Was I am wimp on this hand?

[whereagles]

It's teams, so really a no-brainer 4 after pard's raise. When in doubt, bid game.

 

The "I've shown my hand" argument is the unlucky expert way to miss out on a game everybody but him bids.

[Cyberyeti]

It's teams, so really a no-brainer 4 after pard's raise. When in doubt, bid game.

 

The "I've shown my hand" argument is the unlucky expert way to miss out on a game everybody but him bids.

Yeah, but this is an "I've overbid my hand already" not "I've shown my hand". Partner needs to do more if anybody does.

 

As to Phil's comments. I said it's no play on some odd leads, in most cases it's not good on other leads, just not completely no play. Also the leader will be assuming his partner has pretty much a weak no trump a lot of the time with the likelihood he has 4 clubs, so he may not rush to lead a non singleton club.

 

Having discussed this with partner, our auction would go (1♣)-1♠-1N-2♣-3♣-4♠, our overcalls are very sound, we respond on most hands we'd respond to an opening bid. 2♣ shows a big hand with nothing else sensible to bid and is GF unless partner is flat broke, 3♣ is just a "not flat broke, don't know where I'm going" bid.

[whereagles]

Yeah, but this is an "I've overbid my hand already" not "I've shown my hand". Partner needs to do more if anybody does.

 

Sorry, but I think this is an error. You're forcing the weak hand, a hand aching to pass, to make key decisions. No wonder underbids occur.

 

I think advancer bid properly. 1NT cannot be too weakish and the raise to 3♠ is adequate, given the dubious value of the diamond queen and lack of a good fit. It's really a "when in doubt, bid game" situation and doubler did not realize it was his job to bid game.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry, but I think this is an error. You're forcing the weak hand, a hand aching to pass, to make key decisions. No wonder underbids occur.

 

I think advancer bid properly. 1NT cannot be too weakish and the raise to 3♠ is adequate, given the dubious value of the diamond queen and lack of a good fit. It's really a "when in doubt, bid game" situation and doubler did not realize it was his job to bid game.

We simple overcall on broadly the same 11-19 that we open (our WJOs are 0-10, and don't need 6 cards), this isn't close by our methods, at least half a playing trick shy of double then bid.

 

I have around 1.7 tricks, I'd estimate a likely 12/18/3 point split round the table for points when pard bids 2♣ in my auction or doubles then bids in yours, so around 21/33 chance of 2 tricks, but a possible Jx/Jxx, in partner's hand adds a bit extra so the Q♦ is less dubious than you think. Partner has around 8 tricks in my auction so we're in the region where we want to bid this.

[rhm]

Sorry, but I think this is an error. You're forcing the weak hand, a hand aching to pass, to make key decisions. No wonder underbids occur.

 

I think advancer bid properly. 1NT cannot be too weakish and the raise to 3♠ is adequate, given the dubious value of the diamond queen and lack of a good fit. It's really a "when in doubt, bid game" situation and doubler did not realize it was his job to bid game.

I agree, but of course it all depends what you expect when somebody doubles and then over-calls. If you expect a rock crusher advancer has to force to game.

So the whole discussion is somewhat useless. All depends on your agreements.

The trend, particularly in the US, is to play double followed by a suit overcall stronger and stronger.

 

While I agree in general everything can be overdone and this trend is not without disadvantages.

One level over-calls become very wide ranging, which also can lead to missed or hopeless games and opponents usually do not give you a free ride when your partner over-calls. Part-score battles lost to the opening side are frequent, because the opening side has usually a much better knowledge about their combined strength.

If you hold ♠, there is no need to play double followed by a ♠ bid as super-strong.

My general rule is that double followed by a suit bid is game forcing, if partner has jumped in response to the takeout double.

This hand is more than good enough to double first. I would have much more sympathy with the immediate over-callers if the long suit would have been ♥.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think you should accept the invite.

 

I just ask my self, would I bid game if p showed 8-9HCP and

secondary support, the answer is yes.

