wrong strain

[gnasher]

And, on the OP auction, there was more competition. Had the doubler bid 2H/2D when he could, partner has an easy 3S competitive call. If you had bid 2S/2D this time, the result would likely be the same. But, with any hand containing 2 or fewer spades, partner would not have a clue you have heart tolerance and less than six spades.

But the competition was delayed and therefore ineffective. If the auction had gone, as it should have done,

1

♣

1

♥

2

♣

dbl

3

♣

nobody would have had any sort of 3♠ call. We can't always rely on our opponents to bid like muppets.

 

I think Rainer makes an excellent point. If you play that the double can be this sort of hand, the overcaller probably should bid spades while he can do so safely.

[gszes]

Sorry I do not understand why 2D is obvious, nor why it is fine.

Would partner double with diamonds only? Hardly, he would bid 2D himself.

Am I likely to have more than 3 cards in spades when I overcalled 1 heart? You must be joking.

Do I expect more bidding with my club void? Of course I do.

Are we in danger of losing the diamonds? I have no intention selling out to further club bids.

 

I think South should have bid 2S with the intention of following up with a diamond bid later, showing more or less this distribution.

There must be a reason why we differentiate between majors and minors.

Overbidding (6 loser hand) slightly all white with a void in opponents fit is rarely detrimental.

 

It is true that North might or should have given preference.

However, my LHOs (West) have a habit of reraising clubs over 2D when they have a ten card fit and now I guess Pass from partner would not be that stupid and the spades are lost forever.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

while there is merit in considering future bidding it is completely possible that bidding 2s immediately

will risk several poor things.

 

1. playing in a 43 spade fit vs a possible 9 or even 10 card dia fit

2. ever convincing p in later competition that we did not really have

spades when we bid them and risking further raises (or conversions to spades)

on a 43 fit when a possible 9 or even 10 card dia fit exists.

3. Giving P false hope that a spade game is in reach rather than the much more

difficult minor game. This might encourage too much enthusiasm.

 

It seems much more sensible overall to bid 2d and when p bids 2h (suggested several times)

we continue with 2s and now our hand picture is much more complete and p "KNOWS" its

only a 3 card raise. Losing the spade suit (if rho bids 2c over 2h) to play in the second

best spot in not the most horrible of fates. 3D should be a reasonable MP score

(that pass over 2d was scary). We are in a sensible spot be happy:))))))))))))))))))))))

[dake50]

Whether 2S is F1, nf, GF, North DOES have spades and 10 points.

Spades must strain to get in just to avoid "wrong strain"

[MrAce]

But the competition was delayed and therefore ineffective. If the auction had gone, as it should have done,

1

♣

1

♥

2

♣

dbl

3

♣

nobody would have had any sort of 3♠ call. We can't always rely on our opponents to bid like muppets.

 

I think Rainer makes an excellent point. If you play that the double can be this sort of hand, the overcaller probably should bid spades while he can do so safely.

 

Justin already stated the downside of losing 5-3 ♠ sometimes and compared it to the other benefits. He clearly said that the goal here should not be hands that can make game when everyone is bidding, when game is not priority then finding a 5-3 ♠ (or losing a 5-3 ♠ fit) becomes less important. I think he mentioned that playing a 4-3 ♠ when you have a side 5-4 ♦ and ruffing from AKx ♠ is not attractive.

 

So he already mentioned what Rainer is saying. Obviously Rainer thinks the danger of losing ♠ fit is underestimated in Justin's reply. Do you also think that losing ♠sometimes is a "no no" thing ?

 

 

Not sure but i think Rainer said opener's pd (2♣ bidder) will reraise again.

 

In regards to the auction you gave, why cant overcaller double 3♣ as take out showing ♣ shortness ? And bid 3♠ with 4 ?

 

3541

3631

3550

3640

 

I assume you dont disagree that overcaller will want to compete to 3 level with those shapes, no ?

[gnasher]

Justin already stated the downside of losing 5-3 ♠ sometimes and compared it to the other benefits. He clearly said that the goal here should not be hands that can make game when everyone is bidding, when game is not priority then finding a 5-3 ♠ (or losing a 5-3 ♠ fit) becomes less important. I think he mentioned that playing a 4-3 ♠ when you have a side 5-4 ♦ and ruffing from AKx ♠ is not attractive.

 

So he already mentioned what Rainer is saying. Obviously Rainer thinks the danger of losing ♠ fit is underestimated in Justin's reply.

