Your choice of intervention

[the hog]

Hi Whereagles and all. Temporarily back as I don't have an internet connection at home and this is from an internet cafe. Probably moving to Laos in the not too distant future. Be interesting as this is a communist country and only just opening up to the West.

Cheers

Ron

[whereagles]

wow. good luck there. Keep us posted ;)

[the hog]

I am in the double camp as I don't want my partner's to raise my 1H overcall on:

 

xxxxx, Qxx, xx, Qxx.

 

Winston

That's just about exactly what happened.

 

I was the partner of the overcaller, and after the inevitable negdbl raised him to 2H. He got excited and bid 4.

 

Turns out the hand makes 4 double-dummy but he didn't. Sigh.

 

Whether or not this is evidence for *not* doubling I'm not sure.

 

His contention: I dont want to X because you might jump to 4 spades.

 

My reply; if i bid 4S on Txxxxx xx Qxx Ax, you may even make it.

 

Why worry about the sky falling?

Just read this response. Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

[luke warm]

hello ron... hope you're doing well... laos? sheesh

[inquiry]

Just read this response. Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

Ron!!!!

 

Welcome back... I agree 100% with your view here.

[pclayton]

Hi Ron- hope you can keep the bugs off your laptop dude in SE Asia.

 

I suppose the internet in a communist country is all 14.4K but free? :P

[sfbp]

Well 2H is a pretty poor bid under any circumstances, even playing cue raises and having ways and means of showing weak and good raises. I make pretty thin raises, but this hand is just not worth it.

Hmmm - you are way behind the times Ron. Wasn't it S.J. Simon who first put in print (in the late 40's) the concept of hand evaluation not being related to high card strength, but being an elastic thing depending on things like fit.

 

Simon's famous example was that you should bid a GS on the strength of a 3-point hand, one honour card, the King of ♥, if I am not mistaken.

 

Don't you routinely raise partner after his 1♠ opener was doubled on Qxx xxxx xx xxxx? Funny, I never thought of the Hog as a timid bidder......... (well, make that Qxxx xxxx xx xxx if you are a 4-card majorite).

 

I mean, if I believe you could have 19 points, I definitely should raise to a mere 2 on this "pile of junk" or "piece of cheese" as someone called it. How else do we get to a making 21-point game??????? But this wasnt about that - it was about the concept that I dont much like the idea that "just an overcall" (Barry Crane's phrase) can be as wide a range as 7-19.

 

Well my ♣Q turned out to be pretty useful.

 

Maybe instead of ranting about this you and the other bright sparks here should be trying to figure out how to make 4♥ :P

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

[inquiry]

Maybe instead of ranting about this you and the other bright sparks here should be trying to figure out how to make 4♥ :P

Help us "bright sparks" out and tell us what the opening lead was, and if not a diamond or heart, what the second lead was. After all, the hand plays diffferently with a trump lead as opposed to say two rounds of spades... also, for card placement it is nice if we can see if the negative doubler had a sequence lead in spades or a top from nothing in diamonds, etc.

[cherdano]

Don't you routinely raise partner after his 1♠ opener was doubled on Qxx xxxx xx xxxx?

No, I don't (although you don't need to change the hand much to have me raising). Too often partner will misjudge subsequently, and there is no LAW when declarer has no entry to dummy.

[hrothgar]

Hmmm - you are way behind the times Ron. Wasn't it S.J. Simon who first put in print (in the late 40's) the concept of hand evaluation not being related to high card strength, but being an elastic thing depending on things like fit.

 

You might want to focus less on the patronizing little lectures and more on why your partnership screwed up (repeatedly) on a fairly standard bidding problem

 

From the sounds of things, you weren't particularly happy with the 4♥ contract. Personally, I see three possible solutions to your "problem"

 

1. Ensure that your partnership has some method to show a constructive raise to 2♥. Members of this forum have already suggested two ways to achieve this end (Ruben's Advances or passing bad hands with 3 card Heart support)

 

2. Add a lot of complexity after the 2♥ advance to sort out good/versus bad raises (Realistically, you probably need a mixture of 1+2 to achieve a high degree of accuracy)

 

3. Accept the fact that imprecise methods are going to lead to imprecise results

 

At the end of the day, the real measure of the 2♥ bid isn't whether or not you can dredge up supporting evidence in an book on Acol from the 1940s. Rather, its whether the partnership is happy with the results. From the sounds of it, you aren't. So don't get all pissy when folks try to help you with your bidding.

