Easy enough

[hrothgar]

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?

One issue that I was trying to figure out is how the presence of a 1♦ overcall impacts the opening lead.

 

Please note: I am not discussing partner's choice of opening lead IF I overcall 1♦, but rather who will be on opening lead if we do / do not overcall 1♦. If I overcall 1♦, the opponents suddenly have a negative double available. I suspect (but can't prove) that this might have a statistically significant impact on who leads.

 

Ben, any chance that you'd be willing to a quick BridgeBrowser study?

 

I'd be interested to compare auctions that start

 

(P) - P (1♣) - ???

 

where "you" hold a 3=3=5=2 shape and the opponents buy the contract. I'd be interested to compare who made the opening lead when we passed as opposed to where we overcalled 1♦.

 

(For what its worth, I have no idea what this will turn up, nor do I have any grand theories, but it might be interesting)

[kenrexford]

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.

This is the part I do not get. "Partner must have a 0 count?"

 

My style:

 

1. Advancer bids immediately with values. Thus, with something like ♠KQ10xx ♥Kxx ♦Qx ♣xxx as a maximum, and perhaps removing one of the Kings or Queens as a minimum, Advancer can introduce his major. By requiring this type of strength, Overcaller knows that he can bid again with extras, and possibly invite game. As you can see, the actual hand would pass 2♠, but a better hand like changing the heart Jack to the Ace might yield a game try and acceptance.

 

2. Advancer passes without strong values, relying upon the balance. Thus, with something like ♠K10xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣xxx, advancer passes. He'd rather not bid 2♠ and catch partner with the much different ♠x ♥Axxx ♦AKJxxx ♣Qx, where we have just preempted ourselves out of a good 2♦ contract. 2♠ in response to a reopening douible works fine.

 

3. Advancer also bids slowly on the weaker hands because he does not want to bid a making 2♠ but have partner raise to 3♠ down one. The solution is not to play 2♠ making and miss 4♠ because overcaller is afraid to bid.

 

4. Doubling also shows constructive values. Constructive values are not what is needed to make competition right.

 

5. It seems that the "hidden cost" to not reopening this hand is missed games, as Advancer must bid with less to protect your ability to pass out auctions with this type of hand. Not to mention, wrong contracts.

 

6. There is also a hidden cost of bad leads. You overcalled 1♦ for a lead-director. If Advancer raises to 2♦ on anything, you will frequently lead away from KJ into AQ, or split AQ, for a loss of a trick. If partner needs an honor in diamonds to raise on weakish hands, that helps your lead, right? So, if you don't raise on weakish hands without a diamond honor, you may well have a diamond fit on this hand. Again, if Advancer can rely upon Overcaller to reopen after this auction with this type of hand, or to reopen 2♦ when right, he can afford to pass with a fair hand but xxx/xxxx in diamonds and thereby protect your lead problem when he does have Qxx+ and raises.

 

I'm not sure I understand the alternative theory being espoused here.

[han]

I think Ulven's agreement to play (1X)-1Y-(1NT)-Dbl as takeout is very interesting. If both opponents have their bid then it becomes quite unlikely that we have significantly more cards than the opponents, and usually their cards will be well placed.

 

The takeout double makes sense (especially after 1C-1D-1NT) but can also be quite risky. Competing over 1NT with a potential misfit when they have announced about half the deck and no fit could be suicide.

 

Would it be a good idea to require a minimum of about 8 or 9 points so that overcaller can sometimes pass? Should advancer have some tolerance for partner's suit?

[foo]

I think Ulven's agreement to play (1X)-1Y-(1N)-Dbl as takeout is very interesting. If both opponents have their bid then it becomes quite unlikely that we have significantly more cards than the opponents, and usually their cards will be well placed.

 

The takeout double makes sense (especially after 1C-1D-1N) but can also be quite risky. Competing over 1N with a potential misfit when they have announced about half the deck and no fit could be suicide.

 

Would it be a good idea to require a minimum of about 8 or 9 points so that overcaller can sometimes pass? Should advancer have some tolerance for partner's suit?

I play this as well.

 

The assumption is that usually Opener has ~12+ and Responder has ~8-9.

Thus very often we are in the middle of a partscore battle.

 

The X'er usually has reasonable values for the auction and

a= a flexible hand with at least tolerance for Overcaller. or

b= a high ODR hand in the other suits (like 55's)

 

As I've stated before, I'm firmly in agreement with the Scanians on the idea that low level Penalty X's don't work as well as Action X's and Penalty Passes.