I'm not going to participate in an argument about who said what or what order they said it in.

 

Do you also think that losing ♠sometimes is a "no no" thing ?

I think that losing a 5-3 spade fit on a partscore board at pairs is a bad idea. If the doubler often has five spades, the overcaller should cater for it.

 

I don't have five spades that often, because I'd usually have bid them, so opposite me it would be sensible to bid 2♦.

 

In regards to the auction you gave, why cant overcaller double 3♣ as take out showing ♣ shortness ? And bid 3♠ with 4 ?

 

3541

3631

3550

3640

 

I assume you dont disagree that overcaller will want to compete to 3 level with those shapes, no ?

The big danger with this (as I think someone has already said) is that partner may leave it in, expecting you to have a 3523 shape and more high-card strength. A takeout double would be fine if you could rely on partner to take it out.

[JLOGIC]

Sorry I do not understand why 2D is obvious, nor why it is fine.

 

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

[y66]

I don't understand why the "2S by South is better than 2D because opps are not muppets" school do not have more to say about North X'ing when he could have bid 2S, esp. when he has only 3 diamonds, 2S is not forcing and this is match points.

[MrAce]

 

I think that losing a 5-3 spade fit on a partscore board at pairs is a bad idea. If the doubler often has five spades, the overcaller should cater for it.

 

I don't have five spades that often, because I'd usually have bid them, so opposite me it would be sensible to bid 2♦.

 

 

The big danger with this (as I think someone has already said) is that partner may leave it in, expecting you to have a 3523 shape and more high-card strength. A takeout double would be fine if you could rely on partner to take it out.

 

Fair enough answer, thanks Andy.

[rhm]

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

 

I don't understand why the "2S by South is better than 2D because opps are not muppets" school do not have more to say about North X'ing when he could have bid 2S, esp. when he has only 3 diamonds, 2S is not forcing and this is match points.

Personally I like to play new suits at the two level in competition non forcing including negative free bids.

Nevertheless there is not much merit ending up playing in a weak 5-1 spade fit, particularly when you have tolerance for partner's heart suit.

Competitive double are preferable, when there are alternative strains to be taken into consideration.

 

But if partner will almost always hold the unbid major for his double and will almost always have to double with a weak 5 card spade suit, the major should come first, particularly so when there is a danger that the suit might get lost.

If you end up at matchpoints in a 4-3 major suit fit at the two level this is not a catastrophe. Unlikely that competent opponents would have allowed you to play 2D when that fit would have been far superior.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

I thought in response to a responsive double it would be obvious to bid your side 5 card suit as opposed to your side 3 card suit.

In response to a double that shows spades and diamonds, it's obvious to bid diamonds. In response to a double that shows spades and doesn't say much about diamonds, it's at least reasonable to bid a three-card spade suit before a five-card diamond suit.

 

It's the equivalent of bidding spades before diamonds with 4153 after 1♣ dbl 2♣ - you bid what might be a 4-3 fit instead of what is probably a 5-3 fit, because the order of the suits makes it impossible to do it the other way around, and because you don't want to lose an eight-card fit in the higher suit.

[JLOGIC]

it's at least reasonable to bid a three-card spade suit before a five-card diamond suit.

 

 

Yes, I was making somewhat of joke, it would not occur to me to bid 2S rather than 2D hence I said "I thought..." but I see the argument.

 

It's the equivalent of bidding spades before diamonds with 4153 after 1♣ dbl 2♣ - you bid what might be a 4-3 fit instead of what is probably a 5-3 fit, because the order of the suits makes it impossible to do it the other way around, and because you don't want to lose an eight-card fit in the higher suit.

 

I think this is an overbid, you are much more likely to have a 4-4 spade fit after 1C X 2C with 4 spades than you are to have a 5-3 spade fit over a responsive X in this auction. Also, this is a hand type where it seems like a 4-3 spade fit will not play well. Still, the argument that they will often bid 3C is compelling with a club void and then 2S then 3D seems better if it shows this, it just literally would not have occurred to me.

 

One downside of bidding 2S is that partner might have a good hand and try bidding 3S or 4S with only 4 spades. I mean, I guess it's circular, but I would expect the 2S bidder to usually be 4-5 in the majors unless they are 3523 or 3514. One advantage of usually having 4 spades to bid 2S is that partner can try for game more aggressively (and if he is short in clubs, like 4252, be more aware that you might have 3 spades, but if he has 4234 or 4243 or 4153 he can be pretty confident that you have 4 spades).

