To Bid or not to Bid

[Cascade]

I would agree with all of that if

 

1) partner would not have passed already, which denies a weak two in ♥. Since he hardly can have many ♠ (where he might refrain from opening a weak 2♥), this makes it unlikely that he has long, strong ♥

2) you have a ♥ void. (I would not over-call with any other ♥ holding)

 

So it is overwhelmingly likely that opponents have at least 8♥s between them and quite possibly more.

If opponents have a fit so do we. Yes partner could just be 3♠=5♥=2♦=3♣, but this is just one specific distribution.

Yes I would not be particularly thrilled if partner responded with 2♥ over my 2♦ overcall, but I would simply rebid 3♣ and still expect to land on my feet in the vast majority of cases.

 

Against these doomsday scenarios there are many more where we will have a fit and where sometimes only the sky will be the limit. It is real easy to construct such layouts. For example give partner as little as ♠x ♥xxxx ♦Ax ♣Txxxxx and 6♣ looks like a great contract to me. If you pass over 1♠ you are not likely to uncover your fit in time.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

 

Now I agree with that except that the example hand for 6♣ is not very good as after 2♦ you are likely to play there not reach slam in some other denomination.

[rhm]

Now I agree with that except that the example hand for 6♣ is not very good as after 2♦ you are likely to play there not reach slam in some other denomination.

 

Provided opponents stop bidding with a 9 good ♥s and 22 HCP between them. I bet against this.

Seriously, I want to get my minors in as soon as possible, and once opponents start to bid ♥ I would not be shy to introduce my 4 card ♣ suit even at a high level. Dangerous? Maybe, but not as dangerous as passing with such a hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[OleBerg]

I didn't think I needed a six-bagger to bid 2♦ but K6532 didn't look like much of a five-card suit especially vulnerable opposite a passed hand when there were other signs of a possible misfit. Maybe this is more an IMP reasoning than a MP reasoning.

 

I was imagining over my 2♦ partner would often bid 2♥ and then I would have to bid 3♣ and we are at the three-level possibly with inadequate trumps.

 

Even after the double partner has quite a wide range of hands from:

 

stiff spade and four or five diamonds to doubleton (or maybe even tripleton spade) and three poor diamonds

 

and weak hearts to good hearts.

 

For me this made it unclear whether we wanted to be in game.

 

I would naturally share your concern. However, if LHO makes a negative double, partner will be forewarned, and if he doesn't, partner is likely to hold a few values. This will virtually guarantie, that we get three diamond tricks, even if partner has a misfit.

 

Like rhm, I feel the the heart-void is a safety-meassure, and would be reluctant to bid with with a single heart.

 

Well, being the overbidder I am, I would probably do it anyway, but I would be well prepared for a rough time at the post-mortem.

 

The whole trick (imho) to understanding this situation (or at least my wiewpoint), is to have equel focus on what can go wrong if you bid, and what can go wrong if you pass. Many people often see pass as a "safe" option, that should be excempt from critisism.

[whereagles]

This seems easy. Pass, then 3♦. Should LHO bid over this, then 4♣ next round.

 

I can live with a 2♦ overcall, but if I'm going to bid something, I prefer an unusual 2NT. I lie by a card, but have extras to compensate. Plus, my hand is far closer to a 55 minors than to decent diamonds :)

[pooltuna]

True, but you can play all your life and I bet you will never have a zero count after this sequence and an intelligent passed partner will know this. You are virtually marked with strength, though you could have somewhat less. The 2♠ bid is rather pointless and partner is likely to bid ♥ over 2♠.

If this hand is going anywhere, you will need a fit and the best way to find out is to bid your suits and give partner a chance to raise one of them.

However, opponents seem to have a ♥ fit and Pass followed by 2♦ invites LHO to bid 2♥ now. That's why I would have preferred to bid 2♦ immediately over 1♠. With the ♥ void, an immediate 2♦ overcall is much less dangerous than it looks

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

The other thing you have not mentioned is how bad your ♠ spots are for defending 1 or 2 ♠. The other thing impacted by your lack of good ♠ spots is NT contracts by your side. Nevertheless I 100% agree with bidding 2♦ directly over 1♠ although the call will be somewhat muffled through my gritted teeth.

[Fluffy]

Mr. Berg, there are other ways to lose by bidding 2♦ with weak 5 card suits than going for a number.

 

One of the easiest is playing hopeless 3NT when partner thinks we actually have a source of tricks when we don't, or competing too high when he shoudln't.

