who bid too much

[dickiegera]

Down 3 -150

 

 

who bid too much?

 

E W Both Neither [hv=pc=n&w=sat942ha4dq84c874&e=skqj75hqjtd953c92&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1sp2d3c3s4c4sppp]266|200[/hv]

[smerriman]

I don't understand East's 3♠ at all. What extras was it meant to show?

[Cyberyeti]

What form of scoring ? it's not necessarily even a bad board.

[AL78]

I would not have bid 3♠ on the East cards. The hand has nothing extra to justify making another bid in a non-forcing situation. Surely West is going to bid on if they have the expected invitational hand.

[apollo1201]

E should have kept quiet on their 2nd round to show that they really have nothing special more to say. After all, even if completely normal, the overcall is nonetheless very minimal.

 

The 10-cd fit will not necessarily persuade W to remain silent over 4C by South. The flat distribution and the likely wasted DQ could, however, but over a free bid of 3S, W is completely legitimate.

[dickiegera]

What form of scoring ? it's not necessarily even a bad board.

 

 

Matchpoints

[mikeh]

Both overbid but east’s 3S was silly

[johnu]

I don't understand East's 3♠ at all. What extras was it meant to show?

3♠ shows 5 spades, just in case West didn't hear the first overcall.

[mw64ahw]

Sorry,I don't get why 3♠ isn't competitive when 3♦ is available to show extras? Yes you go down 1/2 NV, but OK if 3♣ is making. Unlucky West having 5♠ to apply LOTT.

[Cyberyeti]

Matchpoints

 

And there weren't a load of 150s in club partials and 170s in heart partials (presuming since it was -3 the K♥ was a winner for the opps).

[DavidKok]

Sorry,I don't get why 3♠ isn't competitive when 3♦ is available to show extras? Yes you go down 1/2 NV, but OK if 3♣ is making. Unlucky West having 5♠ to apply LOTT.

2♦ showed a strong raise to 2♠. Bidding on over that shows "not a flat minimum overcall". You can decide that 3♦/3♥ over 3♣ show some game tries and 3♠ is competitive, i.e. shows extra shape but no values. There are also different ways of playing it. For example:

1: X = we've got them, 3♦ = generic extras, 3♥ = extras with something in hearts (something like 4-card suit, or help suit, or short suit), 3♠ = competitive.

2: X = generic game try, extras, 3♦ = extras, short diamonds/looking for stopper for 3NT, 3♥ as above, 3♠ as above.

3: X = we've got them, 3♦ = extras, short diamonds/looking for stopper for 3NT, 3♥ as above, 3♠ generic game try.

 

These are not all equally good, but I do think all of these see play. Also I'm sure some people have come up with more exciting uses for 3♥.

[mw64ahw]

2♦ showed a strong raise to 2♠. Bidding on over that shows "not a flat minimum overcall". You can decide that 3♦/3♥ over 3♣ show some game tries and 3♠ is competitive, i.e. shows extra shape but no values. There are also different ways of playing it. For example:

1: X = we've got them, 3♦ = generic extras, 3♥ = extras with something in hearts (something like 4-card suit, or help suit, or short suit), 3♠ = competitive.

2: X = generic game try, extras, 3♦ = extras, short diamonds/looking for stopper for 3NT, 3♥ as above, 3♠ as above.

3: X = we've got them, 3♦ = extras, short diamonds/looking for stopper for 3NT, 3♥ as above, 3♠ generic game try.

 

These are not all equally good, but I do think all of these see play. Also I'm sure some people have come up with more exciting uses for 3♥.

Thanks-I assume that is played as standard even after the overcall leaving West to move to 3?

[DavidKok]

As far as I know all three of these see use. The first question is what double means - on the one hand you really don't need a penalty double here, on the other hand there's not many other good uses. Once you've decided that you need to agree on whether or not you want to have a competitive raise (I really want to have one, especially at MPs but I'm not giving it up at IMPs either).

 

I personally play a different structure if partner has already committed us to 3M. There I play 3M = drop dead, X = we've got them!, any other bid = extras and a feature (for me: help suit in the suit bid), pass = generic game try. I think this swaps the meaning of pass and 3M compared to standard, and gives up the option of letting the opponents play in their lower-suited 3X. But if partner was happy to make a limit raise to 3M anyway I don't feel to sad about having to play it. And in return we win several steps on game (and stronger) auctions.

