Analysis of this Auction

[kenrexford]

There was a deal last night that I am considering writing up in our local newsletter for analysis. I am curious, though, as to the take on one possible auction, as to whether this seems good, bad, ugly...

 

Overcaller: ♠AK10x ♥KQ9xx ♦AJx ♣x

Advancer: ♠Jxxxx ♥10xx ♦Kx ♣xxx

 

Dealer opens 1♣. Overcaller starts with 1♥. Responder raises to 2♣, passed to Overcaller, who bids 2♠. So far:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

P-2♠

 

This is passed by Responder and Advancer, and Opener competes to 3♣. Overcaller now bids 3♦, which is passed to Advancer, who bids 3♥ as a "game last train" call. Overcaller accepts. The complete auction:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

(P)-2♠-(P)-P

(3♣)-3♦-(P)-3♥

(P)-4♠-all pass

 

Is this a reasonable sequence with these hands? Is/are there any bid(s) that seems wrong? Are there any options that are somewhat plausible along the way as alternative sequences that you might like?

 

Also, any takers for a 3♦ call by Advancer after Overcaller bids 2♠? Meaning:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

(P)-2♠-(P)-3♦?

 

I found this to be an interesting set of hands and sequence and am curious as to others' takes.

[fred]

Sorry to rain on your parade, Ken, but the player you refer to as "overcaller" should be "takeout doubler". Not that it really matters (since nothing "overcaller" does makes much sense given his failure to make a takeout double), but I don't really like his other non-doubles much either. The 3D call is truly horrible in my view.

 

I also think it is more than reasonable for the "advancer" to raise spades on the previous round. Having not done so, he should certainly bid 4S over 3D.

 

As for the "game last train" concept, I am not sure it is valid. Can't advancer have a hand like this:

 

xxxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

 

and just be looking to play in what rates to be the best trump suit?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

(lalala)-2♠-p-3♦ merely says that you prefer 3♦ to 2♠ or 3♥. I guess you want to say that 2NT should be something like that but I am not convinced.

 

Overcaller has an easy double, though, 2♠ I don't understand.

 

edit: oh yes, forgot about round one.

Edited October 21, 2011 by gwnn

[xxhong]

Although I play a much sounder overcall than most here, this hand still looks like a takeout doubler. If partner bid D, you can show your H and strength. If partner bids S, you can raise. This hand is so good that it makes a good game (likely with an overtrick) facing Sxxxxxx x Kx Jxxx. If you overcall 1H, you may run serious risk of getting passed out.

 

There was a deal last night that I am considering writing up in our local newsletter for analysis. I am curious, though, as to the take on one possible auction, as to whether this seems good, bad, ugly...

 

Overcaller: ♠AK10x ♥KQ9xx ♦AJx ♣x

Advancer: ♠Jxxxx ♥10xx ♦Kx ♣xxx

 

Dealer opens 1♣. Overcaller starts with 1♥. Responder raises to 2♣, passed to Overcaller, who bids 2♠. So far:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

P-2♠

 

This is passed by Responder and Advancer, and Opener competes to 3♣. Overcaller now bids 3♦, which is passed to Advancer, who bids 3♥ as a "game last train" call. Overcaller accepts. The complete auction:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

(P)-2♠-(P)-P

(3♣)-3♦-(P)-3♥

(P)-4♠-all pass

 

Is this a reasonable sequence with these hands? Is/are there any bid(s) that seems wrong? Are there any options that are somewhat plausible along the way as alternative sequences that you might like?

 

Also, any takers for a 3♦ call by Advancer after Overcaller bids 2♠? Meaning:

 

(1♣)-1♥-(2♣)-P

(P)-2♠-(P)-3♦?

 

I found this to be an interesting set of hands and sequence and am curious as to others' takes.

[Phil]

Nice to see Fred posting again :)

 

I'm not sure I would have made any of the actual bids in the OP.

 

1. I prefer double > 1♥, but I've come a long way toward overcalling with this pattern, when I used to double even with a 13 count before. If my partner overcalled, I wouldn't object.

 

2. I would raise to 2♥, especially playing 2♦ as a constructive raise and 2♥ as junk. Yet I am fine with pass.

 

3. I would definitely double on the way back and do not like 2♠. I have a massive hand if partner has diamonds. I think 2♠ should be an excellent 4621 or 4612, not 4531.

 

4. Responder needs to come out of his shell with the double fit after 2♠. I do not like your suggestion about 3♦; why can't advancer have ♦QJxxxxx?

 

5. Overcaller's 3♦ looks like a pro bid where someone is loathe to ever make a TOx for fear of partner declaring. It seems to fit overcaller's hand however, although so would a double.

[Finch]

I also find it hard to agree with many of the calls.

 

1. Over 1♣ I would double rather than overcall 1♠. However I don't mind 1♥ that much.

2. When 2♣ came back to me in second seat I have an obvious double.

3. I'm astonished that advancer passed 2S. Is 5-card support not enough to raise?

4. When 3C came to overcaller, he has an even more obvious double. Has someone removed all of his red cards? His partner has shown no fit, couldn't he have long clubs?

5. Over 3D, advancer has an even more obvious 4S bid. 3H isn't some of "last train", it sounds like a 3=3=3=4/3=3=4=3 0-count that wishes partner would shut up.

[ahydra]

I would bid:

 

1C-X-2C-p

p-2H-p-2S

p-3S-p-4S

all pass

 

The 4S is a bit pushy, but advancer does have a double fit and chances are the doubler has a singleton club.