 

BTW, as I recall, Simon spent a lot of time talking about the unlucky expert who constantly made the bids and plays that were technically correct, but never achieved good results. Simon focused heavily on the practical, so it seems somewhat strange to cite him as an authority to support a bid that was "theoretically" correct but lead to a bad result.

[sfbp]

I'm not in the least pissy. But as usual the piss-artists focused on the one error they could see - my bid, which wasnt even the subject of my original post.

 

As you recall, the "error" I made should have led to a good result (except that partner misplayed the hand - tant pis).

 

I'm not patronizing anyone Richard - however I find your remarks contemptuous and worthy of contempt.

 

I never asked for help with my bidding. I asked what PARTNER should bid with his 19-point hand.

 

The question is: can we honestly justify having such a wide range for overcalls? More to the point, is there any need to?

 

As to your point about imprecision, I'd say that 7-19 is much more imprecise than a nice courtesy raise guaranteed to be less than 9 HCP.

 

The bid I referred to makes you sound like the Unlucky Expert - especially since you obviously haven't read the book - at least in a while. Take a look at the section following page 58. The chapter is about "the points you lose bidding" and the section in question "Underbidding of small hands".

 

Sneer all you want, this is one of the greatest books ever written on Bridge, and his other opus, Design for Bidding, a close second.

 

Bah Humbug!

[sfbp]

Help us "bright sparks" out and tell us what the opening lead was, and if not a diamond or heart, what the second lead was. After all, the hand plays diffferently with a trump lead as opposed to say two rounds of spades... also, for card placement it is nice if we can see if the negative doubler had a sequence lead in spades or a top from nothing in diamonds, etc.

Well - the contract doesn't depend on the lead at all.

 

However the lead was the ♠K

 

A small ♣ from hand at trick 2 and RHO takes the Q with the Ace and returns a ♠.

 

Good luck!

[hrothgar]

>I never asked for help with my bidding. I asked what PARTNER should bid with his

>19-point hand.

 

You were looking for a way to place the blame for a bad result on partner. Accordingly, you focused attention on the initial 1♥ overcall rather than the 2♥ advance. My view of the ensuing discussion suggests that most of the players agree with the 1♥ overcall and dislike the 2♥ advance.

 

>The question is: can we honestly justify having such a wide range for overcalls?

>More to the point, is there any need to?

 

To some extent, this is an issue of style. Traditionally, Europeans prefer to use a double to limit the strength of an overcall. North American's are often willing to overcall with much strong hands. (Kokish would be an obvious example). Personally, I think that both styles are playable, but you need partnership agreement.

 

>Sneer all you want, this is one of the greatest books ever written on Bridge,

>and his other opus, Design for Bidding, a close second.

 

I wasn't sneering at Simon. His book has stood the test of time rather nicely. However, your decision to use this as a reference to back your bidding decision seemed rather amusing.

[sfbp]

You were looking for a way to place the blame for a bad result on partner.  Accordingly, you focused attention on the initial 1♥ overcall rather than the 2♥ advance.

More rubbish!

 

I was pleased with the auction as evidence I made a reasonable bid. It's perfectly possible to bid a 18 point game with no suit longer than 5 and no voids - and no competition to help the partnership evaluate, either.

 

However my surprise at landing in a makeable contract has nothing to do with my surprise at partner going outside what I consider the parameters for overcalling.

 

Furthermore, despite your comments, I do not believe that there is a overall difference between Europe and USA on this issue. Foremost in the 1♥ camp were some European and Australian players. Some of those on my side of the debate are conservative players from North America.

 

I consider 1♥ a "blame transfer". If it doesn't work out, you can always blame partner. Especially if he overbids his hand after a negative double :P

[inquiry]

However the lead was the ♠K

 

A small ♣ from hand at trick 2 and RHO takes the Q with the Ace and returns a ♠.

Play for split ♥ honors (or west with both).

 

ruff ♠

♥ACE

King-Jack of ♣-throw ♦

♦AK

♦, planning on ruffing. If East ruffs with honor, pitch spade

ruff 4th ♦ and take ♥ hook. If ♦ 3-3 (not likely), the ruff third and play ♥King.

 

This wins 2♣, 5 trumps in hand (with the finesse ), 2♦ and 1♦ ruff,

 

or

 

2♣, 4 trumps in hand (di 3-3), 1♦ ruff, 3 ♦

 

or

 

2♣, 4 trumps in hand, 2♦, 2♦ ruffs - should opener have 4♦ and both top hearts.

[jdonn]

Furthermore, despite your comments, I do not believe that there is a overall difference between Europe and USA on this issue. Foremost in the 1♥ camp were some European and Australian players. Some of those on my side of the debate are conservative players from North America.

