Simple bidding question

[kgr]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt5hak5daq852c52&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1c]133|200|IMP's (teams)[/hv]

Nobody Vulnerable at IMPs. What is your call?

[broze]

Simple is right... 1♦

[ahydra]

The poll is ridiculous, sorry. Only 1D makes any sense (well, maybe X for some perhaps, but pass and 1NT are completely silly).

 

ahydra

[diana_eva]

Double. I don't find the poll ridiculous.

[ggwhiz]

I'm a 1♦ bidder (for an escape hatch) followed by double but just played a speedball where an opponent bid 1nt on a similar hand and went for -800 against air. That really sucks.

[akwoo]

I'm among the 1♦ bidders, but don't find the poll ridiculous.

 

I'm willing to bid 1♦ only because I'm assuming I'm opposite a partner who won't pass after (1♣)-1♦-(P)-1♥-(P)-2♣ and at least think my hand is among the range of possibilities for the 2♣ bid. (I know that I give weaker partners way too much rope in general.)

 

A double certainly makes the subsequent auction simpler, and a 1N bid simpler yet.

 

I think many pros would bid 1N opposite a client. (That would be more true at MPs where the pro's extra ability to make overtricks matters more and the big loss from a potential disaster matters less.)

[wank]

double, as others said, easy

[Cyberyeti]

1♦ - our simple non exclusive overcalls tend to be pretty good, so this is fine and by no means maximum.

[wank]

1♦ - our simple non exclusive overcalls tend to be pretty good, so this is fine and by no means maximum.

noone's doubling because their hand is too good for 1d. they're doubling because they hsve 3 suits, including 2 majors which they might never be able to show otherwise.

[the hog]

x. I have support for the other suits.

[Cyberyeti]

noone's doubling because their hand is too good for 1d. they're doubling because they hsve 3 suits, including 2 majors which they might never be able to show otherwise.

 

You'd be surprised, round here half the room will think they're way too good. But my point about our overcalls being sound means that we respond to them as if we'd opened, so partner will get to bid his major, or if opps up the ante, I'll double 2/3♣. At least if partner is 3334 I'll play in a 5-3 fit rather than maybe in a 3-3.

[the hog]

You'd be surprised, round here half the room will think they're way too good. But my point about our overcalls being sound means that we respond to them as if we'd opened, so partner will get to bid his major, or if opps up the ante, I'll double 2/3♣. At least if partner is 3334 I'll play in a 5-3 fit rather than maybe in a 3-3.

 

People are interested in normal methods; to constantly cite the methods you play might be good for your ego, but it is no use for anyone else posting here.

[gszes]

a 1d overcall is right on length and falls into a 1 level overcall but this is not the right hand for this action---

for ex what will you do if p bids 1h or 1s are you sure they have 5 is it forcing or not? when you choose to x

instead of overcall 1d so many questions are answered by p next bid the hand becomes easy.

 

if p bids 1d we can see right away the odds of game are slim and pass would be in order though we would no feel

badly about competing as high as 3d if the bidding continues.

 

If p bids 1h/s we will pass once again because game seems so far off and realize we may be stuck in a 4/3

or even rarely 33 fit.

 

If p bids 1/2n we have an easy 3n

 

If p bids 2h/s we bid 3c 2d we bid 3d are simple ways of expressing our extra values and keeping the bidding

low for p to continue to describe their hand.

 

All of these easy follow up bids just make x a standout vs 1d which will have many more grey areas.\

 

x=10 1d=7 1n=6

 

 

 

 

[Zelandakh]

X and 1♦ are both fine. Even without playing Cyber's form of one level overcall, a 1♦ overcall shows a good hand or a good suit or both. The big advantage of 1♦ to me is that the follow-ups are easy. If partner advances 1M (yes, still forcing for me gszes) we can go 2♣ and then follow up with support. If partner passes and they re-open clubs we can double. The auction after an initial double is also easy if they pass but here we are more likely to run into a barrage and that is where things might get tricky.

[MrAce]

X and 1♦ are both fine.

 

I believe this too.

 

 

 

[mikeh]

I disagree with the doublers and suspect that they may not have thought many rounds ahead.

 

The problem is that we have an in-between hand. We have solid extras in hcp but we are a card short to be comfortable moving towards a major suit game should partner bid, for example, 2M in response to the double (assuming LHO passed or didn't pre-empt our partner).

 

Partner is allowed and in fact supposed to jump advance our double with a decent 8 count and a 4 card major....but he might have a decent 9 count and a 5 card major as well. In the former case, 2M is likely our limit, and we might be better off in a diamond partscore, while in the latter case, game is likely a good imp proposition.

