS. I need a better club suit for a 2-level overcall vulnerable. Pass does not deny a good hand (too many diamonds).

 

Roland

[awm]

Assuming it's IMPs, I'll go with pass. Perhaps I can balance in later with a club bid or a double of hearts, if the auction seems about to end. My suit is a bit poor for the overcall.

 

At MPs I would bid 2♣ though. The 1♦-(2♣) auction often seems to get opponents to land in the wrong partial.

[whereagles]

I bid 2♣. This is an overcall that can mess up things for opps, so I'm doing it. IMPs or MPs, any vulnerability. The diamond lenght makes it safer than otherwise it would be with such a broken suit.

 

Note also that pard passed, so he probably doesn't have 6 hearts (would have opened a weak 2). Another hint that 2♣ is safe.

[Gerben42]

Important to pass at IMPs, the suit is terrible.

Since partner is a passed hand I"ll pass at MP also.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass

 

Marlowe

[nikos59]

Sorry, I forgot to specify that this was Imps.

I will post a follow-up question shortly.

 

nikos

[Gerben42]

If it's IMPs the 2♣ bidders deserve this as full hand:

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sj762hqt973d75c53&w=s98hk52dq86ckt972&e=skq54ha864dk932cq&s=sat3hjdajt4caj864]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Unlucky? Perhaps. But your length in ♦ suggest the two other players won't have many ♦, so they have more room for more ♣. If partner has them, great. If LHO has them, well, I guess we all know.

[ochinko]

I bid 2C prepared to pass 2Sp from partner, and convert 2H to 2NT. Not having problems with rebids I'd pass with such a good hand only if you reverse my clubs and diamonds.

 

Petko

[hrothgar]

Pass... The Club suit is much too weak for a Red overcall

 

I don't consider this a particularly close decision

[nikos59]

Well, it seems that 6 out of 9 replies preferred pass over 2C.

Let's see what happened at the table, the semifinal of

the Indonesia tourney last week (Sweden v IndoSeniors)

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s97542hk1098d5c1092&w=sa103hjdaj104caj864&e=sj6h5432dq8ckq753&s=skq8haq76dk97632c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Sacul passed as West, and when North bid 1S

and South rebid 2H Sacul was forced to pass

again. This was (unexpectedly?) passed out.

So, while cold for 5C, EW sold out without uttering a word; to add insult

to injury, 2H made with an overtrick.

 

But Sacul needn't worry; at the other table, Sylvan also passed as West,

North again bid 1S and now South rebid 2D. West had to pass again and

this became (less unexpectedly) the final contract. The defence was generous,

so Manoppo was allowed to make 2D and the net result was a 2-imp swing.

 

In the other match, both Wests thought that passing was far risky (as I

believe) and they bid 2C; at one table the result was 5clubs doubled+1,

at the other 500 from NS's 4Sx-2.

 

Yes, I know that one hand proves nothing at all, but it seems to me

that passers got what they deserved. After all, when I have the majority

of high cards and a 10-card fit I expect to declare contracts, not to

defend at the two-level! And if it is risky to bid 2C at my first turn,

isn't it much riskier to bid (3C?) over 2H?

 

ns

[Guest Jlall]

As I said, I might get stolen from. But like you said, this example proves nothing. Both actions have significant risk.

[SoTired]

some players are scared of bidding vul at imps because getting doubled and killed costs about 10 imps. one expert reminded me that part-score swings are about 5-6 imps. most players don't consider the risk of not bidding.

[Beto]

I am a 2♣ bidder, jsut because it is over 1♦. If the game is going well i would choose pass.

 

If i desperate need IMPs, i would try to crete a swing via 3♣.

[Al_U_Card]

Judgement is usually based on painful experience. I, too would not overcall 2C at imps as the risk is too great. Visions of -500 dance in my head.......if pard has something we will get to C if it is right.

[pclayton]

I sheepshly bid 2♣ before I saw Gerben's or Nikos' hand.

