Quick Poll

[Finch]

I agree with virtually everything Roland says (on this thread, at least!) but I have been known to pass on a 13 count: something like

 

QJxx

QJxx

K

KJxx

[mikeh]

I rarely disagree with Roland or Frances, so when I find myself doing so, I take a long look at my choice.

 

On reflection, I may have been overly conservative with my 2N choice, but for a reason that nobody has commented on yet, altho Frances hinted at it.

 

My initial choice of 2N was based on my belief that it is foolish to consider this hand as worth 13 points. It is clearly not. Furthermore, I am a light opener if I hold 5 controls: I will usually open a hand with AAK, unless my cards are in short suits.

 

Frances noted that she was a sound opener, and if I knew my partner to be one, I would always have bid 3N. What I missed in my analysis was that partner, by his support double, should have a sound opening bid.

 

In other words, at least in the way that I play support doubles, partner could and should pass 2♣ even with 3♥ if he is minimum. By doubling, he announces a solid opening hand: a 'good' 13 or more (or equivalent playing values). Thus I reconsider (a luxury denied me at the table, alas) and bid 3N, since I 'know' that the combined assets are worth 24-26 points (I value my hand as about 11.5 - 12, somewhat arbitrarily)

 

If we play that the support double is mandatory with any hand with 3 card support, I go back to 2N :)

[luke warm]

i hate disagreeing with roland (and frances) also, but this time i have to... how exactly do we reevaluate a hand if not taking into account the bidding (opps' bidding also)? wouldn't you upgrade the hand if clubs were bid on your right? i would... why not downgrade if on your left?

[Walddk]

i hate disagreeing with roland (and frances) also, but this time i have to... how exactly do we reevaluate a hand if not taking into account the bidding (opps' bidding also)? wouldn't you upgrade the hand if clubs were bid on your right? i would... why not downgrade if on your left?

I would usually take that into consideration, but I trust my partner much more than I trust my non vulnerable opponents. In a club game (it was, as stated by Phil) they bid on most anything, so they are not going to talk me out of my vulnerable game when I have a sound opener opposite an opener.

 

You got a couple of examples where partner would not raise 2NT; therefore, I think the decision is mine, and I will take full responsibility if it's wrong. I have no guarantee that 3NT will make, and I have no guarantee that 2NT will make either.

 

However, 2NT is a contract I prefer not to be in unless I can take exactly 8 tricks, and I can't see why this would be particularly apparent here. Yes, I would be more confident if RHO had overcalled 2♣, but the fact that LHO did won't give me more sleepless nights.

 

I have plenty of those as it is, as you know :)

 

Roland

[luke warm]

well i do understand the point about not liking 2nt, i don't like it either.. but here i view it as invitational (because of my too-trusting attitude re: the opps)... anyway, at my level of experience i have to have some method of evaluation and that happens to be it at the moment

[Walddk]

well i do understand the point about not liking 2nt, i don't like it either.. but here i view it as invitational (because of my too-trusting attitude re: the opps)... anyway, at my level of experience i have to have some method of evaluation and that happens to be it at the moment

Never trust the opponents, is a good motto. They are your enemies at the table, regardless of how nice they are away from it.

 

Roland

[Blofeld]

Carrying that to an extreme would lead to abolishing takeout doubles, Roland.

 

A certain amount of trust in the opponents' bids is eminently reasonable. But I agree that a lot is unjustified.

[pclayton]

To all of you who mastermind a 2NT rebid rather than 3NT: do you think he will raise with

 

Kx

Axx

AJ10xx

xxx

 

or

 

Jxx

Axx

AKxxx

xx

 

Excuse me, but 2NT is bid a you make at the desk or at the keyboard when you get it presented as a problem. At the table you bid a practical 3NT instead of trying to convince yourself that you will make exactly 8 tricks. That's an illusion, and since none of us is a magician, I think it's wiser to stick to bridge.

 

Roland

Roland - these look like carefully chosen 12 counts to me. The first has an optimal heart layout along with 5 likely (but not certain) diamond tricks. The 2nd gives us a very efficient heart stop (Qx opp Jxx).

 

Move a key jack or queen one way or another and 3N has no play.

 

I hate characterizing bids as 'masterminds'. I've probably done it in the past here myself, but its the BBF equivalent of flame bait.

[cherdano]

I hate characterizing bids as 'masterminds'. I've probably done it in the past here myself, but its the BBF equivalent of flame bait.

I would usually agree with that. But when it comes from someone who subsequently claims he never revalues his hands due to opponent's bids, because he does not trust them, I just wouldn't take it seriously.

[han]

At most clubs there are players who often overcall 2C on xxxxx, and those who would never overcall with less than AQ-6th. If this is Phil's regular club then he should have a good idea of whom he is playing against. If this is a player whose 2C bid can be trusted then I'd say that not downgrading is very stubborn. I wonder if Roland would also bid 3NT if he was playing against mikeh, or whether he would feel more comfortable drawing inferences from mikeh's bids (I chose mikeh only because of Roland's respect for him and mikeh's self-characterisation as a somewhat sound bidder).

