Choose your weapon

[mfa1010]

However, I think double creates more frequent, if not larger, problems, and the combination of frequency and potential size of those problems outweighs the benefits.

 

I agree that there are problems with a double and we might lose a partscore battle we might otherwise have won. But the problems shouldn't be overstated. Partner is expecting a strong balanced or flexible hand for the double, and this is what we have. So he will generally make good decisions.

 

The plan is not to X and then bid spades. The plan is to X and then TOX their runout. We play (which I think is normal) that a 2♣ runout from partner is scrambling, and our 2♠ after that shouldn't be construed as extras. I would plan to pass a 2♦ runout from partner, which admittedly might be wrong.

 

 

mfa posted the companion hand as I was writing this, and I admit that I would not have reached game, and that double would have worked out just fine. Oh well. This is a game of probabilities, not hindsight.

 

I was very much in doubt, when I choose 2♣. When dummy was about to come down, I was like please don't be strong, please don't be strong... 2 bullits :o ... crap!

[mfa1010]

Kerching.

Indeed. Opener had 17. A tad to the unlucky side to find partner with all the remaining 8 points, and what 8 points.

[mikeh]

 

 

With a lesser playing strength hand and mere 5-4 distribution, I would probably have just overcalled the spade suit; but, maybe this inference isn't valid for others.

I have long taught that one never, ever overcalls in a 5 card suit, as a one-suiter, and I am very strongly of the view that this is correct. I think 5 card overcalls on balanced or hands that one is treating as non-two-suited are terrible, especially red v white.

[madongjun]

2♥ for majors.(HELLO)

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps:

<snip>

I picked 2NT for the reason of partner being able to pass this with 22xx and dreck. However the real solution here is to play 2♦ followed by 2NT as a relay and get an accurate picture of Overcaller's hand, saving 2NT for the really top end stuff where we could also have chosen to start with a double. Partner ought to know the range of hands with which we bid 2♣ and can investigate when they see game as a realistic possibility. Notice that many play a direct 2NT over 2♣ as a forcing relay, something that makes no sense to me whatsoever as it is surely strictly worse than starting with 2♦ and obtaining additional information.

[mfa1010]

Notice that many play a direct 2NT over 2♣ as a forcing relay, something that makes no sense to me whatsoever as it is surely strictly worse than starting with 2♦ and obtaining additional information.

 

2♦ then 2NT is useful as a natural bid.

[PhilKing]

2♦ then 2NT is useful as a natural bid.

 

You can switch things round and play a direct 2NT response as natural.

[ArtK78]

I bid 2♣ for majors and pass the response. I am not worried about missing a game on these cards (despite the result). If partner has a distributional fit with one of my majors and jumps to 3, then I will be willing to make a game try (bid game and try to make it).

[mfa1010]

You can switch things round and play a direct 2NT response as natural.

Yes, but that might miss a 5-3 fit if responder has a 2NT bid with a 3-card support for one of the majors, where he would bid 3 in that major, if partner bids it after 2♦.

 

I don't think we need a huge system after the 2N inquiry, slam is very unlikely, so not going through 2♦ to get more info is not a problem.

[PhilKing]

Yes, but that might miss a 5-3 fit

 

Is that a bad thing?

[mfa1010]

Is that a bad thing?

Yes, if it is not missed by free choice. Advancer can still bid 2NT with 3-card support to overcaller's longer major if he likes, but he may not like to. I agree that a right-sided notrump contract often will play well, but that should be up to advancer to evaluate from hand to hand.