To Bid or Not to Bid

[Winstonm]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s9732hq104dq94cq53]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1H-1S-2H-?

 

Raise or pass and reasons.[/hv]

[pbleighton]

2S, at any other vul it would be 3S.

 

I can't imagine passing with 4 card support.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

Since you titled this to bid or not to bid, sounds like a larry issue. LOTT says bid, but this is imps and we are vul. Partner will stretch to bid game, and I don't want to encourage him. So here, I will violate LOTT (sorry Larry) and pass. Also, I really, really don't like 4333 distribution, so in cases of close decisions, i go softly, as in this case.

[Guest Jlall]

I'd bid 2S. Sure it's a crappy defensive hand, but it might well be our hand for the partscore and partner isn't going to balance with normal 1S bids. We just have to compete with a 9 card fit over 2H.

[Free]

2♠, I don't want my partner to think I have a doubleton ♠...

[Winstonm]

I am wondering if this isn't a risk/gain issue, as the working cards are really only a 4-count and the 4-card support diminishes in value with no ruffing value.

 

If partner has a strong overcall he will surely balance, and if he doesn't have we lost enough letting the opps play 2H verses our risk of going down in 2S undoubled or a higher contract doubled?

 

It is surely right to compete as often as possible, but doesn't that have to be tempered with misleading partner as to the quality of your raise - in other words, should partner expect either better shape or better cards for a raise?

[pbleighton]

"It is surely right to compete as often as possible, but doesn't that have to be tempered with misleading partner as to the quality of your raise - in other words, should partner expect either better shape or better cards for a raise?"

 

No.

 

Peter

[1eyedjack]

should partner expect either better shape or better cards for a raise?

There is a case for it:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=65088

[Guest Jlall]

This is certainly on the weak side to be raising, but the HQ is not necessarily wastepaper and the 4th trump is still good even if you can't ruff anything. It may just cause you to have 1 less trump loser, and increases the chances that the opps make their contract.

 

I don't feel like if partner bids 4S he is down yet. My queens will likely be working in that case, and my 4th trump may turn out to be useful. I think it's very important to compete over 2H when we have a 9 card fit. I don't think partner will balance with many normal hands like AKJxx xx xx KJxx where it's likely both 2M contracts make. There are a lot of hands of this ilk where partner has a doubleton heart rather than a stiff.

 

The fact that we have 4 trumps also increases the chances that the opponents will bid 3H. Pretty much with a stiff spade either one of them is likely to bid 3H. When we have 9 spades 2S may well act as a transfer to 3H to the opponents. If partner bids 3S over that, I don't think my dummy will be a huge disappointment though it may be wrong.

 

If 2H ends the auction I think it's so likely to lead to a terrible result that I can't bring myself to pass.

[ulven]

Pass. Wouldn't dream of bidding. Used to raise. Now I'm wiser.

[Winstonm]

I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?

[pbleighton]

"I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?"

 

1) Since 5 cards is the overwheming standard for overcalls, I assumed that you would have mentioned it if the pair was playing 4 card overcalls. Was I wrong?

2) Dollars to doughnuts anyone who is aggressive enough to play 4 card overcalls at unfavorable is aggressive enough to bid 2S here. I certainly would, and in a partnership where overcalls were 5+, I would raise on any hand with 3 card support.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

If 2H ends the auction I think it's so likely to lead to a terrible result that I can't bring myself to pass.

 

I have found this to be quite accurate - but alas, it is usually because the opponents have simply done too good of job of bidding their cards and I am in a no-win situation - my RHO has a borderline limit raise and took the low route and if I bid all I accomplish is misleading partner into over-competing and getting crushed at the 3-level or pushing the opponents to a making stop at the 3-level.

 

I believe that sometimes you just have to take your bad result and move on - I would like partner to compete to the 3-level with the right overcall, something like AKJxxx, xx, Ax, Jxx, but my raise, if it goaded partner to compete again, would only give the opponents the option of doubling or bidding on.

 

I'm not big on pre-emptive jump raises Vul vs NV, so I'd prefer to have less HCP and better shape to raise, even as little as xxxx, x, Kxxxx, xxx so that if partner does move on my hand won't disappoint.

[Winstonm]

"I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?"

 

1) Since 5 cards is the overwheming standard for overcalls, I assumed that you would have mentioned it if the pair was playing 4 card overcalls.  Was I wrong?

2) Dollars to doughnuts anyone who is aggressive enough to play 4 card overcalls at unfavorable is aggressive enough to bid 2S here. I certainly would, and in a partnership where overcalls were 5+, I would raise on any hand with 3 card support.

 

Peter

No, P, I was just wondering if those who are proponents of frequent 4-card overcalls take that into consideration when judging whether or not to raise. As for the post, it is most likely 5-cards but surely doesn't have to be.

 

Yes, the more aggressive might well bid 2S but the question concerns whether or not that is good stategy due to gain/loss - bidding gains by creating blocking action and competition but loses by widening the range of the raise, thus making it harder on partner to know what to do next.

[Guest Jlall]

I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?

I think you're wrong on this one. Think about the type of hands you make 4 card overcalls with. They likely have some heart length, otherwise you would make a t/o X. Given that we know partner is short in hearts, I would say there are EXTREMELY low odds that he has a 4 card overcall.

[pbleighton]

"Yes, the more aggressive might well bid 2S but the question concerns whether or not that is good stategy due to gain/loss - bidding gains by creating blocking action and competition but loses by widening the range of the raise, thus making it harder on partner to know what to do next."