 

BTW, the argument that you only want to bid 2NT when you have exactly 8 tricks is nonsense imo. This is MPs, so if you make *less* then 8 tricks then 2NT could be significantly better than 3NT. Also, any time partner has extras you won't be hurt by bidding 2NT. If partner has a lot of extras then you will also benefit by making the value bid instead of overbidding. (I do agree that 2NT is not a desirable contract, I just think that the argument is too simplistic, and it is used a lot)

 

As for mikeh's comment that the support double should show a sound opening: I think that you should make a support double on any hand that you would normally bid 2H with. It doesn't make sense to me to pass now while you would otherwise bid 2H. I also think that you should make a support double anytime you have x or xx in clubs, especially at matchpoints.

[han]

No one, and I repeat no one, would pass a 13 count

 

This was a joke.. right?

[jchiu]

Nah, back in my Roth-Stone days, I would regularly pass the problem hand. Especially against declarers who only count out missing HCP for inferences, I would get weird looks when the third straight finesse into me lost :)

[awm]

One important point that's gone unmentioned is that the overcall seems to mark LHO with virtually all the missing values. This has several interesting effects, for example:

 

(1) The clubs are likely to act as two stoppers, since RHO probably can't get the lead.

(2) Most finesses are likely on, because the aces/kings in partner's hand are behind LHO's kings/aces.

 

3NT for me.

[Walddk]

I would usually agree with that. But when it comes from someone who subsequently claims he never revalues his hands due to opponent's bids, because he does not trust them, I just wouldn't take it seriously.

I really can't take a person seriously if he even can't be bothered to read (or perhaps not comprehend) the post he is referring to:

 

"I would usually take that into consideration", I wrote. You turned that upside down as you saw fit by writing: "... who never revalues his hands". It's called garbling quotations which I find unfair (to be diplomatic).

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

I would bid 3N. KJx is a perfectly fine holding, RHO will likely have no entry so it is a double stopper. Given my queens, if partner has AJs the finesses will be on. Even if I'm in 3N-1 I hope to get a good board with the field being in 3N-2. Playing in 2N is just rolling the dice too much for me, I love to be in 3N when it's the field contract.

[Guest Jlall]

BTW I just saw your actual hand. I would love to be in 3N opposite that. It is pretty unlucky to go down after LHO overcalled.

[kenberg]

I was one of the 2NT bidders. It's not so much that I am terrified of their clubs, but I have to find enough tricks. Most likely partner is 4-3-4-2 (the 3 hearts we know about, he wouldn't open 1D on three since he is not 4-4-3-2, someone has to have some spades) so long suit establishment could be tricky and I certainly don't expect to develop tricks in clubs. Looking at the hands (after voting), I see three spade tricks, four diamonds assuming the likely finesse, and a heart trick that can be built up. Of course maybe they will lead clubs and give me a trick and maybe I can still control the hand, but it seems to me 2NT is a fine contract. If the club bidder holds AQ plus the ace of hearts plus the king of diamonds and hears 3N on his right he should be able to figure out that his partner holds nothing and go passive. With a little less, say w/o the king of diamonds, there is room for his partner to have something and he can lead a club. Since the hand went down two in NT, I suppose that is what happened. Ah yes, I see we have all the hands exposed.

 

Shorter analysis: Sometimes I guess right.

[Guest Jlall]

if he goes passive he will likely just get endplayed in the end anyways.

[pclayton]

BTW I just saw your actual hand. I would love to be in 3N opposite that. It is pretty unlucky to go down after LHO overcalled.

Justin - you did notice the vulnerability, right?

 

Put any of the relevant cards in the hand opposite the overcaller; ♥A, ♦K, ♣A and 3N is unplayable.

 

Surely you (or anyone else) would overcall 2♣, especially at MPs at these colors without one of these cards?

[Guest Jlall]

Sure with AQTxx and an ace I would. But I would not overcall if you replace one of the aces with the DK unless I had a sixth club. However, if LHO does have everything I will expect a good board as I will likely be able to maneuver some kind of strip squeeze on him, or play it a trick better than the field. If LHO has stiff king of diamonds my technique will gain me a trick against the weak field (which will lead the Q from hand first). etc etc, but this is all only true if I'm in 3N with the field. As it is, the field will make the same amount of tricks as I will as there is pretty much nothing to the play, so I will get an average if I'm in 3N. If I'm in 2N sure I'll get a top, but on all the hands where LHO has everything and I go +180 vs the fields +600, I am going to get a zero and thats a shame. There's no reason to take card play out of the equation and shoot for a (roughly) 50/50 top or bottom. That is why I would like to be in 3N opposite the dummy you gave.