Really?

[OleBerg]

Problems like this one, where most of the calls have little or no relation to the actual hand, really belongs somewhere outside the A/E forum.

Strange attitude.

 

If I had not published the full hand, or made up one that did fit the bidding, the problem would have belonged here?

The problem is that skaeran sees, as do I, the failure to X 1♣ as a clear error and responding as if it was acceptable should not be in the A/E forum.

Well that's not what he wrote.

 

Anyway, I just kibitzed the hand, and was very surprised to see a pass, and wanted expert opinions.

 

If people find it to silly, simply don't respond. After all, a lot of people responded without stating that it didn't belong here. Furthermore, there was different opinions, so someone might have profited from the thread.

 

I really don't think that one bad bid should exclude a problem from this forum; somebody might have learned that the hand should have doubled initially.

[skjaeran]

I agree on your last part. But then it belongs in the B/I forum. A/E players should know what first action to make after a 1♣ opening holding an absolutely normal t/o double.

 

The given auction in itself would indeed present an interesting problem if our hand fitted a 1♦ overcall.

 

I'd suggest not revealing the complete hand when that makes the whole auction ridiculous. It should be good enough if asked to tell that the auction was a total mess, which created an interesting problem.

[OleBerg]

I agree on your last part. But then it belongs in the B/I forum. A/E players should know what first action to make after a 1♣ opening holding an  absolutely normal t/o double.

 

The given auction in itself would indeed present an interesting problem if our hand fitted a 1♦ overcall.

 

I'd suggest not revealing the complete hand when that makes the whole auction ridiculous. It should be good enough if asked to tell that the auction was a total mess, which created an interesting problem.

Well, i disagree.

 

1) Only two posters seems to support this, while many, and indeed some of the respected posters, seems to have no problem.

 

2) My opening post has attracted 30 comments directly discussing the stated problem. This is far above average for this forum.

 

3) Opinions has been discerning in this forum, so it seems to me it was worth discussing.

 

I only revealed the full deal out of politeness, because somebody asked for it.

[skjaeran]

I agree on your last part. But then it belongs in the B/I forum. A/E players should know what first action to make after a 1♣ opening holding an  absolutely normal t/o double.

 

The given auction in itself would indeed present an interesting problem if our hand fitted a 1♦ overcall.

 

I'd suggest not revealing the complete hand when that makes the whole auction ridiculous. It should be good enough if asked to tell that the auction was a total mess, which created an interesting problem.

Well, i disagree.

 

1) Only two posters seems to support this, while many, and indeed some of the respected posters, seems to have no problem.

 

2) My opening post has attracted 30 comments directly discussing the stated problem. This is far above average for this forum.

 

3) Opinions has been discerning in this forum, so it seems to me it was worth discussing.

 

I only revealed the full deal out of politeness, because somebody asked for it.

As far as I can see, every single poster who commented on the overcall disagreed strongly with it (with varying degree of ridicule).

 

I doubt any poster here would have overcalled 1♦ with this hand.

[OleBerg]

I agree on your last part. But then it belongs in the B/I forum. A/E players should know what first action to make after a 1♣ opening holding an  absolutely normal t/o double.

 

The given auction in itself would indeed present an interesting problem if our hand fitted a 1♦ overcall.

 

I'd suggest not revealing the complete hand when that makes the whole auction ridiculous. It should be good enough if asked to tell that the auction was a total mess, which created an interesting problem.

Well, i disagree.

 

1) Only two posters seems to support this, while many, and indeed some of the respected posters, seems to have no problem.

 

2) My opening post has attracted 30 comments directly discussing the stated problem. This is far above average for this forum.

 

3) Opinions has been discerning in this forum, so it seems to me it was worth discussing.

 

I only revealed the full deal out of politeness, because somebody asked for it.

As far as I can see, every single poster who commented on the overcall disagreed strongly with it (with varying degree of ridicule).

 

I doubt any poster here would have overcalled 1♦ with this hand.

What I meant was, that only two posters seems to agree that the problem shouldn't have been posted here.

[nige1]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=saq3hk1084dk8643c5]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♣) -  1♦  -  (Pass) - Pass

( X ) - Pass - (Pass) - 1♥

( X ) -  ???

First double was take-out (might be flawed). Second double was penalty.

Feel free to comment on IMP's too.[/hv]

IMO the 1♦ overcall was fine. Although I slightly prefer _X. Now I reckon ...

• 2♦ = 10 intending to "run" to 2♥ when doubled.
  
• _P = 9. Especially if RHO expects his partner to respect his penalty doubles.
  
• 2♥ = 7. You may worry that an unthinking partner may misunderstand this bid since the _X of 1♥ was penalty.
  

[billw55]

2♦ = 10 intending to "run" to 2♥ when doubled.

I admit I did not think of this one. It might be fun giving ops a head scratcher over why you bid 2♦ after 1♦x was left in. But if they solve it and pass, they get the last laugh.