Vegas Hand 3

[Guest Jlall]

white/red

 

Qx

Kxx

AKJTxx

xx.

 

1S on your right, you bid 2D, LHO bids 3D(limit raise 3+ trumps), partner bids 4D, RHO bids 4S. Do you or don't you?

[cherdano]

If it was you who bid 2♦ and partner knows your 2-level overcalling style, I would pass. If he doesn't, I would bid 5.

[pclayton]

5♦

[Echognome]

Color me yellow.

[Impact]

5D as he had a bid of 3S available too so typically he holds DQxxx (given overcaller's D), some modicum of distribution and one control card.

 

They almost certainly make 4S - so let's make them guess at favourable...where we are likely to go for 300 or 500

[Apollo81]

Looks like 500 to me. I'd do it at MPs but not at IMPs.

[Guest Jlall]

Looks like 500 to me.  I'd do it at MPs but not at IMPs.

I don't know if this follows, I agree it's 500 or 800 most likely so you have to weigh beating 4S against them bidding 5S and going down. If you think the latter is more likely it makes sense to bid.

[kenrexford]

Yes. I would double.

[mike777]

pass

[awm]

My hand seems pretty close to the expected hand. A six card suit is not unheard of for a two-level overcall, I have no singletons or voids, I have some defense outside the suit. Seems fairly clear to pass.

 

Partner is still there and can do whatever he feels like.

[jdonn]

5♦ definitely, they are short enough in diamonds that they will often bid 5♠ anyway in my opinion. I think it's clear to take advantage of the vulnerability, and I doubt we are beating them (partner bid 4♦ not 3♠). Also if they bid 5♠ and have just 9 spades they will probably misguess the spade queen now.

[ceeb]

Looks like 500 to me.  I'd do it at MPs but not at IMPs.

I don't know if this follows, I agree it's 500 or 800 most likely so you have to weigh beating 4S against them bidding 5S and going down. If you think the latter is more likely it makes sense to bid.

That says that bidding 5D is playing RHO's game (poker). Pass.

 

-- Charles

[Free]

I would pass

[gwnn]

I don't think I promised this offensive a hand, 5♦. (I don't expect to make my ♠Q on defense so it's as if it was not in my hand at all)

[Fluffy]

This is a textbook 2♦ overcall, I don't have anything to add.

 

Thoe who overcall with junk and 5 cards often might need to say something else, but I don't

[Codo]

This is a textbook 2♦ overcall, I don't have anything to add.

 

Thoe who overcall with junk and 5 cards often might need to say something else, but I don't

nicely said.

 

Easy pass.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass, 5D may work, but we most likely

have a fair chance of beating it, and partner

can still bid 5D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Edmunte1]

1)I do believe in fairy tales :) but,

2) I won't sacrifice for 500+ when there's a small chance of nailing them. In IMP's you'll win 3-4 IMP's and lose 12 if they go down in 4♠, so if the chance for 4♠

to drift one off is bigger than 20%, the sacrifice doesn't worth.

[Finch]

I'm fairly confident I'd pass without thinking hard at the table, on the basis that I've got exactly what I've shown by 2D, and I'm fairly balanced in context.

 

Partner is still there, however, when I don't double he is allowed to save.

[Apollo81]

Looks like 500 to me.  I'd do it at MPs but not at IMPs.

I don't know if this follows, I agree it's 500 or 800 most likely so you have to weigh beating 4S against them bidding 5S and going down. If you think the latter is more likely it makes sense to bid.

 

They will double 5♦ more at IMPs than at MPs, where they are worried that 500 wont be worth much. I think this hand depends a little bid on your style. If you're the rock in your partnership then it seems like you just have your 2♦ bid and can pass, but if you make a lot of lead directors then you have extra offense and maybe should be bidding.

[kenrexford]

I suppose I am in the minority here, as I keep checking and seeing nothing except pass and 5♦ without any discussion along the lines I would expect.

 

2♦ was a sound overcall, I assume. Your LHO bid 3♦, a limit raise with 3+ hearts, and partner bids 4♦. What is 4♦?

 

What I don't do here is bid 4♦ simply because I have diamond support. That becomes the "Texas Transfer" version of a raise. 4♦ seems to invite 5♦, for one reason or another.

 

If the style is that 4♦ invites a sacrifice, then your analysis should focus on that aspect of the call. If the 4♦ call shows values and invites a possibly-making game, then I believe there is a forcing pass situation here.

