Easy enough

[han]

I passed and partner knew what to lead. However, partner thought the double was takeout and we took only 4 tricks.

[gwnn]

I think it's not a clear penalty X situation (not 18/18 people clear, for sure).

 

2♥.

[kenrexford]

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

[mikeh]

Far from it: I think there is an excellent chance, if LHO bids 2♣ and partner passes, that the Total Trumps number is 14. While that estimate may be off by as much as 2, there is a reasonable chance that RHO is some 4333 with 3♣s and that LHO is similar, but with 4 clubs, while partner is some 4432 with 4 trumps and 2♦s.

 

Plus 50 is better than -50. I fully appreciate that, on any given day, I may be missing a playable 4=3 major suit fit and even the odd 5=3 major, but my expectation is that defending will be average to average plus more times than not, by an admittedly narrow margin.

 

Your experience may differ... and, if it does, then your choice is as valid as mine.. and simulations do't help much on this kind of problem. My partners tend to bid a lot once I overcall 1♦, because my style is to have values when I make this overcall. Bidding 1♦ over 1♣ is a space-creator for the opps, not a space-consumer, so I tend to bid it for positive reasons rather than for destructive purposes. So when my partner passes, either he is broke (which remains a possibility if opener has decided to devalue his ♦ holding and LHO is max) or he is offshape and can neither raise, double nor bid a chunky 5 card major.

[kenrexford]

Far from it: I think there is an excellent chance, if LHO bids 2♣ and partner passes, that the Total Trumps number is 14. While that estimate may be off by as much as 2, there is a reasonable chance that RHO is some 4333 with 3♣s and that LHO is similar, but with 4 clubs, while partner is some 4432 with 4 trumps and 2♦s.

Wow. I cannot say "Wow" enough. Red, I might not let the opponents play 2♣ after 1♣-1♦-2♣-P-P-? with this hand, but, "Wow."

 

Even if partner happens to hold some sort of deathly hand, like 4342 pattern, we will have a Moysian, and partner declares well.

 

Against all of that, they may actually have a fit. Heck, they might even have a big fit, maybe nine or ten cards, even.

[skjaeran]

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

After making a marginal overcall, you're going to reopen here?

That's a gigantic overbid IMO. If a passed partner can't come to life over 2♣, I'll let them play there for sure. If bidding now was an option, I'd have started with a double and stayed low for the rest of the auction in stead.

[nige1]

I bid 1D but later I thought that perhaps double was better.

 

The auction went: (still none vulnerable)

 

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)

Dbl - (p) - ??

 

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

 

What's your call?

IMO 2 ♣ = 10, _P = 9.

Partner is a passed hand, the double is ambiguous, and you have dross. If 2 ♣ is doubled, you can XX, The 2-2 fit may play quite well :P

[kenrexford]

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

After making a marginal overcall, you're going to reopen here?

That's a gigantic overbid IMO. If a passed partner can't come to life over 2♣, I'll let them play there for sure. If bidding now was an option, I'd have started with a double and stayed low for the rest of the auction in stead.

Doesn't this beg a question, though?

 

One partner or the other is the one to take action after 1♣-1♦-2♣, right?

 

If Advancer can assume that partner will re-open with something like ♠3-4 ♥3-4 ♦5-6 ♣0-2, then why commit directly to a call that may be disasterous?

 

I mean, suppose that you are Advancer with 5323 pattern. Do you really want to bypass what may be a simple auction for partner of rebidding diamonds with 1462 pattern? This concept of Advancer's pass meaning that we should pass also is rather weak. Simply put, doesn't a 2M bid here promise something as to overall strength, that something being much less than required to enable competition over a simple raise and pass-out of a club contract? If not. how in the heck do you have a sane auction toward game? Is not 2M constructive, and hence capable of accepting another call from partner?

 

My shock at the idea of passing out 2♣ is growing more intense as more and more folks whose opinions I often share and if not nonetheless respect buy into this absurdly passive style.

[mikeh]

Sometimes I get the feeling that the intensity of your opinion is inversely proportional to the merit of your logic :P

 

Here you are, getting all worked up because some pretty good players say that they would not reopen if 2♣ were passed around to them.

 

I suspect that all of us chickens are quite happy to acknowledge that our passivity will sometimes, and perhaps quite often, get us a poor board.

 

However, we chickens also recognize that there are hand-types on which the pass is the best we can do... and our experience suggests to us that this is likely to be more common than the 5332 hands that get you so excited (or the 4-3 moysians that work, etc).

 

The difference between you and the majority of posters seems to me to be that you have tunnel vision: your choices and reasoning are ALWAYS correct. It is a rare post from you that contains any suggestion that you have been persuaded by others that your original idea was wrong. Typically, when someone disagrees with you, that begins a whole flurry of repetitious posts.

 

Now, I recognize a slight tendency to that myself B) Maybe it comes from both of us being trial lawyers :P But, while maybe I flatter or kid myself, I have learned a lot from this forum, and I am quite happy to acknowledge when someone's post has persuaded me that I was wrong.