 

Like I said, I have never considered bidding 2S with this hand type, I do not think it's a crazy concept, I did think it was funny that rainer said he did not see why I would have thought 2D was an obvious response, perhaps he gives me too much credit :P

Edited April 9, 2012 by JLOGIC

[JLOGIC]

Also another flaw in the argument that they will never let us play 2x when we have a club void is that they both have already declined to bid 3C. It's possible either hand will, but when they both haven't already when they had a chance there must be a non-negligible chance we are gonna buy it in 2D. And I still maintain our hand is quite bad for a 4-3 fit relative to most hands, not that it would necessarily be a disaster. But the idea is good food for thought, thanks.

[karlson]

I'm glad I posted this hand.

 

I think that whether to bid 2d or 2s by south is not obvious, and I tend to agree with the last few posts by gnasher and rhm about rebidding 2s with 3. I suspect that 2d is right on this hand simply because it rates not to play all that well in spades (JL said the same thing above -- you rate not to be able to set up either red suit).

 

Yes, north should surely correct to 2h. However, I do think the idea that partner could rebid 2d with 3532 is weird. Surely with that shape at least he can bid 2s. Then if you trust the opponents to have 8 clubs partner has 4+ diamonds, and passing 2d looks more reasonable (but still wrong I think).

 

Edit: written before I saw the last two JL posts

[JLOGIC]

Sorry for triple post but is it also 100 % partner has 4 spades? Could he double with 3244 and some number of points eg Axx Kx Qxxx Qxxx? Probably I'm just rationalizing and it's possible but too unlikely of a possibility to worry about, though it does become more likely when we have our actual hand and the auction has gone this way. But they may save us anyways and bid 3C. And maybe partner should bid 2H or something anyways.

[bluecalm]

Consistently. The nature of the double in your example is different; it should show 5 spades and 2+clubs. Hands with only 4 spades which can't support clubs would tend to pass 2D, which is forcing for one round unless alerted as a NFB.

 

I keep forgetting there are people out there who play 2D as forcing :)

In my country 2D as NFB is natural and non-alertable. Everybody plays that :)

[rhm]

Yes, I was making somewhat of joke, it would not occur to me to bid 2S rather than 2D hence I said "I thought..." but I see the argument.

 

 

 

I think this is an overbid, you are much more likely to have a 4-4 spade fit after 1C X 2C with 4 spades than you are to have a 5-3 spade fit over a responsive X in this auction. Also, this is a hand type where it seems like a 4-3 spade fit will not play well. Still, the argument that they will often bid 3C is compelling with a club void and then 2S then 3D seems better if it shows this, it just literally would not have occurred to me.

 

One downside of bidding 2S is that partner might have a good hand and try bidding 3S or 4S with only 4 spades. I mean, I guess it's circular, but I would expect the 2S bidder to usually be 4-5 in the majors unless they are 3523 or 3514. One advantage of usually having 4 spades to bid 2S is that partner can try for game more aggressively (and if he is short in clubs, like 4252, be more aware that you might have 3 spades, but if he has 4234 or 4243 or 4153 he can be pretty confident that you have 4 spades).

 

Like I said, I have never considered bidding 2S with this hand type, I do not think it's a crazy concept, I did think it was funny that rainer said he did not see why I would have thought 2D was an obvious response, perhaps he gives me too much credit :P

If the order of the major suits would have been reversed I would concur.

I am not saying that with 4 spades and longer hearts I would never overcall 1H, but I am always reluctant to do so, feeling that to double in the first place with this distribution is more appropriate.

(I also play equal level conversion, which is less standard)

That's why I said in my first post I am not likely to have more than 3 cards in spades when I overcall 1 heart.

Of course if you have no qualms overcalling 1♥ with 4 cards in spades, bidding 2♠ is less clear.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

I keep forgetting there are people out there who play 2D as forcing :)

In my country 2D as NFB is natural and non-alertable. Everybody plays that :)

What country is that, where NFB's are not alerted because "everybody plays that"? Perhaps the same country where because everybody plays transfers over 1NT we don't alert or announce that?

[bluecalm]

What country is that, where NFB's are not alerted because "everybody plays that"? Perhaps the same country where because everybody plays transfers over 1NT we don't alert or announce that?