 

Things don't get a lot better if he cuebids, which in standard NA treatment is not gf but shows a decent 11 count or equivalent values. I think BWS plays it as forcing to suit agreement. We again have an awkward hand...we'd know we have the high card values for game but we are likely never going to know whether we have the tricks for game, since we may have no stopper and no fit.

 

My view is that this hand is good enough to bid 1♦ and then, should the auction permit, double to bring the majors back into it.

 

Meanwhile, if partner introduces a major voluntarily, after we bid 1♦, we have a good hand and can show it by inviting game, or even cuebidding if we like. Btw, I am part of what I think is the majority in that for me partner, introducing a major here, promises 5+. Much of my reasoning here becomes invalid if advancer is permitted to bid a 4 card major over 1♦.

 

I am comfortable enough with my reasoning to assert that I think double is an error.

[kgr]

This hand was also sent to my by a teammate; coming from a match that I didn't play.

His comment: "I have not yet found any support for my bid: 1NT".

Seems like he does not get a lot of support here.

 

My answer to him:

Biggest disadvantage of 1NT is that the wrong hand will play the contract; fi if partner has ♣KJx.

My points:

1D: 10

DBL: 8

1NT: 7

Pass: 0

(it seems that I overrated the 1NT bid).

[MrAce]

 

My points:

1D: 10

DBL: 8

1NT: 7

Pass: 0

(it seems that I overrated the 1NT bid).

 

By a lot ! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

 

 

[ggwhiz]

People are interested in normal methods;

 

I do consider this a normal method, perhaps 40-60 in the overcall vs. double camp but still widely played.

[PhilKing]

I overcall 1♦ because we may belong in, er, diamonds. I'm pretty surprised at the amout of support for double. After an overcall, we can emphasise our strength and probable major suit length pretty well by doubling 1NT or 2(3)♣ at our next turn.

 

Doubling first is just less accurate. Whenever pard has a nondescript hand with 3 diamonds and some scatterd values, double rates to lose out, and if he is 4-4 in the majors, doubling will cause him to overcompete.

[the hog]

I do consider this a normal method, perhaps 40-60 in the overcall vs. double camp but still widely played.

 

So you would not overcall a 1C opening with

 

xxx

Kxx

AQT98

xx

 

No, perhaps you wouldn't as I have noted that you are an extremely conservative bidder.

CY has repeatedly said his overcalls are near opening strength +. THAT is not normal. Perhaps it was 20 years ago.

However posting:

"this is what we would do" is of no benefit to anybody if an op asks a question and expects a normal answer.

[kenberg]

I'm coming in late to the discussion but I did choose my 1♦ vote before reading the responses.

I agree with the first response (broze) "keep it simple, 1♦", the Phil King response later, and the more elaborate discussion from mikeh.

Basically my thinking is that the auction won't die here and, after starting with 1♦ and then taking a later opportunity to act, my hand will be fairly clear. If partner bids a (non-forcing) 1M I raise to 2M. I'll raise 1NT to 2NT. I take that back, I raise a 1NT response to 3NT. If it goes (1♣)-1♦-(2♣)-pass-(pass) I will double. Maybe some continuations will make me uncomfortable, but I think I will often be satisfied enough with how this goes further down the line.

 

Btw, some gremlin keeps highlighting some of what I say in red. This is not my intention..I used to be able to defeat this gremlin by clicking "edit" and then "save changes" but that doesn't seem to be working anymore.Clicking on the highlight of "auction" took me to some stupid site called qui bids.Hah. Maybe I got him dead and buried. For now.

[lycier]

My choice is 1♦ since it is not strong with 16hcp,if double, do you hope your pd bid 1nt with 8hcp+,only?

[ggwhiz]

So you would not overcall a 1C opening with

 

xxx

Kxx

AQT98

xx

 

No, perhaps you wouldn't as I have noted that you are an extremely conservative bidder.

CY has repeatedly said his overcalls are near opening strength +. THAT is not normal. Perhaps it was 20 years ago.

However posting:

"this is what we would do" is of no benefit to anybody if an op asks a question and expects a normal answer.

 

I certainly would overcall. I just think your no benefit deal is way too strong a statement. It's obviously a normal answer to the poster whether I agree with it or not and I appreciate a variety of opinions instead of a 1 or 2 person blog. I chose 1♦ for different reasons but could easily have said that "we play" thing and have in the past.

 

Substituting "this is my opinion" for "this is what we would do" changes nothing but your perception.

[Vampyr]

a 1d overcall is right on length and falls into a 1 level overcall but this is not the right hand for this action---

for ex what will you do if p bids 1h or 1s are you sure they have 5 is it forcing or not?

 

With any luck you will have discussed these matters beforehand.