 

I am not suggesting that you meekly agree with any consensus or with any poster(s) but you will gain more respect, from me anyway..alto I suspect that won't impress you..... if you listen to the words of Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.... without dwelling on the somewhat weird scatalogical and theistic language :P

[mike777]

.

 

I am not suggesting that you meekly agree with any consensus or with any poster(s) but you will gain more respect, from me anyway..alto I suspect that won't impress you..... if you listen to the words of Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.... without dwelling on the somewhat weird scatalogical and theistic language :P

Cromwell, you quote Cromwell of all people on July 4th :P

Cromwell, self appointed Lord protector of all things British, British civil war general(nonroyal side) who seized power rather than step aside once victory was won. B)

 

Compare to our General(GW) :P

Perhaps only man hated more than the devil by the Irish, even today!

OH well.

 

 

Happy 4th of July from America.

[kenrexford]

The difference between you and the majority of posters seems to me to be that you have tunnel vision: your choices and reasoning are ALWAYS correct. It is a rare post from you that contains any suggestion that you have been persuaded by others that your original idea was wrong. Typically, when someone disagrees with you, that begins a whole flurry of repetitious posts.

Or, it could be that I actually am always right. LOL

 

However much that suggestion might make sense, this is not the opccasion to turn a new leaf. This is a structural problem, IMO.

 

The partnership to succeed must assume certain parameters. I was thinking this problem through while outside a few minutes ago, and I'm more and more convinced of the structural problem with passing this hand.

 

Cooperative partnership bidding means, often times, that you don't have to rush to a bid. Partner is there to assist. He can think also.

 

An initial double here, directly over 1♣, just seems like a rush bid. It is not critical to double with every hand having 5-3 in each side suit. As someone (maybe you) noted, a 1♦ overcall, by its very nature of showing stuff, enables partner to make a call that he might not otherwise make. So, you don't need to double to show pattern, you can bid to show values and let partner cooperate.

 

So, you start with a 1♦ call and LHO raises to 2♣. Advancer has the same basic issue. He does not have to immediately bid something. He can when it is right, such as when he has values and a game is possible, or when he has a six-card suit and support is not critical, or whatever you decide. But, he need not bid just to show that he can, if the 1♦ bidder is expected to move.

 

When each partner must bid now or live with the consequences, a solo game, you get weird results, like playing 3-3 fits, or 5-1 fits, or missing 9-card fits to play 7-card fits, whatever.

 

Sure, passing out 2♣ has a chance to be right, on this hand. However, the pass-out is not justified by partner's pass -- he might not have a good call despite values and might be trusting you to reopen this thing. For each degree to which Advancer trusts in a re-open a degree of potential cost is added to the decision to pass out this auction.

[the hog]

I wonder how many posters realise that partner is a passed hand. I wonder how many realise that you are playing Imps and not MPs. I would pass here, and frankly I think that decision is clear. Imo the overcall has very little to gain and can lose a lot.

 

A 1D overcall is hardly pre emptive in nature and if anything, gives the opponents more options. If my Ds were a Major, sure then I would overcall regardless of whether partner was a passed hand or not.

 

Opposite an unpassed hand I would bid 1D, but even then would not crime a pass.

[kenrexford]

I wonder how many posters realise that partner is a passed hand. I wonder how many realise that you are playing Imps and not MPs. I would pass here, and frankly I think that decision is clear. Imo the overcall has very little to gain and can lose a lot.

 

A 1D overcall is hardly pre emptive in nature and if anything, gives the opponents more options. If my Ds were a Major, sure then I would overcall regardless of whether partner was a passed hand or not.

 

Opposite an unpassed hand I would bid 1D, but even then would not crime a pass.

I'm in that category -- missed that partner is a passed hand. Now, I tend to incline more toward a 2♦ overcall, actually. However, I agree that passing has some attraction.

[jtfanclub]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sa9xhj98dkjxxxckx]133|100|Scoring: XIMP

p - (1C) - ??[/hv]

I wonder if (censored) recognizes a similar hand from a year ago...they opened a diamond, if I recall correctly, but adjusting for the other minor, it would have gone:

 

P - (1C) - X - (2C)

 

and I, innocently with my 9 count and 5-4-1-3, bid 3C! I mean, why not? Even across a minimum 4-4-4-1, there ought to be 9 tricks there. And it wouldn't take much to make 4.

 

Things did not go well after that.

[jdonn]

I would never pass a hand like this that I could easily overcall. It directs a lead, and even more importantly it is likely our last safe chance to enter the auction. Why can't it just be our hand for a partscore? I don't hate double but I prefer 1♦. And as much as I would never pass, it's a million times better than preempting. Just because partner is a passed hand doesn't make preempting always right. Bids like that are the only bids people consistenly making KNOWING they are making a totally inaccurate and misdescriptive bid, yet they continue to do it. You (among other terrible things, but most commonly) just end up in a ridiculous contract when partner has some fair values and short diamonds, whereas if your contract is good you would easily have gotten there after an overcall to begin with.

