Double partscore swing

[starfruit]

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sk3h9432dkt863ct8&w=s96ht7da95ckq6532&e=sj752hak8d74caj74&s=saqt84hqj65dqj2c9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Played this hand today and I was seating E.

Bidding went (for N/S) : 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - P

And declarer made 2♥ + 1 (didn't find the ♦ ruff)

 

The other table made 4♣. :angry:

My thought was that we're vulnerable and they might not even have a trump fit. . .

So the bidding seemed reasonable.

A 2♣ overcall felt like too dangerous

Should we have been bidding at any point in time?

[whereagles]

You have to bid 2♣ over 1♠. That is your first and final chance to do something. As you can see, to pass is as risky as bidding, if not more.

[gwnn]

In quick, out quick; get your hand of hand off your chest; etc; 2♣ is a bit risky, but it feels right.

[pbleighton]

"You have to bid 2♣ over 1♠. That is your first and final chance to do something. As you can see, to pass is as risky as bidding, if not more."

 

Easy enough in the Forums, tough at the table with a mediocre 6 card suit, a 9 count, at unfavorable.

 

It's not a ridiculous action, but I don't think many good players would do it at the table.

 

OTOH, switch the vulnerability and 3C becomes knid of attractive, for some of us anyway :angry:

 

Peter

[ohioply]

You might want to bid 3♣ over 1s as your hand is shaped preemptively. In the world of overcalls and preempts - bid as much as you can as quick as you can.

[zasanya]

I too would pass but would find ♦ ruff.

We get 50 if we defeat 2 ♥.We get 130 if find ♣ contract.So we lose only 3 imps.This hand IMO suggests one should be concerned about defence rather than bidding. :angry:

[awm]

In general overcalling with the west hand will fairly frequently get you a small gain, and occasionally get you a huge loss. On a good day you get +110 instead of -110 say, or +130 instead of +50. But sometimes you will go for 500 or 800 opposite what may not even be a game. The impression I get from most good IMP players is that overcalling this hand is a losing proposition in the long run, although it's easy to see that it could work out on any particular lie of the cards.

 

I'd just chalk it up to opponents taking a mildly negative-expectation action that works out, not an infrequent event. It's like if you always bid 45% games and opponents never do -- in the long run you will win more IMPs than they do, but on any particular hand they could win IMPs over you (and in fact they will win more often than they lose, but the sizes of the swings are bigger when they lose).

[starfruit]

I too would pass but would find ♦ ruff.

We get 50 if we defeat 2 ♥.We get 130 if find ♣ contract.So we lose only 3 imps.This hand IMO suggests one should be concerned about defence rather than bidding. :angry:

1♦, 1♦ ruff, 2♥ and 1♣ isn't enough to beat it though

[starfruit]

I'd just chalk it up to opponents taking a mildly negative-expectation action that works out, not an infrequent event. It's like if you always bid 45% games and opponents never do -- in the long run you will win more IMPs than they do, but on any particular hand they could win IMPs over you (and in fact they will win more often than they lose, but the sizes of the swings are bigger when they lose).

You're right : guess this result is fairly normal for our side

[Winstonm]

The auction is perfectly normal - it is way too risky to get in with 2C and there is no reason to assume an 8-card fit for the opponents - contrast this to 1S-P-2S-P-P.

 

At imps, the risk of going off -800 in 2/3 clubs against a partscore is substantial and not worth the gains.

[mike777]

As Peter said a lot easier to bid 2c in the forum then at the table at unfav, imps and on a 9 hcp hand. Does not 2c promise an opening hand for most of us at this vul?

[ohioply]

As Peter said a lot easier to bid 2c in the forum then at the table at unfav, imps and on a 9 hcp hand. Does not 2c promise an opening hand for most of us at this vul?

i usualy play any overcall as 10+ this one is nice enough for 2c or 3c imo.

[mike777]

I like this thinking....10+ hcp or less if close :) Lousy hand..lousy suit....unfav vul. :)

 

If you prefer to use some judgement based not on hcp but something else..fine just let us know.

[ohioply]

I like this thinking....10+ hcp or less if close :) Lousy hand..lousy suit....unfav vul. :)

 

If you prefer to use some judgement based not on hcp but something else..fine just let us know.

we all have our own opinions I'm going for 3c because i want to get in and get out

[mike777]

I am not quite sure why we should assume we are getting out in 3clubs? I am all for getting in and getting out but we need an exit plan that does not get us killed. :)

 

Partner is an unpassed hand, is she allowed to bid over 3clubs at unfav vul and assume you have a 7 trick hand?

[cherdano]

If my partner bid 2♣ here, then we would play in 3N or 5♣.

[zasanya]

I too would pass but would find ♦ ruff.

We get 50 if we defeat 2 ♥.We get 130 if find ♣ contract.So we lose only 3 imps.This hand IMO suggests one should be concerned about defence rather than bidding. ;)

1♦, 1♦ ruff, 2♥ and 1♣ isn't enough to beat it though

Oops.Sorry

[BebopKid]

Would you preempt 2♥ with KQxxxx over 1♣? I hope so. If nothing else 2♣ gives your partner an idea for lead of LHO is declarer.

[mike777]

great point..what is more important playing in the spingold :

1)

bidding 2c for lead?

 

2) bidding 3c to preempt?

 

 

3) pass to show nothing?

[MickyB]

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy and protecting not much better. I think I'm still passing it out NV (I'm still not considering a 2♣ overcall, but 3♣ either time is no longer ridiculous)

[whereagles]

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

[MickyB]

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

There's a reason why you've only see that occur in a book.

 

Anyway, my main reason for not overcalling 2♣ is not safety, but that pard will expect me to have a better hand so we will get too high too often.

[mike777]

hmm that sounds like safety to me but who knows.....:)

[helene_t]

Agree with Peter. It's quite normal not to act at IMPs unfavorable with the West hand. Actually, I think I would have passed at any scoring/vulnerability allthough I would consider 3♣ at IMPs favorable.

[Finch]

At the conditions, bidding on this hand in direct seat is lunacy

I think I remember a hand in SJ Simon's cut for partners where a similar 2♥ butt-in was not made because of 'safety reasons', only to find out, after letting 4♠ through, that the side was cold for SEVEN hearts.

There's a reason why you've only see that occur in a book.

 

Anyway, my main reason for not overcalling 2♣ is not safety, but that pard will expect me to have a better hand so we will get too high too often.

I once defended a 3H contract (one off) with neither partner bidding when our side was cold for 7C.