glen Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 [hv=d=n&v=n&s=sq743hj93dakj973c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Pass-1♠(11-16, 5+♠s)-? Overcall or not? For the story, please see: Ulf Nilsson's Bridge Blog Do you think this theory is valid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think that many overcalled 3♦ opposite a passed partner, forcing opps to bid (and make) 4♥. Anyway, I'd like to see more examples before I'm convinced :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 yeah, 2♦ or 3♦, depending on how much wine one had at dinner :) As for Nilsson, well, unless I get to hear his explanations, I'll rank his theory as "crackpot". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 The best contract is 5♣, and I don't see how bidding 2♦ helps anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I usually just pay no attention to the 4 card suit, or honours in it and look at the rest of my hand. If I don't have a decent suit and an honour or two outside, I'll just pass. In the hand above, I have no outside tricks so I'd just pass. I'd be interested to know what the best theoretical call is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Didn't read the blog but if the idea is to pass then I think that is crazy. 2D stands out to me, but 3D could work opp a passed hand. I'd be worried about missing 4H or something though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think that many overcalled 3♦ opposite a passed partner, forcing opps to bid (and make) 4♥. Anyway, I'd like to see more examples before I'm convinced :)The full deal was:[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj86ht85dqt8ca754&w=s5hkq7642d5ckq632&e=sakt92had642cjt98&s=sq743hj93dakj973c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you'd overcalled 3D and they bid to 4H, wouldn't you make a Lightner Double? It seems to me that on this layout overcalling makes it considerably more likely that you'll get a plus score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 2D, ... but 3D is ok as well,although the spade length would stop me a littel bit. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I like 3D because it takes away three diamonds as a cue bid. But certainly I'm bidding diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I don't like a 3♦ bid here. The suit is good but it's not solid, and we have length in RHO's suit. Hearts could also be our best strain. I'd bid 3♦ if you forced me to choose between that and pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think that many overcalled 3♦ opposite a passed partner, forcing opps to bid (and make) 4♥. Anyway, I'd like to see more examples before I'm convinced :PThe full deal was:[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj86ht85dqt8ca754&w=s5hkq7642d5ckq632&e=sakt92had642cjt98&s=sq743hj93dakj973c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you'd overcalled 3D and they bid to 4H, wouldn't you make a Lightner Double? It seems to me that on this layout overcalling makes it considerably more likely that you'll get a plus score.It would never occur to me that the double was a lightner double... it would just be penalty. And, if it were Lightner, then (unless clubs were bid and raised, in which case I would be doubling and leading the club A myself) it would not occur to me that it showed a void in an unbid side suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP ♠ Q743 ♥ J93 ♦ AKJ973 ♣ [space] Pass-1♠(11-16, 5+♠s)-? Overcall or not? For the story, please see: Ulf Nilsson's Bridge Blog Do you think this theory is valid?No: I don't think the theory is valid. One cannot construct or test a theory on a handful of hands, especially when the sample is chosen by reference only to hands where it worked. Without doing any form of detailed analysis, just consider the number of saves/preemptions that this approach misses. After all, on the hands he passes, partner rates to be short in opener's suit and so may well have a fit for ours... and we are staying out???? Also, consider: I believe it to be widely accepted, and properly so, that most pairs have better methods in uncontested auctions than they do in competitive bidding... which is precisely why the last 40 years has seen a huge change in the willingness of good players to get into auctions on any excuse. There will always be hands that hit the seams of any method, and so there will be some hands where the competition makes them guess better than they would left to their own devices, but this will be a minority. We lost a match in the last regional I played when partner opened a weak 2, caught Mike Passell with a thin overcall and his partner with an even thinner raise. They reached a bad game and it made, and we lost. Had we passed, they would not have reached game. Should we then construct a theory that says that weak 2 bids are bad because they drive the opps into games they wouldn't reach otherwise? I can't be bothered to try to build a simulation, but it strikes me as almost certainly a long-term loser, in a big, big way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Can someone summarize the link? I can't reach it at work. In any case anything but 2♦ seems terrible to me. I think it's a very strange trend in bridge lately the people seem to preempt on hands that are not only strong but also unsuitable after their partner passes, and I see a lot of loss from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianshark Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Don't bid 2/1 overcall in a lower ranking suit if you have a side 4 card suit to an honour in the opening suit. Doesn't justify, just puts it out as a theory and asks people to make up their own minds. Then gives the above example hand as an example of a time where it worked out. I find Mikeh's post a pretty good analysis on why this theory is probably nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 It would be nice if Ulven would post a detailed argument for his theory, either here or in his blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 It would never occur to me that the double was a lightner double... it would just be penalty. And, if it were