karlis_ooo Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 [hv=d=e&v=e&s=sxxxhxxdkxcaqxxxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2♣ overcall is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 clear cut even over 1S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'd rather have the sixth club than Kxx of hearts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcD Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Not my style. Only acceptable over 1♦. Perhaps too conservative by today's standards but that's what my partners would expect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 favorable! AQxxxx! pass is unacceptable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlis_ooo Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 How should the auction continue? http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...=e&b=6&a=1D2C3D -> At th table it wentX-P-3N-P4H-P-5CL-X <- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Hi, 2C, is fairly clear cut. Over 3D it depends on agreement, best would be to have a Xas t/o availabe, the X will alway show some tolerance for clubs, if not, simply bid 4C, or pass.. Better of course would be, if you have 3H as a fit bid av. av.,but that is an agreement I would not bother to have unless youreach a certain stage, and even than it is just luxury. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_s Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I'm surprised by these responses.To me this looks like a 3♣ overcall, not 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Agree with Nick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 2♣ all day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 I'm surprised by these responses.To me this looks like a 3♣ overcall, not 2♣. 3C is an option, the main issue with 3C is, that you aregreen vs. red, and you may bid 3C without the king of diamonds. Since p did not yet have the chance to speak, it is amatter of partnership agreement, if bidding 3C is a goodidea. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The main issue with 3♣ is not the ♦K. The main issue is the texture of the club suit. We have AQ5432. This suit is very vulnerable to bad breaks, has very few playing tricks, and will take tricks in defense. If our club suit was KQJ932 the 3♣ overcall would be a lot more attractive, and I would bid 3♣ instead of 2♣. I don't say that I would never preempt on an empty suit, but suit quality is a factor, and here there is a very reasonable (better) alternative in 2♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlis_ooo Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 How should the auction continue? http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer...=e&b=6&a=1D2C3D -> At th table it wentX-P-3N-P4H-P-5CL-X <- Biddig goes [1♦]-2♣-[3♦]-X -//- Pass - ??? P_Marlowe suggested 4♣ or Pass...What is (wrong) with 3N? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Biddig goes [1♦]-2♣-[3♦]-X -//- Pass - ??? P_Marlowe suggested 4♣ or Pass...What is (wrong) with 3N? When you decide to bid 2 club on this hand and on a hand with full values, you not only muddy the waters for your opponents but for your partner too. Now you have to clear it up a bid and show that you have a quite weak hand within the possible range of a 2 ♣ call. 3 NT does not limit the hand. You have just one stopper and maybe less when they have another suit to lead through partner, who rates to be short in diamonds himself. So I would hate 3 NT and bid 4 ♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickRW Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 At these colours, this, to me, is definitely a 2♣ overcall. The only question for me is what sort of jump overcalls are we playing - I might actually overcall 3♣. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_s Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The main issue with 3♣ is not the ♦K. The main issue is the texture of the club suit. We have AQ5432. This suit is very vulnerable to bad breaks, has very few playing tricks, and will take tricks in defense. If our club suit was KQJ932 the 3♣ overcall would be a lot more attractive, and I would bid 3♣ instead of 2♣. I don't say that I would never preempt on an empty suit, but suit quality is a factor, and here there is a very reasonable (better) alternative in 2♣. Thanks for the lucid explanation. So a wide ranging 2♣ overcall is becoming standard in some (most?) expert circles. I remember reading Sabine Auken advocating this in her book also. I have two regular partnerships. I've discussed this with one partner and he doesn't want to play (1♦)-2♣ this way even though he understands the motivation. The other partner would just flat out call me crazy for even suggesting this. :) Just how widespread is this 2♣ overcalling style anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The main issue with 3♣ is not the ♦K. The main issue is the texture of the club suit. We have AQ5432. This suit is very vulnerable to bad breaks, has very few playing tricks, and will take tricks in defense. If