 

Add to this the fact, that you know, where most of their points

are located, that should improve your chances.

 

I would have passed 2S with partners hand.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Free]

I would also accept the invite. Your ♦K will probably get some support (Ace means only 4 losers, Q means 5 losers) and partner invites so he should have something else than just 1 ♦ honour.

[whereagles]

I think it's not a matter of what doubler shows, but rather what advancer has...

 

The strong hand, regardless of having "shown" this or that, should make the final call. This is because the strong hand is more independant.

[han]

Nuno, have you read the book "why you lose at bridge", by S.J. Simons?

[whereagles]

yeah I have. What's your point?

[benlessard]

There is a lot of things i completly disagree here. Ill post my reasoning of the hand its going to be simple tahtn criticizing pts one by one.

 

I would overcall 1S but i have no problems for lower standard X and bid. Both style are surely playable and i dont think one style is better than the other. Note that here we hold spades vs a 1c opening so its the perfect situation for having lower requirement of X and bid. So assume X and 1S is in (decent 16)-bad22 pts range. (some will say 22 is too much but i have to disagree) it not hard to see 22 count that will go down at the 2 level facing a entryless dummy having 1S heavy and expecting partner to continue with thin values make more sense than asking overcaller to bid at the 2 level with borderline hands.

 

Over 1S responder should keep the auction open with any 4 count Imo even with crappy one. The 1 nt rebid is clearly an underbid here but since we dont have a stopper its reasonnable. It suggest a club card, Overcaller AKT in clubs is really looking like 3 clubs tricks now, but advancer will often downgrade the Q of clubs. 2S is normal and suggest a vgood 16 to bad 20. I think 2S is normal since many of responder H holdings will be disapointing. Over 2S the position should be simple, with 2 working cards you bid game (A+Qs is automatic 4S), with 1 you pass with 1.5/scattered values you make game tries. The key in those situtaion is to make the game try in the soft values, Aces are always good k/q not always. I think responder has a clean maximum and can bid 4S. If he want to make a game try a this point he should bid something like

 

2NT = no fit

3C = K/Q of clubs + 1 other card (most likely a D card)

3D = K/Q of D + 1 other card (most likely 2D cards)

3H = soft H values (H+D or H+S)

3S = scattered values (3Q or 2Q + 2J etc).

 

I really hate the 3S bid

 

1- the hands is slightly too strong.

2- AQ is in the same suit so why not bid 3D ?

 

 

After the 3S i see responder having something like

 

xx

Hxx (not the A)

Qxxx

Jxxx

[han]

yeah I have. What's your point?

 

Your posts in this thread reminded me of this book. I believe Simons claimed that poor players bid too much with strong hands and too little with weak hands.

[whereagles]

Han come on, that has nothing to do with it and you bloody well know it :P

[whereagles]

After the 3S i see responder having something like

 

xx

Hxx (not the A)

Qxxx

Jxxx

 

That certainly is a possibility, but the point is you don't really know whether the hands can fit badly (like your case) or well (like the actual case). Thus, "when in doubt..." Heck, it can hardly be doubled for -2 and it might make. That's what bidding thin games is for.

[gwnn]

I don't understand these arguments, what if I open a 15-17 NT and partner invites (2♦ then 3♥), do you also bid game on all 15 counts because you don't know how well the hands fit? And if I pass because I've shown my range and I feel I'm a minimum, does that make me an unlucky expert?

[benlessard]

[That certainly is a possibility, but the point is you don't really know whether the hands can fit badly (like your case) or well (like the actual case). Thus, "when in doubt..." Heck, it can hardly be doubled for -2 and it might make. That's what bidding thin games is for.

 

Why not ? partner has 4 game tries available. If partner got an A and Q or C he should be 3C and ill be in game, if hes got AQ of D he will bid 3D and ill be in game. If hes got KH/QH he will bid 3H and ill be able to stop in 3S (with AK of H hes got a WTP 4S) with scattered values he will bid 3S and i will pass since i know Heart H is wasted. The only bad case i see if hes got and A and the Q of D without the J of clubs or an A and J of clubs and nothing else where he will pass 2S. Making game tries where your soft values are is simply common sense.

[whereagles]

if I pass because I've shown my range and I feel I'm a minimum, does that make me an unlucky expert?

 

Yes :)

 

Seriously now, I understand your point and you are probably right in theory. Thing is there are a couple of hands across that make a cold game, which pard would bid the way he did. The actual hand is one such example. Another would be, say, xx xxx Axxx Jxxx.

 

The weak hand has difficulties evaluating how well his values fit. The strong hand has an easier time (because it is more independant) and that's why it should make the final call. It would be a different story if dbler had, say,

 

KQJTxx

Qxx

xx

AKQ

 

because now the risk of 4 red suit losers would be greater. This is what I mean with "being independant": such a hand needs more cards across than the actual one. It's not just having a min or a max or showing your hand or what not. It's exercising judgement.

[whereagles]

Why not ? partner has 4 game tries available. (...) Making game tries where your soft values are is simply common sense.

 

Again, you're right in theory. But practice is another thing. Are you 100% sure pard is on the same wavelength? Are you willing to take that risk and win the post mortem but lose at table? I confess used to be like that, but I became more practical.

[han]

Han come on, that has nothing to do with it and you bloody well know it :P

 

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

 

In this thread it comes up again. Partner has bid only 1D, 1NT and 3S, but perhaps partner is a poor player who doesn't realize that he or she has a great hand for us. If so, maybe we should indeed bid the game, even though we are minimal for our bids so far.

 

Perhaps knowing that partner is bad is what you call "being practical".

[Phil]

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

 

Perhaps we've all partnered Mrs. Guggenheim on occasion.

[han]

Thing is there are a couple of hands across that make a cold game, which pard would bid the way he did. The actual hand is one such example. Another would be, say, xx xxx Axxx Jxxx.

 

I'd like to point out that you go down when the 1C opener has a 5-card club suit, unless LHO does not lead his stiff in the suit that his partner opened. The good news is that in that case 3S would likely be down as well.

 

I do agree that partner would bid this way holding that hand, and that there are other hands that make game quite good. But I think that if we bid 4S on this hand then we get to three or four times as many bad games, at least when partner is a good player who appreciates vulnerable games as well.

[ArtK78]

But I think that if we bid 4S on this hand then we get to three or four times as many bad games, at least when partner is a good player who appreciates vulnerable games as well.

 

Since I am the OP, I thought that it would be appropriate to point out that the vulnerability is equal NOT vul.

[han]

In that case I pass.

[whereagles]

Throughout the years you have made it clear that you have very little faith in your partners. Perhaps this is justified, I cannot possibly judge this.

 

I understand why you say that, but you really are confusing the issue. One thing is trust, another is sharing reponsibilities.

 

Perhaps the crux of the matter is none of that but rather how we judge what the odds are of finding a suitable hand across. Apparently my tactical instinct doesn't care much for odds-calculation, preferring to just tell me "screw the odds and bid it".

 

Anyway, I think I've made my point. We'll see at table who's right. Cheers!

[the hog]

I understand why you say that, but you really are confusing the issue. One thing is trust, another is sharing reponsibilities.

 

Perhaps the crux of the matter is none of that but rather how we judge what the odds are of finding a suitable hand across. Apparently my tactical instinct doesn't care much for odds-calculation, preferring to just tell me .

 

Anyway, I think I've made my point. We'll see at table who's right. Cheers!

 

Nuno, I agree with nearly all of the posts you make. This time however I think you are way off. As I posted and as others have said, South has, if anything, overbid his hand. I don't disagree with the bidding but do think it was aggressive. Based on South's bidding, North's failure to raise to game is really poor. I really feel that for south to bid this game is masterminding given the auction to date. Well, perhaps you do as well judging by this comment, ""screw the odds and bid it". Ok, but that is not partnership Bridge imo.