Bidding after 3-level interference over strong 1[clubs]

[metobillc]

We didn't get the right spot last night in the following auction (unfavorable, IMPS):

 

1♣-(3♣) and I held:

 

♠QTxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣Jx

 

I thought this was a bit light for a double, which we play as 7-8 here, so I passed and heard:

 

P-3♦-P

 

Now I was happy to introduce spades, but we hadn't discussed how weak I can be to do so.

3♠ was passed out, and partner held:

 

♠AK9 ♥Axx ♦AQJTx ♣Tx

 

Club, club, heart shift, but spades split and we made 10 tricks for a bad score.

 

Bad luck, bad bidding by me, my partner, both, or all of the above?

Any agreements that might help in these awkward situations?

 

Bill Campbell

[whereagles]

3♠ can't be too weak, since with 0-4 you could have passed.

 

So I think pard should have given it the lift.

[PrecisionL]

I would venture 3♠ over 3♣ playing Precision. Double would deny a 5-cd suit.

[benlessard]

After a strong clubs you have to reduce you criteria to make a neg double otherwise you will pass too often and put too much pressure on opener in the balancing seat.

 

I dont play that the neg X are GF. In standard where the opening can be a 11 count its normal to X with 9 so 5+ after a 16+ strong club look like a good range to me. Note playing switch here is also awesome.

 

3D=H

3H=S

3S=D GF

 

We play 1C starting at 15 and we will X with many 6 count.

[foobar]

3D=H

3H=S

3S=D GF

We play 1C starting at 15 and we will X with many 6 count.

+1 -- the switch treatment by UPH works great in this situation (and also over 1♦ - (2♣) / 1N - (3♣)). I have also played this method over 1M - (2♣), but NFBs probably make more sense there.

 

Our agreements are that X after 1♣ (16+ unbalanced; 17+ balanced) - 3-level overcall establishes a GF with no clear direction. 3♠ over 3♦ is pretty clear and IMO opener should bump to 4♠.

[dake50]

Try

X: denying a 5+M

3M: this 5+M

3om: both 4xM (if 3D as here over 3C)

P: you decide

higher: GF+

.

The double to show points;

pass not points;

is much too restrictive.

Way over-riding our partnership judgment.

Aside. At this unfav VUL, your tactic should be just bid "borderline" games and let them phantom sac if they want.

The problem hands then become slammy maybe? hands. Use your gimmicks for them.

[metobillc]

OK, but wherever the dividing line is, there are four auctions that can occur when

responder has spades, and they should have different meanings:

 

1)

1♣-(3♣)-P-P

3♦-P-P

2)

1♣-(3♣)-P-P

3♦-P-3♠

3)

1♣-(3♣)-X-P

3♦-P-3♠

4)

1♣-(3♣)-3♠-P

 

In my mind, they only differ by "points", however you count them,

not number of spades. If that's the case, where should the

dividing line be?

 

I've played Precision for a number of years now, and of the 5 or 6

Precision system books I've read, they all treat the negative double

after 1C is overcalled as 5-8 at the 1-level, 6-8 at the 2-level,

and 7-8 at the 3-level. So it surprised me to see a number of different

opinions here.

[whereagles]

You can't "box" HCP ranges too strictly. It all depends on your hand and what opener is likely to have. It might be correct to pass on 6-7 at the 1-level and act on 4-5 at the 3-level.

 

Overcalled strong club requires some experience to guess stuff right (well, most of the time at least), especially if the overcall is at a high level. It took me about 3 years to understand that. I'll need to make good judgement calls and dividing hands into very strict ranges doesn't make it easier.

[SteveMoe]

I play a conventional double that shows 5-7 HCP any shape at the 2 level and 6-10 any shape at the 3 level (no ♣ stop). Here I would double first. If partner now calls 3♦, I am well placed to offer 3♠ as a 5-card suit. With ♠QJxx ♥xxxx ♦Kxx ♣Jx I would raise 3♦ to 4♦. Partner would bid 3N not 3♦ when right. Passing first limits your hand to 5 HCP.

 

3-level interference:

Double: 6-10 HCP any shape, no stop

Cue Bid: 11+ HCP 3 place to play (5440, 4441, 4432 all possible). No Stop

3NT: 8-13 HCP, ♣ stop. Maybe 5-card minor, but 5-card Major unlikely/impossible