our club suit was KQJ932 the 3♣ overcall would be a lot more attractive, and I would bid 3♣ instead of 2♣. I don't say that I would never preempt on an empty suit, but suit quality is a factor, and here there is a very reasonable (better) alternative in 2♣. Wow even 655321 does not bid 3C, it must be madness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 The main issue with 3♣ is not the ♦K. The main issue is the texture of the club suit. We have AQ5432. This suit is very vulnerable to bad breaks, has very few playing tricks, and will take tricks in defense. If our club suit was KQJ932 the 3♣ overcall would be a lot more attractive, and I would bid 3♣ instead of 2♣. I don't say that I would never preempt on an empty suit, but suit quality is a factor, and here there is a very reasonable (better) alternative in 2♣. Thanks for the lucid explanation. So a wide ranging 2♣ overcall is becoming standard in some (most?) expert circles. I remember reading Sabine Auken advocating this in her book also. I have two regular partnerships. I've discussed this with one partner and he doesn't want to play (1♦)-2♣ this way even though he understands the motivation. The other partner would just flat out call me crazy for even suggesting this. :( Just how widespread is this 2♣ overcalling style anyway? I think its pretty normal to overcall aggressively with a 6 card suit, and conservatively (to say the least imo) with a 5 card suit, esp at favorable vulnerability. As Jdonn said, the 6th trump is better than a king, so you should adjust accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Even if you don't want to overcall 2♣ with this, bidding 3♣ really is terrible. The suit is bad, the hand has tons of defense, it's just a six card suit, and the hand is balanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Even if you don't want to overcall 2♣ with this, bidding 3♣ really is terrible. The suit is bad, the hand has tons of defense, it's just a six card suit, and the hand is balanced. Agreed with your fine explanation and I bid 2♣ here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 For me this hand is sub-minimum for a 2♣ overcall. But it's a style thing. 3♣ is not a good idea IMO, I'd normally pass with this hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlis_ooo Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Now you have to clear it up a bid and show that you have a quite weak hand within the possible range of a 2 ♣ call. 3 NT does not limit the hand. OK, 3N does not limit my hand (in terms of HCP).But it warns partner that there might be a diamond wastage for club play.3N shouldn't need much to make. Just some tricks and luck with ♣ establishment. Isn't 4♣ worse?Partner might count on 9-12 points on average outside ♦. Say non-maximum hands like ♣AKQxxx; ♣KQTxxx ♠AQ ♦xxx ♥xx But i have considerably less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 When partner has no 3 NT bid by himself, you need these cards from him to make 3 NT:Axxx,Axxx,xx;Kxx Any other queen or king makes the contract not safer.Give him KQxx,KQxx,xx,Kxx and you are down even with a diamond lead.Give him AKQx, AKQx,xx,xxx and 3 NT is on a finesse (through the opener, so this is more then 50 %.Give him shorter clubs and you need the clubs to break. So 3 NT may be a big winner opposite the idle hand- but it is a big risk too.Of course 4 club is no lock either and when 3 NT makes, you look like a moron, but I would prefer this bid opposite a hand which made a negative double, facing a raise to 3 ♦ which normally shows 9 diamondsd between the opponent hands. And you cannot have both: You cannot "count on 9-12 HCPS" outside of diamonds and bid 2 Club with these hands. If you decide to overcall with this hand, your partner must reduce his expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlis_ooo Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Give him KQxx,KQxx,xx,Kxx and you are down even with a diamond lead.But 5♣ doesn't make either... 4♣ is also not safe. Give him AKQx, AKQx,xx,xxx and 3 NT is on a finesse (through the opener, so this is more then 50 %.But 5♣ is worse... Give him shorter clubs and you need the clubs to break.Is that a reason against bidding 3NT? I mean... how does this help ♣ play? Just seems worse as opponens might double with those bad breaks more confidently. And you cannot have both: You cannot "count on 9-12 HCPS" outside of diamonds and bid 2 Club with these hands. If you decide to overcall with this hand, your partner must reduce his expectations. On average... why should he count me on ♣AQxxxx ♠xxx ♥xx ♦xx? So 3 NT may be a big winner opposite the idle hand- but it is a big risk too. What risk? That 4♣ might make and 3N go down? If so, risk seems acceptable to me. I guess i am moron that doesn't understand nothing from this game, but these arguments doun't convince me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Maybe I am the moron and the examples had been bad, I may even hold a minority view and most players will try 3 NT with the given hand. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts