mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 V vs NV at IMPs you deal: ♠ KJT6♥ 8♦ 6542♣ T842 The Auction:Pass - (1♣) - 1♦ - (1♥)Pass - (1♠) - Pass - (2♠)Pass - (3♠) - Pass - (4♠)? Would you X them? How much would MPs influence your decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Can I go back and bid 2♦ at my 2nd turn? Why did I hide 4 card support? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Can I go back and bid 2♦ at my 2nd turn? Why did I hide 4 card support? Red on White? OK... You can bid 2♦, and the auction will be the same from there on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Can I go back and bid 2♦ at my 2nd turn? Why did I hide 4 card support? Red on White? OK... You can bid 2♦, and the auction will be the same from there on... I might double at MP's then. I think it's a bit too spec for IMPs, given we likely have 0-1 diamond tricks coming our way. I'd say 1 is more likely than 0. Also, if the AQ of spades is over us, we may only take 2 tricks. I think I would just let it go at IMPs. If partner had overcalled 2♦ I would crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlam Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Why would MP or not make a difference?Well ok, I don't understand why you would want to double anyway, given we will have 2 trump tricks only after a double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Pass not close for me especially with undisclosed four-card support. I am close to having bid 3♦ at my first turn. The adverse vulnerability might turn me off but this would be a good minimum at a different vulnerability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuroth Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Pass. Decent chance there's a ♦ singleton out there. Also, my ♠ probably rate better as a surprise than a known quantity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 The auction is definitely one that you can take a crack at. But the vul makes the odds not so great. How confident am I that we are setting it two? Not confident at ALL. So I don't think it's worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I think we'll set it two more often than they will make. What would you estimate is the necessary percentage of the time beating it and beating two required to double? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I would double, based on their auction both showing minimums. If they are like GIB and might be making a slam here then I hope I know my customers. Of course I would also have raised diamonds earlier, probably to 3 (the spades were not yet an offensive liability at that point) but if someone prefers 2 that's ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I would double, based on their auction both showing minimums. If they are like GIB and might be making a slam here then I hope I know my customers. Of course I would also have raised diamonds earlier, probably to 3 (the spades were not yet an offensive liability at that point) but if someone prefers 2 that's ok.agreed.. both opps, if to be trusted, think that this game is at best fair, and that will be based on the expectation of a 3-2 trump break. If they never make a doubled game against you, you (probably) don't double enough. BTW, I'm not worried about them having a stiff diamond somewhere... that might actually help my trumps grow up in some situations. I wouldn't double without some expectation of a 2 trick set, since my double will sometimes cost a trick in play (the last time an opp doubled my 4♠ contract, on a 4-4 fit, she held KJ10xx and we made an overtrick... but her partner had not made a strength showing call) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 My main concern with doubling was giving away the location of all the trumps, therefore reducing the # or trump tricks I get, and this may allow them to make it, so we lose 11 instead of lose 5 or 6 (or 2)... I thought that at MPs maybe X would be more favored, because every 10 points is crucial, or is it still the same theory about giving away the location of all the trumps, therefore making the X a wash or loss usually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 <snip> (the last time an opp doubled my 4♠ contract, on a 4-4 fit, she held KJ10xx and we made an overtrick... but her partner had not made a strength showing call) I wouldn't exactly consider a 1♦ overcall a "strength showing call", although I wouldn't consider it a "strength denying call" either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 <snip> (the last time an opp doubled my 4♠ contract, on a 4-4 fit, she held KJ10xx and we made an overtrick... but her partner had not made a strength showing call) I wouldn't exactly consider a 1♦ overcall a "strength showing call", although I wouldn't consider it a "strength denying call" either. red v white at imps, light 1♦ overcalls are not a good idea. You take away zero bidding space.. in fact you create bidding space for the opps, who now have a double to show both majors, and a cue bid. At the same time, you give away info and you expose yourself to a red v white number, even at the 1-level, let alone if partner takes you seriously. I believe, perhaps erroneously, that most good players would have a higher minimum for this overcall than for any other 1 level overcall sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted February 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I believe, perhaps erroneously, that most good players would have a higher minimum for this overcall than for any other 1 level overcall sequence.Who said partner was a good player? This is B/I :D However, I agree that partner should have a good hand for a 1♦ overcall here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I believe, perhaps erroneously, that most good players would have a higher minimum for this overcall than for any other 1 level overcall sequence.Who said partner was a good player? This is B/I :D However, I agree that partner should have a good hand for a 1♦ overcall here. I don't. To me that is old fashioned thinking. You need to get partner off to good leads, give him a chance to raise and take up space, give him a basis to introduce new suits, take away some of their gadgets such as new minor forcing if partner can make a single raise, etc. Of course it's moot on this hand. The opponents' auction tells you partner is not on a 6 or 7 count, at least to the extent they can be trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Yeah, I don't need a good hand to overcall 1D. Understand that it creates cuebids/space for opps, but the upsides are for lead directional and that partner may be able to create LESS bidding space by preempting.As to the actual hand, I think I'll pass. I agree that the auction just screams for a double, but diamonds are typically 5431 around and if declarer needs any heart finesses they are onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I agree with the pass to 1♠. IMO we lack defensive values for 2♦, and we lack offensive values at these colors for 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would have supported partner. And if they had reached 4♠ anyway I wouldn't double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I am really surprised that so great players double at imps. I would expect to make about 1/2 trick less by doubling, so I do not see the big gain. They are NV and I do not see them going 2 or more down. At mps, I might doubl them. For the idea that 1 ♦ could be weak: Good opponents will be thankful for this noise. Against weaker pairs it may help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts