Stylistic?

[phil_20686]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa3haj852dacjt542&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s3d]133|200[/hv]

 

1D was basically natural but limited to 15 I think.

 

Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.

 

What is your choice?

[whereagles]

We must have a fit here. Dbl seems ideal, but I'm not sure pard will be anxious to bid hearts on a 5332, so I think I'll just bite it and bid 3♥

[jallerton]

Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.

 

In that case, why do you play 3♥ as forcing here?

[Stephen Tu]

We must have a fit here. Dbl seems ideal, but I'm not sure pard will be anxious to bid hearts on a 5332, so I think I'll just bite it and bid 3♥

 

If partner isn't anxious to bid hearts on 5332 he needs a refresher course on responding to responsive doubles.

[gszes]

There is a ton of potential here but the big contracts of 4h and 3n may not

be easily reached if we x. 3N might not be so great if p is weak anyway so it

seems we should try to emphasize our major suit game and worry about club only

if neither major appears to be appealing.

 

3h

[MrAce]

Auto dbl

[mikeh]

I think this is an auto double, as Timo suggests. Partner will always bid 3♥ with Hxx in hearts, unless he has a decent 6 card spade suit. He may well choose 3♥ with as little as xxx in hearts, tho this would depend on his hand.

 

The slightly more interesting question is what do we do over 3♥? I think we have to raise...after all, most hands containing 4♥ will offer excellent play, since the odds are he will hold short clubs. Indeed, if he were to bid 3♥, I would try 4♦ even tho I expect to miss slam most times it is there. I hold too many Aces for him to be able to co-operate often.

 

Unfortunately the difference in playability in hearts of a 9 card fit as opposed to an 8 card fit is huge, not merely because of trump issues but also the increased likelihood of club issues.

 

Over 3♠ I pass. Over 4♣ (which won't happen) I cue 4♦. Over an even more improbable 3N I pass.

 

Over Pass, I lick my chops.

 

Wild horses couldn't make me bid 3♥

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sa3haj852dacjt542&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1s3d]133|200|

1D was basically natural but limited to 15 I think.

Your overcall style is fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here.

What is your choice? [/hv]

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 9, 4♠ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 4♦ = 6.

[jogs]

Double. Shows hearts, clubs, and spade tolerance.

 

The real problem hand is

♠ 3

♥ AJ852

♦ A3

♣ AJ1054

 

No spade tolerance. Hearts too weak for 3♥. Not willing to go to 4 level with clubs.

Would pass.

[jallerton]

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 9, 4♠ = 8, 3♠ = 7, 4♦ = 6.

 

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0.

 

Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

[nige1]

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0. Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

[helene_t]

I don't believe 3h should be forcing.

Anyway, there is no LA to double

[jallerton]

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

 

By giving 9 marks to 3♥, you imply that you consider it to be almost as good a call as double; or perhaps that it might work well almost as often as the call to which you give 10 marks (double).

 

Do you really think that 3♥ might work well as often as 90% of the time that double will work well?

 

I give 0 to the alternatives because I struggle to construct any hands on which making any of these bids will gain over double, whilst it is easy to think of layouts where double will gain. As Helene says, there is no LA to double.

[helene_t]

You can construct a hand on which 6♣ would work. That's not a reason for giving anything above 0 to 6♣. If you want to use the scale as the do in the Master Solvers' Club, any mark above zero should mean that it could be argued to be the best call under certain circumstances.

[lamford]

IMO Double = 10, 3♥ = 0, 4♠ = 0, 3♠ = 0, 4♦ = 0.

 

Why do you give such high marks to bids which commit your side to playing in a 5-2 fit?

You are being far too generous to the other choices. Where does it say that you are not allowed to give negative marks?

[nige1]

By giving 9 marks to 3♥, you imply that you consider it to be almost as good a call as double; or perhaps that it might work well almost as often as the call to which you give 10 marks (double). Do you really think that 3♥ might work well as often as 90% of the time that double will work well?

No. Nor do I think double will work 100% if the time that 3[HE[ will work. When I consider several alternatives, I don't give fractional marks.

I give 0 to the alternatives because I struggle to construct any hands on which making any of these bids will gain over double, whilst it is easy to think of layouts where double will gain. As Helene says, there is no LA to double.

Helen_t's and JAllerton's judgement may be better than mine and we're all entitled to our opinions.

You can construct a hand on which 6♣ would work. That's not a reason for giving anything above 0 to 6♣. If you want to use the scale as the do in the Master Solvers' Club, any mark above zero should mean that it could be argued to be the best call under certain circumstances.

That's roughly my criterion for marks of 6-9. I award 0-5 to bids I considered but feel, on reflection, are unlikely to work.