While trying to avoid the other portion of this debate, you are definitely wrong about that style issue, despite what a few people here have offered as their opinions. It is well established and known that European experts double instead of overcalling on strong hands MUCH sooner than American ones. One good example I know of is there is a hand in the book on Viking club where Helgemo doubled a 1♠ opening with something like - AKQxxx xxx KQxx where it wouldn't occur in the wildest dreams of a North American expert to do anything but bid 2♥. Neither is necessarilly wrong, those are simply the styles in the countries of the players.

[sfbp]

Quite so! Full marks Dr. D.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sjhak832dakt3ckj3&w=sa98hqj4dq954ca52&e=skq72h65dj8ct9876&s=st6543ht97d762cq4]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

[mcphee]

Many players double with hands they feel are too strong to make the simple overcall. I personallydo not fall into that group. I very much dislike t/o dbls that contain good 5 card majors and shortness in the other major. My feeling is they lead to greater problems later. Another problem I see with this sort of hand is to dble runs the risk of partner being unable to judge his D lenght should he have any, not impossible when RHO is 4-4-3-2 11 or 12 count. Dble and to bid your own suit to me indicates a hand that has 8 playing tricks. Also the advice given to partner is you are short in the suit opened.

 

When I overcall I expect partner to raise with support whiwch I would welcome with this sort of hand. It is true at times with very good hands you may miss a game, but is far more rare than problems encountered with the extreme off shape dble, and this is extreme.

 

The view graph recently showed an example of a hand that could o/c in D or make a t/o dble. The o/c was a huge winner, the t/o dble a big loser when the opps pre-empted.

[Finch]

"Europe" is a much less homogenous place bridge-wise than America. I would say there is a growing trend in English circles to overcall rather than double on strong hands - stronger than this example hand, even. In general, it is the slightly older players who continue to double first, as that was a far more common approach 20-30 years ago.

 

When I learnt bridge in the early 90s, it was still common in English books on the game to say that pretty much any 16+ hand should double rather than overcall (other than a 1NT overcall). The common adoption of weak jump overcalls has pushed a number of weaker hands out of the simple overcall and pushed the lower limit up.

[kenberg]

The right line of play depends on the lie of the cards, and my guess as to the lie of the cards depends on the early defensive play. So it matters how this starts, in choosing how I play if not in the final result. If diamonds are 5-1 this will be tough, but the spade beginning suggests diamonds are 4-2 (no guarantee). With this in mind, I ruff the spade at trick three, cash the clubs throwing a diamond, play of the AK of diamonds and lead a third diamond. if E started with something like Jxx of hearts, I think I am going to make this. Maybe not. But that's my line. Anyway, I think we have exhausted the pros and cons of 1H versus double (anyone still trying to decide please raise their hand), so a change of focus may be in order.

 

Ken

[han]

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

[sfbp]

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

I don't see why :P

 

If you recall he suggests bidding 7♠ on

 

[hv=s=sxxxhkxdxxxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

Even you, Han, can see the elements of similarity to the hand I held.

 

Advancers of the world unite!

[jdonn]

Nice to see you posting again Ron, and right on the mark in my opinion. Stephen, Simon would sue you for abusing his great book like this.

I don't see why :P

 

If you recall he suggests bidding 7♠ on

 

[hv=s=sxxxhkxdxxxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

Even you, Han, can see the elements of similarity to the hand I held.

 

Advancers of the world unite!

Have you ever heard the term "comparing apples and oranges"? B) Or should I say apples and onagers?

[kenberg]

Quite so! Full marks Dr. D.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=sjhak832dakt3ckj3&w=sa98hqj4dq954ca52&e=skq72h65dj8ct9876&s=st6543ht97d762cq4]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Now I am confused. Are you saying my line of play won't work? I was assuming it would not work since it hardly seemd to require any double dummy analysis. It was:

Ruff the spade trick 3.

Clubs pitching a D

Top Ds

lead a D.

Now it is true that I didn't say what I would do next but I plan to ruff when dummy pitches, lead a spade back to my hand, lead another D and ruff it

Lead dummy's third heart to my AK.

 

I see the full hand appears before my line but I guess I was writing.

 

The hand has two top diamonds, two clubs after the ace, hopefully four hearts. You need two ruffs. This seems to be the way to get them.

 

What am I missing here? I was expecting something exotic.

[sfbp]

Have you ever heard the term "comparing apples and oranges"? :P Or should I say apples and onagers?

Are you incapable of making a direct statement?

 

Apples and oranges generally don't feature in my bidding box, Josh. Looks like they might be a welcome addition to your Hainanese Chicken Rice, though.