Your bid

[rhm]

[hv=pc=n&e=s7haq7432dqckj743&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1d1s2d2h3dpp]133|200|Swiss Match, IMPs [/hv]

[Fluffy]

I will show my second suit suit, how wrong can it be?, so far 3 voters disagree

[Zelandakh]

What would a double over 2♦ have been in your system Rainer?

[Fluffy]

I will take a step forward and asume double of 2♦ is takeout, the typical 2425 with 8 HCP or something similar.

[Zelandakh]

And what would X followed by 3♥ over 3♦ be? What about X followed by X over 3♦? It seems like we ought to be able to find a route to show this hand without committing us to 4♣. It is not like partner cannot hold 6142 in Rainer's style.

 

And this style is certainly something we might add to the equation here. If you routinely overcall 1M with weak hands and a 6+ suit then partner needs to account for that. If you prefer to jump overcall those then you are somewhat better placed as partner has either a fit or extras (or both).

 

In any case, absent and special agreements I think we can double 2♦ and then bid 3♥ over 3♦ - surely a constructive hand with extra heart length and a club suit. It is true we did not show as much shape as 2♥ followed by 4♣; but we are also lower. Of course, if Double over 3♦ shows this it is even better...but I would not try it with this kind of hand without discussion, especially when 4♣ only lies about our strength and not our shape.

[gszes]

i bid 4c here but i am not happy about it---

 

I feel our side would have been much better served if we had started with x

over 2d (to show the rounded suits) and now i would have an easy 3h bid.

there is just too much potential here for game to sit idly by in 3d, The worst

part about our 4c bid is it does not pay sufficient homage to our 6c heart suit

where our most likelt best chance at game lies. Lets just hope we land on our feet

and improve our score over 3d :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

As a further note: If i had started with x over 2d I would probably continue with 4h over 4d

which shows just how much flexibility the original x would have offered.

[mikeh]

I pass.

 

I'd prefer not to be in this position, and we may be missing a game, but my partners don't require more than AKJxx in spades, and out, to overcall in this auction. I wouldn't be surprised to find partner is 5233 with 8-10 hcp and we are red, so even going quietly 200 losing imps.

 

I understand 2♥ rather than double, but I think we'd all agree that we could see 3♦ coming back around to us, and having the ability to have shown both rounded suits and then a presumably 6 card heart suit via 3♥ sure looks attractive through our retroscope, and maybe should have been anticipated.

[rhm]

I did not play this hand.

The deal comes from an ATB problem at RGB:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hkj96daj8532ca9&w=sajt654h85dk9ct86&n=skq832htdt764cq52&e=s7haq7432dqckj743&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1s2d2h3dpp4cp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Obviously South "forgot" to double.

The contract went down four but should have been down two.

Though some mentioned West could have bid 2♠, almost all blamed East. Some called his bidding lunatic.

 

To me that felt like hindsight. I considered East bidding unlucky, the deal was exceptionally unfriendly given the diamond raises, and 4♣ could well have been right.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Obviously South "forgot" to double.

Equally obviously, West forgot to jump and East forgot to Double (as already discussed). I ATB to North for playing with these lunatics.

 

More seriously, West's failure to jump is the more serious error in the style I generally play. If E-W play a different style then East's bidding may be worse. We cannot really judge the blame on a hand like this without knowing more about their agreements. But "lunatic" is an overbid.

[rhm]

Equally obviously, West forgot to jump and East forgot to Double (as already discussed). I ATB to North for playing with these lunatics.

 

More seriously, West's failure to jump is the more serious error in the style I generally play. If E-W play a different style then East's bidding may be worse. We cannot really judge the blame on a hand like this without knowing more about their agreements. But "lunatic" is an overbid.

The 2♥ bid as happened is generally played as constructive but not forcing after an overcall at the one level.

The cuebid 3♦ is generally played as a strong invitational spade raise.

It is not clear what DBL followed by a heart bid shows, but I would take it, since 2♥ is not forcing, as a strong hand with hearts with no implication about clubs.

In other words I would assume it shows more strength and less distribution than East got.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

The 2♥ bid as happened is generally played as constructive but not forcing after an overcall at the one level.

The cuebid 3♦ is generally played as a strong invitational spade raise.

I think everyone assumed that an immediate 3♦ is an UCB. Your assertion that the way that 2♥ is "generally played" is trivially false. It depends on where you play, at what level and what level of complexity you like. I could equally say that transfers are generally played in competition; it would have about as much validity. I do know that this non-forcing style is popular on BBF. Amongst the bridge-playing public I have seen many many more playing it as forcing. I suspect I am not alone in having assumed forcing since you did not mention anything about the style being used in the OP. How much of the blame did "methods" get at RGB?

[rhm]

I think everyone assumed that an immediate 3♦ is an UCB. Your assertion that the way that 2♥ is "generally played" is trivially false. It depends on where you play, at what level and what level of complexity you like. I could equally say that transfers are generally played in competition; it would have about as much validity. I do know that this non-forcing style is popular on BBF. Amongst the bridge-playing public I have seen many many more playing it as forcing. I suspect I am not alone in having assumed forcing since you did not mention anything about the style being used in the OP. How much of the blame did "methods" get at RGB?

I am not sure what you are aiming at.

If somebody raises a bidding or an ATB problem he either explains his specific agreements.

If not, you should assume its a judgement or hand evaluation problem with no specific agreements in place relevant to the problem posed.