 

Yes, it's the same country - Poland.

We don't announce anything (which sucks) we don't alert NFB's or transfers over 1NT (because everybody plays that). If you bid 2D as forcing and don't alert you can run into trouble so be careful if you ever play here ;)

[MrAce]

I have to admit, this type of auctions and bidding is one of my weakest part at bridge. So i found this topic very useful for me.

 

This is why i also checked this hand with very good players that i know. From what they said and what i have read in this topic so far, my own conclusions are;

 

- This is a very tough hand to bid at MP. It is easier at IMP ( re south's choice of 2♦ or 2♠)

 

- I was originally 2♠ bidder with N hand, non forcing, i am % 100 convinced that this hand or this type of hands have much more to it then just bidding a 5 card suit at 2 level even if it is NF. Because the suit i am bidding is above my pd's suit. I like the benefits of starting with DBL with N hand for the reasons Justin explained.

 

- I also think Rainer and Andy has very valid points (re the opponents will compete thus south must choose 2♠ with the prediction of competition) I am not sure if i would do this without knowing who my pd is, but i would definetely not bid 2♠ at IMPs.

 

-I was thinking, wrongly, that if opener raises to 3♣, South can use DBL to give perfect description of short ♣ hands that has less than 4♠. But Andy's response to this was satisfactory for me. I was resulting i suppose.

 

-I also found it interesting, some very good players that i asked this hand, plays DBL by North not denying 3 card ♥ fit ( with hands that are too good for 2♥ but not as good to cue at 3 level)

 

I love this type of topics, not because i have a lot to offer to readers but i know i have a lot to gain by reading it. So thanks to contributors. This topic also changed my mind about some other auctions that i was seeking answers.

[jogs]

I have to admit, this type of auctions and bidding is one of my weakest part at bridge. So i found this topic very useful for me.

 

 

If by 'this type' you meant contested auctions, everyone bids these badly including the experts.

[MrAce]

If by 'this type' you meant contested auctions, everyone bids these badly including the experts.

 

No, i didnt mean contested auctions in general, but i can see it sounded like that. I will not write a long speech about my bridge background, i am what i am and i was what i was. But for personal reasons i had to quit bridge for a very long time. When i came back (in bbo) i only played online bridge and i found myself bidding these type of hands (north hand for example) a little too black or white. This type of topics help me to hear the more flexible usage of bids (such as DBL by N hand or response to DBL by South hand ) which i used to be very comfy and accurate in the past. I feel like the years i have been away from bridge, has taken something that i was good at, or at least i thought i was good at and topics like that and the well written opinions is making me feel like i found one of the marbels that i lost. ( there are a lot of them though )

 

It is like...you bid something but you feel something seriously bothering you inside ? Feel like you are bidding sloppy ? After the long break from bridge i have this feeling in general about most of my bids, and these type of topics are opening the small boxes that i locked somewhere in my head in the past. ( In the long break time from bridge, my memory loss was not only limited to bridge btw )

[jogs]

This is the way I see it. Think of yourself as a five year old child. Where do tricks come from? Most bridge theorist never asked.

Bidding has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Larry Cohen told us that tricks are correlated to trumps. Online bridge with its minis allowed us to play against opponents from all around the world. It's a lot harder to defend than declare.

The bridge books written in the fifties authors told us to overcall cautiously. Don't risk -500 against a part score.

J6543 2 KQ4 A652

RHO opens 1C. They all preached pass. Today many players bid 1S. Bad suit and indifferent hand. 1S preempts both opponents and partner from bidding hearts. Bidding spades only leads to bad scores when advancer overbids based solely on HCP. If he threads carefully with possible misfits, the bid should be safe.

The whole approach to bidding has changed in the 20 years. Everyone is preempting more frequently. In the U.S. new suit is mostly forcing. On 40% of the boards the points are divided nearly equally between the two pairs. When opponents open one of a suit, there is at most a 3% chance our side has 25+ HCP. On these contested auctions the British style of new suit non forcing is more practical. Finding the correct strain is more critical than finding the unlikely game contract.

Evaluating trick potential should be based on both HCP and trump fit. Anders Wigren/Mike Lawrence writes that shortness of the secondary side suits is another variable in generating tricks. Quality of the trump suit affects the tricks. Strong 4+ side suits adds to tricks. Only during an auction there are too few bids available to exchange info on that many variables. One must decide which variables are the most useful for this board.