 

Well, there's no doubt there is a cost to aggressive advancing. In my experience, however, it is fairly rare for me to have an overcalling hand which wants to invite over a simple raise, particularly where the opener's partner has bid. One reason for this is that if if the overcall would be on the one level, I will double then bid my suit, if I have an OK 17, good 16, or an excellent 15. That doesn't leave many "invitational" hands.

 

This is particularly true in my partnership where we overcall with 6 counts with poor 4 card suits :huh: , but even in my "normal" partnership (almost always 5 cards, usually 8+ hcp, but we always raise with 3, even with a 4333 yarborough) we have a low top for one level overcalls.

 

Peter

[mike777]

2s LOTT pard expects this.

 

Ya, this hand stinks but I need to bid down the middle and any other bid is masterminding.....not wrong just not down the middle.

I expect partner to have 5+ spades more than 98%+

[Winstonm]

I find it interesting that so far everyone is assuming a 9-card fit - how many of those also are proponents of 4-card overcalls?

I think you're wrong on this one. Think about the type of hands you make 4 card overcalls with. They likely have some heart length, otherwise you would make a t/o X. Given that we know partner is short in hearts, I would say there are EXTREMELY low odds that he has a 4 card overcall.

Sure it's unlikely - but there is: AKQx, x, xxx, Axxxx so it is within the realms of possibilties, and I've seen some espouse much worse than this.

 

Still, that's not the point of it all - it's whether it is better to have a more constructive minimum raise agreement or not.

[Winstonm]

"Yes, the more aggressive might well bid 2S but the question concerns whether or not that is good stategy due to gain/loss - bidding gains by creating blocking action and competition but loses by widening the range of the raise, thus making it harder on partner to know what to do next."

 

Well, there's no doubt there is a cost to aggressive advancing. In my experience, however, it is fairly rare for me to have an overcalling hand which wants to invite over a simple raise, particularly where the opener's partner has bid. One reason for this is that if if the overcall would be on the one level, I will double then bid my suit, if I have an OK 17, good 16, or an excellent 15.  That doesn't leave many "invitational" hands.

 

This is particularly true in my partnership where we overcall with 6 counts with poor 4 card suits  :huh:  , but even in my "normal" partnership (almost always 5 cards, usually 8+ hcp, but we always raise with 3, even with a 4333 yarborough) we have a low top for one level overcalls.

 

Peter

The top of of the overcall does have some bearing, but even then you can easily get too high with a 13-14 count and a 6-card suit, no?

[Winstonm]

2s LOTT pard expects this.

 

Ya, this hand stinks but I need to bid down the middle and other bid is masterminding.....not wrong just not down the middle.

I expect partner to have 5+ spades more than 98%+

Gee, I would think bidding 2S would be more masterminding - pass doesn't rate to get your side into trouble, which is the point of the post. Would you expect a positive result and an overall gain more often from bidding than from passing with such a poor hand?

 

Of course, those who overcall on 18+ type hands have more pressure on them to keep the auction alive.

 

In constructive bidding, we are required to bid opposite an opening 1S bid as partner can have just short of a 2C bid, but when the overcall is somewhat limited we do not have that constraint. Would your views change if RHO had passed or doubled?

[pbleighton]

"The top of of the overcall does have some bearing, but even then you can easily get too high with a 13-14 count and a 6-card suit, no?"

 

A good 14, yes.

 

13s, hardly ever.

 

I can be pretty pushy bidding games when we open the bidding, especially with the opps silent, but when the opps start the bidding, i'm not nearly so optimistic.

 

Peter

[kenrexford]

Since you titled this to bid or not to bid, sounds like a larry issue. LOTT says bid, but this is imps and we are vul. Partner will stretch to bid game, and I don't want to encourage him. So here, I will violate LOTT (sorry Larry) and pass. Also, I really, really don't like 4333 distribution, so in cases of close decisions, i go softly, as in this case.

I agree with this analysis, with one addition. When in doubt, I raise with lead-acceptance value and decline without. This might lead me to be more willing, for instance, to compete to the two-level at IMP's with a similar hand but Kx in trumps instead. With queens everywhere, and poor trumps, I expect that partner may end up on lead with no good apparent options. The last "bad option" I want him to pick is spades.

 

I did stop for a moment on one other comment, concerning not leading partner into thinking that I only have two trumps. This intrigues me for reasons similar to what I stated before and is a concern.

[Winstonm]

"The top of of the overcall does have some bearing, but even then you can easily get too high with a 13-14 count and a 6-card suit, no?"

 

A good 14, yes.

 

13s, hardly ever.

 

I can be pretty pushy bidding games when we open the bidding, especially with the opps silent, but when the opps start the bidding, i'm not nearly so optimistic.

 

Peter

Here, Peter, I'm not so worried about overbidding to game but in overbidding to the 3-level.

 

Even for LOTT advocates, this 4333 argues for a reduction in total tricks, so assuming 17 total tricks to start that is reduced to 16 - according to LOTT if they can make 9 tricks we can only make 7, down 2.

 

It is not that the 4333 hand will bid 3, but partner is not excluded from bidding 3 with heart shortness and dummy will surely disappoint.

[pbleighton]

"It is not that the 4333 hand will bid 3, but partner is not excluded from bidding 3 with heart shortness and dummy will surely disappoint."

 

Winston, your point is taken, in theory anyway, but I have been doing this for a while and the types of problems you point out are rare.

 

Have you played the slut style much? :huh:

 

Peter

[mike777]

The good news is all low level x's will be for takeout so the hope is we can push them to three and if we have a ten card fit they will not be able to double us in 3s. Competing aggressively at imp partscores per Italians.

 

As a side note it is interesting that in the Spingold the Italians bid 6 deals to game that the Nickell team only bid to a partscore out of 64 boards. All 6 game bids went down and still the Italians almost won.