Just assume you are in a new partnership with a good player of international standard.

Whether standard agreements or my own agreements would have worked better (and in fact what I personally like to play here is non standard and would have worked much better) is simply besides the point.

What is standard can be argued and sometimes it does in deed depend on region and level.

I just tried to clarify what I think applies and I am pretty sure I am much closer than you are.

That 2♥ is taken not as constructive but forcing after (1♦)-1♠-(2♦)-2♥ is certainly a minority view among top players.

That does not mean the minority view has no merit

 

Rainer Herrmann

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

4H.

 

For one thing, I am not sure 4C is natural, I rarely play a new suit introduced late

in the auction at the 4 level as natural.

 

For that matter, I may have started with a double to get both suit in the picture.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[JLOGIC]

I would have bid 4C FWIW. Oh well.

 

I also would overcall 1S not 2S, and also play 2H as natural and NF. Only bid I disagree with was 4H over 4C, seems like it's time to get out before the doubling starts, luckily they didn't X lol.

[Zelandakh]

I have been thinking about this some more in light of Rainer's description of the methods. It sounds like Double over 2♦ has to cover 2 basic hand types:

a. normal takeout

b. GF with hearts

 

When the bidding comes back round to us after (1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X; (3♦) - P - (P), it seems that we should therefore play that X = takeout (with more shape); 3♥ = GF with hearts; 4♣ = GF 2-suiter. It is fair to say that I do not play your methods and Justin does and disagrees; fair enough. Nonetheless, I would like to know what this sequence (Double followed by Double) means in the style if not this.

[Fluffy]

I also would overcall 1S not 2S

 

Can you elaborate this a bit? I see no flaw for 2♠.

[rhm]

Can you elaborate this a bit? I see no flaw for 2♠.

This is the type of hand, which is often misjudged.

The ♠JT are nice but otherwise ace empty six is a bad holding to preempt with. Compare this with KQTxxx.

If your partner has a singleton spade you might well go for a number while your defensive prospects at a suit contract are excellent.

Given that you have a six card suit your distribution is flat and with 2 defensive tricks you have also too much defense for a preempt.

If the bidding gets competitive your partner may well misjudge. In other words your ODR ratio is quite low.

There might be nothing on for them.

 

One of the arguments advanced for weak jump overcalls that it gives more substance to non jump overcalls simply does not work in my experience.

It leads to too many disasters when jumping with the wrong type of hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Can you elaborate this a bit? I see no flaw for 2♠.

What about the ace of spades, the king of diamonds and the 6322 shape?

[gnasher]

I have been thinking about this some more in light of Rainer's description of the methods. It sounds like Double over 2♦ has to cover 2 basic hand types:

a. normal takeout

b. GF with hearts

 

When the bidding comes back round to us after (1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X; (3♦) - P - (P), it seems that we should therefore play that X = takeout (with more shape); 3♥ = GF with hearts; 4♣ = GF 2-suiter. It is fair to say that I do not play your methods and Justin does and disagrees; fair enough. Nonetheless, I would like to know what this sequence (Double followed by Double) means in the style if not this.

Double should include "takeout (with more points)". If we don't have more shape we probably need a lot more in high cards, but we have to be able to do something with a 2425 15-count.

 

With the given hand, I don't see anything wrong with bidding 2♥ and following with 4♣. Opposite a mediocre dummy and on an unfriendly layout of the cards, that should have led to -100 against the opponent's 110. Even if they double 4♣, it's still only -300, so not a disaster at IMPs.

 

Another approach (possibly better) would be to bid 2♥ and follow with double. If partner bids 3♠, we can convert to 4♣.

 

The problem with a first-round double is that it may lose the sixth heart, or even the fifth heart. On another layout, if you start with double opener may bid 4♦ or 5♦, leaving you with a far worse guess. Even when he only bids 3♦, you're now suggesting a second double, which certainly doesn't promise six hearts.

 

A good way to approach competitive auctions is to start by showing your major-suit length, and deal with minors/high cards on the next round. That's not guaranteed to work, as evidenced by this deal, but it would be unwise to put too much weight on this one piece of data.

Edited February 6, 2013 by gnasher

[JLOGIC]

I have been thinking about this some more in light of Rainer's description of the methods. It sounds like Double over 2♦ has to cover 2 basic hand types:

a. normal takeout

b. GF with hearts

 

When the bidding comes back round to us after (1♦) - 1♠ - (2♦) - X; (3♦) - P - (P), it seems that we should therefore play that X = takeout (with more shape); 3♥ = GF with hearts; 4♣ = GF 2-suiter. It is fair to say that I do not play your methods and Justin does and disagrees; fair enough. Nonetheless, I would like to know what this sequence (Double followed by Double) means in the style if not this.

 

I think Andy's post is really good and can't add much to it.

 

However, I will say that GF hands are a non priority to me in an auction that starts bid bid bid. If I have a GF hand, I will almost always have a fit (can cuebid) or a 1 suiter (can bid game in my suit). I think playing bids as NF at any level after that start is good; I cannot say whether this is common or not but I learned this from Bob long ago...his view is that you just have to get suits in in competitive auctions before it's too late. So we play nothing as forcing ever in auctions like that. I suppose if I ever have a true GF 2 suiter this will be an issue since I might not want to chance X or chance bidding a suit and hoping it stays alive, but both of those are at least acceptable options for a very low frequency hand type imo.