 

When looking at this hand in that light, I have both top diamonds, not AQJ or KQJ, only six diamonds, I have a side King of hearts, a possible defensive value, and I have the Qx of spades, fitting well with a possible Jxx from partner. Good defensive values. Offensively, I have a full seven losers (nothing special there), with wasted values in the form of the Qx of spades. Of all the 2♦ hand types I could have, this seems most defense oriented. (I won't have the garbage hand, either.)

 

If this is, in fact, a forcing pass auction, partner will know my hand type from the double and can decide to declare, instead, if that seems right. Give partner something like ♠Jxx ♥Q10x ♦xxx ♣QJ10x, an awful hand, and we probably beat 4♠. Partner might even have as little as Qx in diamonds for this call, IMO and BTW. Sure, the example hand would not meet my criteria for a 4♦ call (values plus a fit), but add in some real values and the defense gets better yet.

[pclayton]

Pard never bids 5♦ here. If he had a 5♦ call he would have taken it last time. If pard thinks that we are ever 'buying' it for 4♦ he should not be playing with me.

 

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

 

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

 

Do I have the perfect hand for 5♦? Not even close. Is 800 a possibility? Sure. But I'll take insurance for 4 IMPs to see if they take the push to 5, which may be a 11-13 IMP gain. Even then, I may gain 3 (-500) or gain 7 (-300) in 5♦.

[kenrexford]

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

 

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

I like that someone else views 4♦ as "consultative."

 

However, I'm not sure how this hand is "less defensive than average" in the context of a consultative 4♦ call. Surely the hand seems more defensive than offensive, in the sense that your expected offensive potential is much less than possible but your defensive potential is not all that far off from expectations.

 

The problem, however, is the context. Whereas without a consultative 4♦ call, your hand could have great defense (AJ10xxx in diamonds and two outside Aces, or an outside AK), if partner has interest in defending himself the total points spread about will mean that you are less likely to have that sort of hand.

 

I think that the money will pay more frequently to the boxed up second tier than to the quick trick set.

 

Or, the other way -- RHO will more frequently overstep, IMO, because of a lack of body and depth than because of a lack of quicks. Partner's hand will more frequently have contributions in body than in quicks, as well.

 

Whether this hand has great defense, great offense, great total values, lousy defense, lousy offense, or lousy total values should be analyzed more as a ratio. I cannot imagine anyone calling this a great offense-to-defense holding. If anything, it has a great defense-to-offense ratio. If parter's 4♦ call protects our description of hand type, double shows defense-to-offense.

[pclayton]

I would characterize 4♦ as 'consultative'. If I have poor defense I think I am expected to bid 5♦ at these colors.

 

My overcall looks normal, but I have less than typical defense, on average. There are many overcalls where I am pleased to defend their game.

I like that someone else views 4♦ as "consultative."

 

However, I'm not sure how this hand is "less defensive than average" in the context of a consultative 4♦ call. Surely the hand seems more defensive than offensive, in the sense that your expected offensive potential is much less than possible but your defensive potential is not all that far off from expectations.

 

The problem, however, is the context. Whereas without a consultative 4♦ call, your hand could have great defense (AJ10xxx in diamonds and two outside Aces, or an outside AK), if partner has interest in defending himself the total points spread about will mean that you are less likely to have that sort of hand.

 

I think that the money will pay more frequently to the boxed up second tier than to the quick trick set.

 

Or, the other way -- RHO will more frequently overstep, IMO, because of a lack of body and depth than because of a lack of quicks. Partner's hand will more frequently have contributions in body than in quicks, as well.

 

Whether this hand has great defense, great offense, great total values, lousy defense, lousy offense, or lousy total values should be analyzed more as a ratio. I cannot imagine anyone calling this a great offense-to-defense holding. If anything, it has a great defense-to-offense ratio. If parter's 4♦ call protects our description of hand type, double shows defense-to-offense.

Good points.

 

I think you can drive yourself nuts trying to parse 'total defense' with ODR. This hand's ODR sucks, but that doesn't mean that it has good defense. To me, less defensive than average means we don't have QTs, and have that ugly 6th diamond. But the diamond length makes it very likely one of our opps has a stiff or void, which makes bidding 5 over 5 very likely.

 

We could easily have a hand in the same point range that overcalls 2♦ but likes defending: xx, Kxx, AQJxx, Qxx. Note that defending has nothing to do with QT's here - we don't mind defending because we have some possible slow tricks against 4♠ and 5♦ just rates to be unplayable.

 

Our black doubletons suck, but our opponents don't know that, and may think that 5♦ is so cheap that they are getting a great payoff in 5♠ when its right.

 

I think pard's hand is along the lines of: xx, Qxx, Qxxx, Axxx. I hate the idea of defending 4♠, but love the idea of 5♦ or 5♠.

[bid_em_up]

5♦