[Codo]

I bid 1D but later I thought that perhaps double was better.

 

The auction went: (still none vulnerable)

 

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)

Dbl - (p) - ??

 

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

 

What's your call?

This is tricky, because pd passed allready, so this may be no pure penalty double.

OTOH there is no take out double to NT, or does he show a 4424 hand?

 

You allready made a statement about you majors: You bid 1 Diamond.

So he hopes for you to have some (24)52 hand and that he will find the fit.

I think this is far too risky. You may have no fit and no place to go.

 

So I strongly dislike his idea and I had passed too, took my 4 tricks and smiled at partner.

 

I won´t claim that this is the majority view, I have no idea what the majority would do here.

[Guest Jlall]

Heck, they might even have a big fit, maybe nine or ten cards, even.

How do you figure? With 3 diamonds partner could raise, without 3 diamonds (and the opps having 9 or 10 clubs) partner has 9 or 10 major suit cards and forgot to X 2C? He must have a 0 count or something in which case I'm happy to pass.

 

Even if the opps have an 8 card fit and partner can't raise to 2D he has 5323 or 4423 and didnt X 2C or bid 2M. Again, he must have a pretty bad hand. I'm sure they are a favorite to have either a large majority of the HCP or only a 7 card fit so I'm happy to pass.

[ulven]

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

 

a/ This is a 1D-overcall. A lot better than X in the long run. Any simulation will prove me right. Do appreciate the weight Kx in clubs carries in this regard (don't care to elaborate now).

 

b/ If it goes 2C from LHO and pass back to me. Pass. Easy. Move the K or clubs to H and I'm likely to X if not table presence tell me otherwise.

 

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

[mike777]

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

 

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked. :)

 

More may play it but written, I am sceptical. :)

 

Ok cite 500

Ok cite 100

[Gerben42]

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)

Dbl - (p) - ??

 

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

 

What's your call?

 

2♦. Partner is a passed hand and can expect you to have about 9 HCP, so even with 11 he won't know of a majority of HCP. He may be hoping I can bid a 4-card major but I don't have one. With a strong hand I'd bid 2♣, so 2♦ must be this.

[ulven]

Mike777,

 

The "impressed" part refers to the choice if initial action over 1C.

 

I doubt many have a written agreement about X over 1NT in this auction. We do, but then we're not your average partnership either.

 

Since a 1-level overcall is sort of wide-range and responder has bid a voluntary 1NT, it makes sense to use X as unbid suits. You're not getting rich with a penalty X.

 

This situation occured when I played with Wirgren (almost 15 years ago) and has been a part of the system file ever since.

[Echognome]

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

 

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked. :)

 

More may play it but written, I am sceptical. :)

 

Ok cite 500

Ok cite 100

This is a ridiculous request and thus a silly argument.

 

Why don't for every statement you claim you produce even just your minimum of 100 examples of pairs that play it?

 

I know I'm not going to do the work. I can state with confidence that there are well over 1000 pairs that play stayman after they open 1NT, but I'm not going to poll even 10 pairs to prove it.

[foo]

North,None,XIMP

♠ A9x ♥ J98 ♦ KJxxx ♣ Kx

 

p - (1C) - ??

I don't know what "XIMP" scoring is, But I do know

a= pd is a passed hand

b= It looks like IMPs

c= I want a ♦ lead more than any other.

d= This one of the special opportunities in Bridge.

 

I do not want to make more than one decision about this hand. I am either passing now, and passing forevermore, or I am making my one bid now and then passing forevermore.

 

2♦ by me.

 

...and passing forevermore.

 

That's as much pressure as I feel safe to put on.

I often alert (1♣)-2♦! as "wide ranging" because even with Negative X's, the opponents are going to have a hard time finding their major suit fit.

[han]

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

 

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked. :)

 

More may play it but written, I am sceptical. :)

 

Ok cite 500

Ok cite 100

Mike, quit drugs.

[kenrexford]

I would never pass a hand like this that I could easily overcall. It directs a lead, and even more importantly it is likely our last safe chance to enter the auction. Why can't it just be our hand for a partscore? I don't hate double but I prefer 1♦. And as much as I would never pass, it's a million times better than preempting. Just because partner is a passed hand doesn't make preempting always right. Bids like that are the only bids people consistenly making KNOWING they are making a totally inaccurate and misdescriptive bid, yet they continue to do it. You (among other terrible things, but most commonly) just end up in a ridiculous contract when partner has some fair values and short diamonds, whereas if your contract is good you would easily have gotten there after an overcall to begin with.

Good point. I got dragged into the hype.

 

After reading the thoughts of others, I'm back to a 1♦ overcall, although I dislike it. I usually want 1♦ to show a slightly better hand as a minimum, but I must start with 1♦ in case of a partscore decision at 2♣ passed around to me.