 

Now you could tell me that if you overcall 2♦ with this, your partners are forewarned and won't bid too much. This is even worse, because when you actually have a universal 2♦ overcall, or something a bit stronger you have a lot of work to catch up.

[whereagles]

Actually, Gonzalo, 2♦ is relatively safe here. Pard is likely to be short in spades, thus he should have some diamonds. Of course, he might have some 55 clubs/hearts, in which case you skillfully managed to miss out on the club fit :)

 

But then again, if pard is short in spades, he will double with some diamonds and bid 2♥ (or 2NT) with the 55 clubs/hearts.

 

All in all, the conclusion is one doesn't need to bid 2♦ now. One can bid them, but one doesn't need to.

[straube]

Interesting problem and solutions. How I'm seeing it...

 

Partner is most likely to have heart length and values since it is dangerous to balance against 1M without defense to the other major. Partner may have five hearts, especially if they are poor. He could have 2533 or 1534 or even 2524. If he has five hearts, he's likely to bid 3H over a spade cue bid. He may even bid a good four cd heart suit. What's my plan then?

 

After a balancing dbl, a 2S bid promises a rebid. It doesn't matter that partner is passed and limited. We have four possible strains and partner can't express opinions about all four with only one chance. If partner bids 3C, I think I have to raise. We may not make 4C if we only have an 8 cd fit.

 

An immediate 2D overcall isn't very likely to go for a phone number. The problem with it is that it is too directional. After 2D we're less likely to know if partner's raise is based on a super fit or three small. We need a super fit to want to be in game.

 

After P P 1S P P X P, I am marked for strength...especially against good opposition. If I bid only 2D, partner should still play me for strength and an awkward hand without great diamonds. If partner has a good diamond fit (four good diamonds with shape or five diamonds), he should raise. I will know his raise is based on fit and not points. His raise is a 2-way shot. It also puts me in a good position to judge what to do. If he can't raise diamonds, perhaps the opponents will give me a chance to bid 3C.

[OleBerg]

Mr. Berg, there are other ways to lose by bidding 2♦ with weak 5 card suits than going for a number.

 

One of the easiest is playing hopeless 3NT when partner thinks we actually have a source of tricks when we don't, or competing too high when he shoudln't.

 

Now you could tell me that if you overcall 2♦ with this, your partners are forewarned and won't bid too much. This is even worse, because when you actually have a universal 2♦ overcall, or something a bit stronger you have a lot of work to catch up.

 

To solve that problem, I use a highly sophisticated gadget. It's called: [Drum roll, snare, cuuuuurtains] Invitational bids.

 

It's a little complicated, but when partner has a hand where he eyes 3NT, he bids 2NT. When he just has some support, he makes a normal raise. And when he has a good hand with support, he cuebids.

 

This last thing is really unfair, as probably no-one plays it, but we call it "re-invitational bids". It's much to complicated to get into, but maybe I'll describe it someday.

[MrAce]

@ Oleberg; I actually was not being smart but being polite with my remark to 2♦ overcall.

 

And No ! i wasn't scared of the ♦ stack behind me either. Also add these UNTOLD stories to your list ;)

 

-You do not need a ♦ stack behind you for a phone number. In fact 4 ♦ behind and 2 in front works much better for defense (even 3-3)

 

-You do not even have to go down for a phone number, to get a good old ZERO, in mps.

 

-You do not even need a DBL to get an old good ZERO the way u bid, the third opponent (partner) will get u (either in this deal, or in another deal where u actually had a 2♦ overcall) :D

 

-By bidding 2♦ with this, you do not even need to play in ♦ to get a good old ZERO. :)

 

-Your side doesnt even need to buy the final contract, when u bid 2♦ with this, to get a good old ZERO in mps.

 

-You are getting into an auction, with an awful suit and your side suit is opened by opponents and u have no plan whatsoever where to park them, and partner coming from pass. Except you have the naive optimistic expectation that partner is short in ♠. Of course it must be partner who is short in ♠, not the opener's partner when we have 4 of them :D

 

I would not mind 2 NT overcall, compared to 2♦, as people mentioned above, however partner will bid ♣ with 2-2 (very unlikely holding) or 3-3 minors. Still way superior to 2♦ overcall. "My hand has minors" statement fits much better than "I have 6 card ♦ or a very good 5 ♦ that i couldn't resist to bid" statement.

[OleBerg]

@ Oleberg; I actually was not being smart but being polite with my remark to 2♦ overcall.