Lightner, then (unless clubs were bid and raised, in which case I would be doubling and leading the club A myself) it would not occur to me that it showed a void in an unbid side suitIt would be an unusual hand that was worth only a premptive 3D on the first round, albeit opposite a passed hand, but had enough defensive strength to double a more-or-less freely-bid game on the next. A greater flaw in my argument is that they might run to 5C, which was cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 Can someone summarize the link? I can't reach it at work. In any case anything but 2♦ seems terrible to me. I think it's a very strange trend in bridge lately the people seem to preempt on hands that are not only strong but also unsuitable after their partner passes, and I see a lot of loss from it. "Don't overcall on the two level with honor-fourth in their suit. E.g. I passed this hand and got a real nice score." edit: an exact quote is "you shouldn't overcall 2x over 1M with 4-cards headed by a top honour in their suit. Not even with a good 6-card suit of your own." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASkolnick Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I hate experts who give opinions without any valid theory behind it. I can at least see the argument if the "overcaller" is under the bidder. The problem is then your opponents shortness is after your shortness. If it goes 1H-P-1S-2D Now the danger becomes that your RHO can overruff your partner, trump promote etc. because chances are RHO has equal or less length in the suit. Also, your non-ace points are then much more vulnerable to being led through. And as for the result, isn't that a bit timid with a 6H-5C 10 HCP hand to pass 2S? I don't think the result had anything to do with the not overcalling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sartaj1 Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I really enjoy reading Ulf's blog for he has lots of interesting things to say. I say this so that any potential reader does not get dissuaded by the "crackpot" style judgements delivered by the audience here so far... On the issue of this particular hand, there are many reasons why a pass could work out well. Holding length in their suit is often the first sign of a misfit and a misfit usually means a minus score to the ones who bid. While i would personally overcall 2D (and think that 3D is nuts), i wouldnt be surprised if pass was the winning action, especially opposite a passed partner. Aiming to track how this theory (of passing) goes from now on though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 On the issue of this particular hand, there are many reasons why a pass could work out well. Holding length in their suit is often the first sign of a misfit and a misfit usually means a minus score to the ones who bid. It is one thing to say that holding cards in their suit is a negative factor, another to say "one should not overcall with Hxxx in their suit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I think Ulf has a lot of great ideas, but I don't buy into this. There's a good chance pard has short spades and diamond support, which gives us a lot of potential for high level contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted February 1, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 Note the blog has now been updated in reply to this forum: Ulf Nilsson - Views from the bridge table ... I first made this observation in 1998 playing an international high-level team event in Holland. I've been keeping track ever since then and I'm no stranger to top-level bridge and I'd say I also analyse more matches than most living people (PS-bridge/BB-records etc, owning most World Championship books since 1958). [... discusses theory ...] Theory is one thing, empiric observations over 10 years is another. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I think that many overcalled 3♦ opposite a passed partner, forcing opps to bid (and make) 4♥. Anyway, I'd like to see more examples before I'm convinced :)The full deal was:[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sj86ht85dqt8ca754&w=s5hkq7642d5ckq632&e=sakt92had642cjt98&s=sq743hj93dakj973c]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] If you'd overcalled 3D and they bid to 4H, wouldn't you make a Lightner Double? It seems to me that on this layout overcalling makes it considerably more likely that you'll get a plus score. One real crackpot idea is that this double would be a Lightner. The double as Mike suggested would simply be penalties. Secondly 4HX makes if after ruffing a C you don't underlead AK of Ds. Are you really going to find this at the table? Sure....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 (edited) One real crackpot idea is that this double would be a Lightner. The double as Mike suggested would simply be penalties. Secondly 4HX makes if after ruffing a C you don't underlead AK of Ds. Are you really going to find this at the table? Sure....!Hmm, "Fantasyland" and "crackpot" in one week. I must be doing something right. What sort of hand is suitable both for a preemptive 3D overcall over 1S, and for a unilateral penalty double of 4H? As for defeating 4H, yes, of course I would find it at the table. Partner would lead CA, C4, asking me to play a diamond back, and I would do so. Don't they play suit preference signals in Hogshire? Declarer might try to confuse matters by playing C6 and CQ, leaving open the possibility that he had KQ765. If he had: - KQxxxx Qx KQ765or x K10xxxx Q KQ765a low diamond return would let 4S through. However, a priori it's more likely that the 4 is partner's lowest small club than his highest, so I would return a low diamond anyway. Edited February 1, 2008 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted February 1, 2008 Report Share Posted February 1, 2008 I wouldn't double 4♥ since I would expect it to make even if p reads my double as asking to lead my void and guesses that my void is clubs. Not a crackpot idea (IMHO) to play Lightner doubles at the game level in some situations, but don't blame a random partner for misinterpreting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.