You are being far too generous to the other choices. Where does it say that you are not allowed to give negative marks?

Whatever turns you on. Celebrate free-speech :)

[dake50]

Whatever turns you on. Celebrate free-speech :) -- nige1

 

*** In an 'expert' forum?? Any speech goes??

At least insist on evidence for "free speech" as if an expert were commenting in an expert forum.

Or is "expert" meaningless to posters?

[jogs]

I don't believe 3h should be forcing.

Anyway, there is no LA to double

 

I agree 3♥ is better non forcing in contested auctions. But it doesn't matter what I think. Most Americans play ambiguous(or undiscussed) bids in contested auctions are forcing.

[PhantomSac]

Most Americans play ambiguous(or undiscussed) bids in contested auctions are forcing.

 

Cite? I have never heard of bid-bid-bid-bid being forcing in any circumstances unless one of the first 2 bids was a preempt. Seems pretty silly even after a 2 level overcall, but lol after a 1 level overcall.

[Free]

Obviously, just my opinion. I give 0-5 for calls I don't think would work, 6-9 for calls that might well work (even if I wouldn't choose them) and 10 for what I'd probably bid.

Time for a reality check...

[rhm]

I agree 3♥ is better non forcing in contested auctions. But it doesn't matter what I think. Most Americans play ambiguous(or undiscussed) bids in contested auctions are forcing.

Cite? I have never heard of bid-bid-bid-bid being forcing in any circumstances unless one of the first 2 bids was a preempt. Seems pretty silly even after a 2 level overcall, but lol after a 1 level overcall.

I beg to differ and appearances can be deceptive.

I play new suits at the two level non-forcing even when partner has opened (negative free bids) instead of overcalled, which is a minority view.

 

But playing that a new major suit bid at the three level should be non forcing is not my cup of tea.

You might have slightly better possibility to contest the part-score if you play it non forcing.

On the other hand you must be quite narrow in strength to be able to make a non forcing bid at the three level and survive a non-fit in your suit and that both sides can just make something at the three level is not that frequent anyway.

But I just might lose some part-score battles and sometimes I will stretch. But I play a new major at the three level as game forcing.

Not here of course since DBL stands out. but If I had a heart more and a club less I would stretch and bid 3♥.

So in the end on almost all hands where you will bid 3♥ I will bid 3♥ as well, but I can not afford to limit such a bid to a narrow range of hands when opponents have taken away our bidding room.

I can do this with strong hands too, secure in the knowledge that overcaller will not pass and we can find our best strain and level.

If no game makes big deal. When opponents have a good fit of their own they are rarely able to punish us if we find our best strain.

 

Giving strong hands fewer options affects your game and slam bidding and this can be really expensive.

In today's competitive world almost everybody plays jump raises as weak and preemptive. So do not tell me advancer could not be strong giving such a start.

Stopping on a dime just one trick below game is in my opinion a long term losing strategy.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gordontd]

Rainer,

 

Do you share the original poster's overcall style of "...fairly aggressive. An 8 count from partner would be totally normal here"?

[nige1]

Time for a reality check...

:) Exactly :)

 

When I award marks to calls that I consider, It seems logical to award 10 to the call I choose (e.g. Double).

 

IMO, however, it's unrealistic to award zero to calls chosen by others (e.g. 3♥).

 

Analogously, sometimes, expert partners, on magazine bidding panels, ridicule a problem because there's only one possible call. Unfortunately, each partner chooses a different call :(

[phil_20686]

So I am surprised at the unanimity of this poll.

 

There was a sharp difference of opinion among my teammates on basically all facets of this board. One thought dble basically always shows 5 hearts, another thought it was routine to double with 3424 looking for the 4-4 heart fit rather than spades, and was therefore strongly opposed to the idea of responding 3H on three cards, since he would routinely raise 3h to 4 holding 34 in the majors.

 

This was a problem some teammates faced, The player did indeed double, but partner with KJT97 K94 72 Q66 bid 3♠, so they went off in 3S rather than bidding 4H.

 

 

The full hand was:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq865ht73dj654ck7&w=sa3haj852dacjt542&n=s42hq6dkqt983ca93&e=skjt97hk94d72cq86]399|300[/hv]

 

At my table I opened an unbalanced diamond and partner only bid 2d rather than three, which is normal in our style with balanced hand. But that gave the opps an easy 2H bid. Course, you would expect norway to negotiate this position easily.

[whereagles]

phil: if you bid michaels on any 5-4, dbl is easy, as is bidding 3♥ on 3 cards. If you're very strict on using michaels (e.g. only 5-5 and/or top-bottom range), then 3♥ gets more attractive.