No, you were being patronising, which is not polite. But it actually might be ok here, as I hadn't even noticed it was MP's.

 

I'd probably still do it, but I find the arguments for pass much, much stronger at MP's.

[MrAce]

No, you were being patronising, which is not polite...

 

I really didn't intend to, but i appologize if thats the case.

 

But it actually might be ok here, as I hadn't even noticed it was MP's.

 

I'd probably still do it, but I find the arguments for pass much, much stronger at MP's.

 

Yes it is mps but dont worry, i posted a lot of comments w/o actually checking if it was a mp or imps in bbo forums, so i hear ya. Although i don't know the size and quality of the event, i always try not to contrast my bidding from the field. Otherwise, i would be betting against myself. In a good mp event, i think 2♦ overcall contrasts from field imo.

[Cascade]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa765hdk6532cak42&w=sq92ht87543dj94c6&n=sthj62daqt87cqjt5&e=skj843hakq9dc9873]399|300[/hv]

 

All Vul

MPs

West Dealer

 

Here is the full hand.

 

Going low doesn't work obviously when there is a Grand available.

 

The hand was played in our club's Christmas tournament - Open to members of other clubs. It attracts a mixed range of players. The field was full - maximum capacity of 78 pairs. This year's event was relatively weak.

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa765hdk6532cak42&w=sq92ht87543dj94c6&n=sthj62daqt87cqjt5&e=skj843hakq9dc9873]399|300[/hv]

 

All Vul

MPs

West Dealer

 

Here is the full hand.

 

Going low doesn't work obviously when there is a Grand available.

 

The hand was played in our club's Christmas tournament - Open to members of other clubs. It attracts a mixed range of players. The field was full - maximum capacity of 78 pairs. This year's event was relatively weak.

 

 

So upto actual deal, 2 ♦ overcall gets to slam easily if pd bids 3♠, Also 2NT starters gets there. By pass and bidding 2♠ it is gonna be very hard to reach slam, but we will end up playing 5 minor.

[Cascade]

5minor scored above average on the day.

 

6♦ was around 85-90+%

[straube]

that's a huge hand for diamonds. That hand might have opened and now it needs to come alive. Seems like 3S is the least that hand can do.

 

I think we still get to slam after the conservative route I suggested (pass and bid only 2D). I think the hand should still splinter. Give partner a disappointing Kxxx x Kxxxx Kxx and 4D still makes.

[Free]

One for CTC, but not the BBF version because we'll all recognize this one. B) EW can make 5♠ btw.

[Cascade]

One for CTC, but not the BBF version because we'll all recognize this one. B) EW can make 5♠ btw.

 

Technically only 4♠

 

top spade, club and a heart ruff

 

although at MPs it is much harder to underlead the ♣ AK

[MrAce]

that's a huge hand for diamonds. That hand might have opened and now it needs to come alive. Seems like 3S is the least that hand can do.

 

I think we still get to slam after the conservative route I suggested (pass and bid only 2D). I think the hand should still splinter. Give partner a disappointing Kxxx x Kxxxx Kxx and 4D still makes.

 

I think u would play nothing but 2♦ if you passed 1♠ and bid only 2 ♦ :D

[gwnn]

pass from west is for puppies.

[dake50]

Just curious, which who's catch 3-seat 1S psych when 4S for us is on?

Nearly switch North with West in the full deal revealed.

[dake50]

OleBerg,

 

My agreement is VUL Unu2NT claims little more

than fit makes this our hand.

We don't eagerly show weakness!

 

My agreement includes deviations for 4-5 Unu2NT

especially to warn off the other major.

 

I can see where you project your agreements

into this discussion to find this Unu2NT is wrong.

MY agreement is well-discussed for how strong VUL

and what is allowed when missing other major.

 

Thus, both disciplined to our agreement(Exp) and agreed what is the best (say we) for Unu2NT(Adv).

 

That is Advanced & Expert.

 

Do you see this now?

[OleBerg]

 

That is Advanced & Expert.

 

Do you see this now?

 

Not really.

[dake50]

Discussion seeks an exploring of minds.

What do you think and why?

 

Close minded cannot get this idea of discussion.

I only can think I'm right is a defense mechanism

-- not logical discussion!

[OleBerg]

Discussion seeks an exploring of minds.

What do you think and why?

 

Close minded cannot get this idea of discussion.

I only can think I'm right is a defense mechanism

-- not logical discussion!

 

I'm rather pressed for time.

 

Free on-line lesson after the 15. dec.