What do you bid?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&n=sk98432hadakq75c7&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp2c(intermediate)2sd(negative)p3h4d4hpp]133|200[/hv]

West's 2C was precision style. What do you do now, and what other bids do you seriously consider?

[Codo]

I would pass and see no real alternative. I thought about X, 4 Spade, 4 NT and 5 Diamonds, but I showed my hand and partner passed. Without any hesitation from the other side, X is a second choice.

[aguahombre]

I assume that, after breaking tempo, partner chose the correct call considering what I had shown. And yep, that's what I have. PASS.

[Finch]

I discussed this problem in some detail a few weeks ago.

When I first saw it my inclination was that it was close between pass and double.

 

My partner (who didn't know the history of the hand, unlike me) thought 4S was clearly right, with double a second choice. He pointed out partner could have Qx xxxx xxx xxxx or even xx xxxx Jxx Qxxx when at least one of 4S and 4H is probably making.

 

p.s. it also raises the question of what a 4D overcall of 2C would/should show, which might be relevant.

[lamford]

I discussed this problem in some detail a few weeks ago.

When I first saw it my inclination was that it was close between pass and double.

 

My partner (who didn't know the history of the hand, unlike me) thought 4S was clearly right, with double a second choice. He pointed out partner could have Qx xxxx xxx xxxx or even xx xxxx Jxx Qxxx when at least one of 4S and 4H is probably making.

 

p.s. it also raises the question of what a 4D overcall of 2C would/should show, which might be relevant.

If it was discussed on here, then I missed it, sorry. My partner would have passed, and I suggested to her that Qx of spades in a balanced hand might be enough for game, so it is interesting that your partner made the same point. I would have gone something like 4S 10 Double 8 Pass 5, so it will be good to see what others think.

[Fluffy]

I am not passing either

[jallerton]

If it was discussed on here, then I missed it, sorry. My partner would have passed, and I suggested to her that Qx of spades in a balanced hand might be enough for game, so it is interesting that your partner made the same point. I would have gone something like 4S 10 Double 8 Pass 5, so it will be good to see what others think.

 

If ♠Qx and a balanced hand might be enough for game opposite, is it right to overcall 2♠ on this hand?

 

2♠ followed by 4♦ must be at least 5/5 and quite likely 6/5. However, I could easily have the same hand with a low heart instead of the ace, so I would back in with a double. I can imagine that pass might be a possibility for anyone who thinks that the bidding to date has shown this hand. I don't like 4♠ though. I've already told partner that I've got lots of spades and diamonds and yet partner chose not to compete further: why should I commit our side to declaring the hand? K98432 is not exactly a self-supporting suit.

[Trinidad]

I think that I have shown my hand and partner judged that it would be best to defend 4♥. Therefore, I would not bid 4♠. I would double, because I have fast tricks - something that my partner does not know.

 

Rik

[rhm]

I think 4♠ is correct, and separates the wheat from the chaff.

It is true that you have shown already 5-5, but you are far too strong to give up and to expect your partner to bid 4♠ with a balanced yarborough is silly.

If you double a 4♠ bid will not be forthcoming when it is right.

 

This deal could easily be a double game swing (more likely than that neither game makes) and it is your duty to make sure that the right game makes.

4♠ is dangerous, but the rewards are high.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

I think that if we feel we are too weak to give up now at the 4 level then we probably misbid earlier unless constrained by system. I agree with Frances that the meanings of an initial 4m overcall are relevant here.

[rhm]

I think that if we feel we are too weak to give up now at the 4 level then we probably misbid earlier unless constrained by system. I agree with Frances that the meanings of an initial 4m overcall are relevant here.

I do not see why 4m is relevant here.

What is relevant, is that your spades are six cards long. Two suiter bids usually do not tell which suit is six cards long.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

I do not see why 4m is relevant here.

What is relevant, is that your spades are six cards long. Two suiter bids usually do not tell which suit is six cards long.

 

Rainer Herrmann

You don't have 6 spades. Your spade length is about 4.5. That is good enough to overcall at the two level, because you have a good hand, but not good enough to rebid at the four level.

 

Furthermore, the meaning of an immediate 4♦ is relevant. If 4♦ would have been two-suited, it would have shown 5-5 (or 5-6). That means that the actual sequence doesn't show 5-5, but 6-5. In that case, it would be really bad to bid 4♠. (If an immediate 4♦ doesn't show a two-suiter, bidding 4♠ would merely be bad, not really bad.)

 

Note that if you double the bidding is not over yet. Partner may still chose to bid 4♠ or 5♦.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

I'd double

[lalldonn]

I like double

[Codo]

Of course it is important to know, what a direct 4 ♦ bid had shown.

If it is leaping michaels, I already showed 6/5 with some stuff in my sequence.

If it is not LM, I should bid 4 Spade to show a 6/5 hand.