[Guest Jlall]

I said "partner must have a 0 count" only on the part where he had short clubs. I was just saying there's no way the opps have a big club fit unless they have a lot of HCP (in which case wtd are they doing). I think you will agree the less clubs partner has the less HCP he needs to bid. Obviously "a 0 count" was hyperbole. You'll probably notice in the part where I discussed them having an 8 card fit I said "pretty bad hand." I even seperated these into different paragraphs. So your example of partner having a 5323 6 count is not really relevant to dispute my arguments unless you erroneously merge 2 of my arguments together.

 

Yes partner can have specifically (53)23 with about 5-6 points where he wouldn't X 2C (I think partner should be doubling with this shape more often than bidding 2M, he would need a good suit to bid 2M with some random 8 count), but he could also just have 4 clubs.

 

If you really think raising to 2D should show an honor, well I don't know what to say other than I think thats is silly. It may work if partner will always reopen with short clubs, but what if partner has short clubs? Then does he raise? Then wouldn't that negate the whole "we must have an honor to raise" thing? I really think requiring an honor to raise is a bad idea, partner needs to show his support immediately.

[kenrexford]

[Good stuff]

A lot of this makes sense, but then I suppose this problem of what to do initially and at round two depends upon style.

 

It seems that we agree upon the general principle that a 2-bid does promise something of value. Where that line is may be different. I suppose that at IMPs, and even at MP, I am willing to occasionally struggle for tricks because of more sound Advancer action and corresponding aggressive reopening, with what I perceive to be the advantage of better consideration of possible game.

 

I also am posting because I somewhat disagree with the idea that not supporting because your honor contribution is nil is a "silly" idea. The cost to this approach may be that Overcaller repeats diamonds with difficlt patterns, but the upside is the very critical defensive problem when partner is on lead, which he will be after this auction (if we defend). If your style includes aggressive reopening, then this is less of a problem and more potentially beneficial, IMO.

 

But, I guess to each his or her own.

[Guest Jlall]

I think Ulven's agreement to play (1X)-1Y-(1NT)-Dbl as takeout is very interesting. If both opponents have their bid then it becomes quite unlikely that we have significantly more cards than the opponents, and usually their cards will be well placed.

 

The takeout double makes sense (especially after 1C-1D-1NT) but can also be quite risky. Competing over 1NT with a potential misfit when they have announced about half the deck and no fit could be suicide.

 

Would it be a good idea to require a minimum of about 8 or 9 points so that overcaller can sometimes pass? Should advancer have some tolerance for partner's suit?

I always thought this was expert standard. It's just like a responsive X.

[han]

I always thought this was expert standard. It's just like a responsive X.

Thanks, I've never discussed it with anybody so I'm glad it came up.

[Echognome]

I always thought this was expert standard. It's just like a responsive X.

Thanks, I've never discussed it with anybody so I'm glad it came up.

Maybe it's because you play against me too often where 1NT for penalty makes a lot more sense?

[mike777]

Are people suggesting undiscussed this is something other than a penalty double?

This seems to be a clear penalty double. If you wish to play it as something else ok but that is a special partnership agreement.

[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. B)

 

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

 

Ok cite 500

Ok cite 100

Mike, quit drugs.

calm down guys I had not one but two smiles after this, geez have a sense of humor. In any case I still think this is a clear penalty double unless you have discussed it as other.

[helene_t]

Hmmm ... a penalty double may be useful to expose a semi-psyche 1N bid, but since such a semi-psyche is usually based on support for opener's minor it will work as a responsive double in practice.

 

A penalty double may be more usefull after a 3rd seat opening that could be very light. Then again, you need a sound overcall style for a passed hand to be able to double 1N for penalties based on partner's 1-level overcall.

 

OTOH, what pattern are included in the responsive double? 4-4 unbid suits is offers too little promise of a fit. 5-4 is fine if opener's suit is clubs so that overcaller can give advancer the choise by bidding 2♣.

 

Otherwise I'd prefer to play it as a 5-card in the unbid major, plus doubleton support for overcallers suit, like Snapdragon. This is especially useful in

pass-(1♦)-1♥-(1N)

dbl*

which allows advancer to show spades without bypassing 2♥. With ♣ + some ♥ tollerance, advancer can bid 2♣.