 

In the given auction I like 3D but can't say I understand 3H. Why not just 4S?

 

ahydra

[billw55]

Interesting!

 

I am surprised at the universal preference for double. With a strong hand and longer hearts, I thought that the actual reverse-ish sequence is pretty descriptive, and would get some followers. I admit I would choose it myself. Obviously I have something to learn here. So, what sort of hand should the sequence 1♥ then 2♠ freely actually show? Or does this auction not exist?

 

The good news is, I too was baffled by advancer's pass of 2♠. This is a double fit with partner showing a strong hand (I think). I would settle for 3♠, but would rather bid 4♠ than pass.

[xxhong]

1H then 2S usually show 4-6 in majors, about good 14-16 HCPS. Like AKxx AKxxxx xx x

Of course, if you don't play Michale's to show 5-6 and that range, this can also show 5-6.

 

Interesting!

 

I am surprised at the universal preference for double. With a strong hand and longer hearts, I thought that the actual reverse-ish sequence is pretty descriptive, and would get some followers. I admit I would choose it myself. Obviously I have something to learn here. So, what sort of hand should the sequence 1♥ then 2♠ freely actually show? Or does this auction not exist?

 

The good news is, I too was baffled by advancer's pass of 2♠. This is a double fit with partner showing a strong hand (I think). I would settle for 3♠, but would rather bid 4♠ than pass.

[dake50]

1H overcall rebids for me would be 'walking the dog'

on some 7xH hoping to play 4H/4H-X/3H-X.

But then I do have an immediate 4-5 MM bid and 5-4 MM.

[gszes]

put me down for x and x over 2c than 3s over p 2s bid

followed by 4s

 

1c x 2x p

p x p 2s

3c 3s p 4s

 

first x tox second x stronger tox

raising 2s to 3s should show around

20 points and gets us to nice game.

 

I have tons of defense if p wanted to

leave 1c in for penalty and IMO a 1h

overcall with so much power is a huge

risk of playing 1h. I would prefer to

see a michaels bid to 1h and I think

a michaels bid is a poor choice.

[bigbenvic]

put me down for x and x over 2c than 3s over p 2s bid

followed by 4s

 

1c x 2x p

p x p 2s

3c 3s p 4s

 

first x tox second x stronger tox

raising 2s to 3s should show around

20 points and gets us to nice game.

 

This covers what I wanted to say pretty well. Don't like overcalling 1♥ and then bidding 2♠ this will look ugle if partner is 2254 or 1263 and bids 3♥.

 

Also why is he passing 2♠ in the initial auction, partner has a good hand (playing trick wise) when he bids 2♠ here so I'm bidding 3s as a minimum but most likely bidding 4♠.

[kenrexford]

So far this seems like a terrible deal to write up in a newsletter but a fabulous hand to discuss among people who know theory.

[mcphee]

Assuming the opponents had these club bids, (the guy with the good hand didn't have his).

 

I like the 1H over call and can live with a take out dble.

The 2S bid means this guy feels he is playing against Mrs Whaley and a beginner partner. This is where he should make a take out dble, showing some more playing shape. Possibly 4S and 6H intending to correct to 2D to 2H.

 

When 3D rolls around to the S hand it is hard to imagine he did not make some slam try for S. Perhaps he has seen this partner in action before. In any case anything less than 4S can only justify the N bidding :)

[kenrexford]

One point that no one seems to be addressing, that I found interesting potentially, is a parallel-auction consideration. To exaplain...

 

IMO, auctions in varying situations ideally will have parallel interpretations if variant interpretations are somewhat equally plausible. Consistency helps with agreement and memory.

 

The "parallel auction" concerns would be eitger minor by them, either minor by us longer, meaning:

 

1♣-1♥-2♣...spades

1♦-1♥-2♣...spades

1♣-1♠-2♣...hearts, and

1♣-1♠-2♣...hearts

 

In the latter two, it seems that Michaels allows Overcaller to rebid 2♥ with 4♥/5+♠. If so, then double seems to imply 3♥/5+♠ and the other minor. That treatment would be helpful if their minor is diamonds but less so when their minor is clubs (as Overcaller would then have an option of bidding 2♦).

 

Using that analysis and applying a parallel to the first two suggests that the reopening double implies 3♠/5+♥ with four in the other minor. Again, this would be more important if their minor is diamonds, but it would also be counter-productive if their minor is clubs and potentially a bad idea if their minor is diamonds anyway.

 

But, thinking all of this through, the default for the reopening double to show FOUR in the other major seems bad, especially considering that many will double with 5-4 or 4-5 the first time.

 

Hence, in analyzing this possible auction, it seemed to me that the decision to start with a 1♥ overcall compelled a 2♠ rebid because double sounds like 3-5-4-1 or 3-6-4-0 rather than 4-5-3-1 or 4-6-3-0. If not good enough to reverse, or if the reverse showed unquestionably 4-6, then double is the start.

 

Of course, if one instead decided that the reopening double shows four of the suit that cannot be shown cheaply, or if neither then default to the major, or if both also default to the major, then the ability to reopen 2♦ does make the reopening double idea suggest the 4-5-3-1 that Overcaller actually has.

 

But, against that is the "what does 2♠ mean then?" question. Generally reverses show extra playing strength and not great defense. Is that always 4-6, then? Or, is AK-KQ-A good enough defense? Does the reopening prepare us well for a 3♣ call, or is 2♠ better for that purpose?

 

This may all get us to the point of 2♥...X being right, but this was where I found the deal interesting, in discussing these options and why people would do one over the other, and what they mean, and tactics.