[rhm]

I'd double

ATB

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st76h9852d986cj32&w=sq5hkt43d43cak654&n=sk98432hadakq75c7&e=sajhqj76djt2cqt98&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp2c2sdp3h4d4hppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

ATB

 

Rainer Herrmann

What, your big example is one where south forgot to pull the double with spade support and no heart tricks? Lol come on it should not be tough to do much better.

[lamford]

What, your big example is one where south forgot to pull the double with spade support and no heart tricks? Lol come on it should not be tough to do much better.

The arguments on this thread convince me that double is better than 4S. However, both will lead to partner correcting to the cold 5♦ as he has four-card diamond support. There was a BIT by South over 4♥ and the TD consulted several people and decided Pass was an LA and awarded an adjusted score of +420/+450 for EW. The AC overruled the poll and were of the opinion that North would always bid 4S. The L&E then criticised the AC for overruling the TD, as they felt greater weight should have been given to the poll that was conducted. I disagree with this view, as no appeal in UI cases would ever succeed if the AC always woodenly accepted the views of those polled. It was their duty to decide whether Pass was an LA for this particular North, and the poll is only a guide.

 

The full hand is on page 6 of http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2013/23rd%20Jan%20draft.pdf for those that are interested.

[rhm]

What, your big example is one where south forgot to pull the double with spade support and no heart tricks? Lol come on it should not be tough to do much better.

I do not consider a yarborough 3=4=3=3 support and if this is all my partner needs I expect him to bid the game himself, in particular when the opponents bidding have indciated the hand is no misfit.

I know it is easy to contract for 10 tricks with a yarborough when looking at all 4 hands.

I would contract for 4 tricks on defense.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

When I was first given this hand, I didn't look too deeply into it. I felt that I had told my story, and passed. I might well do this at the table too, though after reading this thread, I believe that it would have been the wrong thing to do.

 

I would not do this, however, if I were given the hand in a poll or as a member of an AC. I would give the matter more thought. It may be the case that polls and analysis by AC members does not accurately reflect what would have happened at the table.

[Vampyr]

You don't have 6 spades. Your spade length is about 4.5.

 

I think that the "6" referred to the actual number of cards, not the number of tricks the suit can be expected to produce.

[gordontd]

When I was first given this hand, I didn't look too deeply into it. I felt that I had told my story, and passed. I might well do this at the table too, though after reading this thread, I believe that it would have been the wrong thing to do.

 

I would not do this, however, if I were given the hand in a poll or as a member of an AC. I would give the matter more thought. It may be the case that polls and analysis by AC members does not accurately reflect what would have happened at the table.

 

This is a problem with polling - which is not to suggest that we should not do it. Players and AC members usually know the outcome by the time they consider it, and that's one reason why it can be a good start to ask TDs instead, if they are peers of the players in question, because they haven't already played the hand.

 

Best of all is when there are two events going on using different boards; then we can get players without too many preconceptions. However, it will always be the case that those polled are aware of a reason behind the question, and some find it hard to disregard that. Personally I don't find it hard - I can usually answer the question without needing to guess the back-story, but I know lots of others can't seem to do that. Sometimes though they will guess wrong - they'll think it's a UI case when it's an MI case for example, and directors can encourage that by asking questions about earlier parts of the auction than those they are interested in.

[lalldonn]

I do not consider a yarborough 3=4=3=3 support and if this is all my partner needs I expect him to bid the game himself, in particular when the opponents bidding have indciated the hand is no misfit.

I know it is easy to contract for 12 tricks with a yarborough when looking at all 4 hands.

I would contract for 4 tricks on defense.

 

Rainer Herrmann

Then to answer your ATB question, 100% to RHM

 

There is a reason my last post got four quick upvotes, and it's not because I said anything clever or funny...

[cherdano]

I do not consider a yarborough 3=4=3=3 support and if this is all my partner needs I expect him to bid the game himself, in particular when the opponents bidding have indciated the hand is no misfit.

Pro tip: don't defend 4H doubled when you have a double-fit including spades.

[jallerton]

The arguments on this thread convince me that double is better than 4S. However, both will lead to partner correcting to the cold 5♦ as he has four-card diamond support. There was a BIT by South over 4♥ and the TD consulted several people and decided Pass was an LA and awarded an adjusted score of +420/+450 for EW. The AC overruled the poll and were of the opinion that North would always bid 4S. The L&E then criticised the AC for overruling the TD, as they felt greater weight should have been given to the poll that was conducted. I disagree with this view, as no appeal in UI cases would ever succeed if the AC always woodenly accepted the views of those polled. It was their duty to decide whether Pass was an LA for this particular North, and the poll is only a guide.

 

Wrong. The AC's job is to review a TD's ruling, starting with the presumption that the TD's ruling is correct. Where a poll has been conducted by a TD, the AC should check the validity of the poll: did the TD ask the right question(s), was the right peer group of people polled, how many people were asked and what were the answers? If the poll is valid, the AC should not ignore its results.