 

This hand is rather funny. Look at Gerben's example and then what actually happened. Night and day! Both auctions are totally plausible, and yet the results are wildly different. Anyone that states any action is 'clear' here, doesn't understand the game.

 

All I know is there are risks involved with passing as well as bidding. The fact that pard is a passed hand greatly mitigates the chance of scoring 11 tricks. Although, for the passers, how much better does the suit need to be? Do we need the ♣9? the ♣10? Against Gerben's layout, the possession of these doesn't help that much, and 2♣ still takes a bath.

 

Lots of guesswork involved, but clearly passing carries its own set of risks, as well as bidding.

[kfgauss]

[kfgauss]

Sorry for my hasty analysis. My guess about the size of the effect I mention (the "overcounting" effect) in the real case (ie 52 cards) is quite wrong. It's actually reasonably large.

 

Say we have 4 clubs and righty tells us he has 4 diamonds exactly (be aware that this "exactly" clause increases the effect: go back and look at the 8 card example and you'll see that the effect is basically doubled if righty had told us "I have exactly one diamond").

 

Let's compare the chances he that he has 2 clubs or 4 clubs (I'm just simplifying the conditions by only allowing these two possibilities).

 

If we have 4 clubs and 4 diamonds, he's odds on to have 2 clubs by odds of 80:49 (that is "2 clubs":"4 clubs").

 

If we have 4 clubs and 2 diamonds, he's odds on to have 4 clubs by odds of 49:44 (that's "4 clubs":"2 clubs").

 

So, giving us more diamonds makes it likely that RHO has fewer clubs by a fairly large amount it seems (a more complete analysis would be better, but I'm apparently lazy). That in turn implies that more diamonds in our hand means pard is more likely to have support, and also that LHO is more likely to have a stack (just not for Gerben's stated reason).

 

Andy

 

[Edit: One should notice that restricting things to the case where RHO has exactly 4 diamonds is really making it so more diamonds in your hand means more room in LHO & pard's hands, which isn't really true, and this is inflating the effect. In the toy model in my last post, this effect and the real effect have exactly the same -- hence the comment above about doubling. I should really check to see how they compare in the real case, as they needn't be the same size there too.]

[Fluffy]

No vulnerability or form of scoring will induce me to overcall 2♣ with a 5 card suit, let alone having such trash. We are a bit weak for 1NT but would be my choice if you add ♠J.

[Gerben42]

Sorry Nikos but saying the passers got what they deserved is a bit double dummy. I wonder what you would have written if the 2♣ overcallers would have gone for a number on a part score hand. Or if they would just have gone down quietly in 2♣ (not a number but -6 IMPs). Or perhaps if it made no difference.

 

You cannot get the optimal result every time. You can try to get the best possible result, not the best result possible (Zia)

 

No vulnerability or form of scoring will induce me to overcall 2♣ with a 5 card suit

Too bad, I'll dangle this in front of you:

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sqjth4dat54cakqjt]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

9 out of 10 would overcall 1♦ with 2♣ here, the 10th being Fluffy.

[nikos59]

For the record, about the "best possible results" vs "best results

possible": the originator of the concept is not Zia, obviously, but

S.J. (Skid) Simon, in "Why you lose at bridge"; and he was

referring mainly to partner management at rubber bridge.

 

nikos

[david_c]

For the record, about the "best possible results"  vs "best results

possible": the originator of the concept is not Zia, obviously, but

S.J. (Skid) Simon, in "Why you lose at bridge"; and he was

referring mainly to partner management at rubber bridge.

Yes, and although "Why you lose at bridge" is an excellent book, this thing has always really annoyed me. I can't see any difference between the meanings of the phrases "best possible result" and "best result possible". Of course I know what point he was trying to make, but I don't think the word order does it (except that it makes you think).

[Gerben42]

I didn't know that. I do remember that this sentence was mentioned in relation to rubber bridge, but I have found it useful in many situation (also non-bridge ones).