 

It might be a bit confusing at first, but I play the same structure in all competitive auctions. It's just fast arrival - if partner made a forcing raise that committed us to a certain level, completing that force is the weakest bid, and anything other than completing it or a penalty double is forcing. The extra steps really help on certain fitbid auctions, where you want to claim the balance of strength before people break out the 5-level bids.

[mikeh]

Sorry,I don't get why 3♠ isn't competitive when 3♦ is available to show extras? Yes you go down 1/2 NV, but OK if 3♣ is making. Unlucky West having 5♠ to apply LOTT.

Did east think west had not heard the 1S overcall?

 

Did east think that west would not bid 3S (or double with some hand types) if E-W should be competing to 3S?

 

Bridge, other than in declarer play, is very much a partnership game. That means trusting partner. Once one has overcalled 1S on this flat hand with no aces, and relatively modest hcp, one has told one’s story. Never bid the same values twice…bidding 3S is either masterminding or bidding the same values twice…which is unnecessary since partner heard the bid the first time.

 

Meanwhile, west is unlimited. Leave it to him.

 

There are sequences in which bidding shows the weakest hand. For example, had north doubled the 2D cue, it is fairly mainstream to play that pass by east is at least moderately encouraging while 2S shows a minimum. Of course that requires that 2D be a spade raise.

 

That is far from standard in expert circles, where many play transfer advances, such that 2D shows hearts, but that’s a topic for another day/thread

 

Btw, the LOTT is not about how many tricks your side can make. It’s about the total the two opposing sides can make, each playing in their best fit. The fact that we have 9 or 10 spades only means that there rate to be quite a few total tricks…how many of those we rate to take depends on how many losers we have.

 

Failing to understand that causes all kinds of bad bridge. Thus if partner opens 3S, and assuming it promises 6+, and we have a weak 4333 with 4 spades, we know we have 10 or 11 spades, but we might have 7 losers! Bidding 4S claiming reliable evidence on the LOTT is silly unless we think they will bid and make slam, and even then vulnerability matters.

[akwoo]

Using standard methods (what DavidKok outlined is also good but we're assuming not that), 3♠ in direct seat should show some extra reason for wanting to compete - usually a sixth spade or at least a useful singleton. East hand does not have that.

[thepossum]

Can I ask a couple of questions please (as most know I am out of my depth here)

 

1. What are pros and cons of West's cue bid rather than bidding 2 or 3 spades directly?

2. I think I agree that E doesn't have much but given the cue bid I may have bid and left the final up to W.

 

I always get confused over pros and cons of a cue bid versus showing suit support immediately. Is it it just to make life difficult for opps

 

Who is pushing up the bidding (to me) is something of a moot point

 

But I do think E doesn't have enough to bid 3 :)

[smerriman]

There are lots of ways to raise spades - 2♠, 3♠, 4♠, 3♦, and 2♦, all showing various strength hands and various spade lengths.

 

2♦ is the only one that tells partner you have a good hand (invitational strength, 10+) with spade support, in standard bidding*. Any other bid would convey a weaker hand, so partner won't know when to look for game, or compete over further opposition bidding.

 

*There are alternative ways of advancing overcalls, like transfers which are more popular at the expert level, and some may play a cue as not promising support. But promising support is the simplest approach to start with.

[DavidKok]

To expand on that a bit, modern bidding in competition is all about the last guess. Let's say you are sitting at the table and are watching the auction (1♦)-1♠-(P)-?, and it is your call. There are many different hands that will want to support partner. Some hands will be weak and shapely (e.g. ♠Axxxx, ♥xxx, ♦-, ♣xxxxx) and will want to give a preemptive raise to shut the opponents out. Others may be strong and flat, but with support (♠Kxx, ♥AKx, ♦Qxx, ♣Jxxx). Other hands may have both strength and shape, and in modern aggressive bidding people even bid with neither points nor shape (♠KTx, ♥xxxx, ♦xx, ♣xxxx is an acceptable 2♠ bid these days).

 

The old school (and not strictly wrong, but certainly incomplete) theory is that you have to warn partner when you are raising on a weak hand, so that partner doesn't propel us to some hopeless game when we were merely bidding 'tactically'. This is why in standard systems there are usually two ways to raise to 2♠ - in this case 2♦ and 2♠. The cue says "partner, I have a strong raise to 2♠" while the other says "I am bidding for obstructive purposes".

 

The modern approach to competitive bidding tries to not only prevent getting to bad games, but also tries to prepare partner for the next round of interference by the opponents. There are many different ways to try to assist in this, but the simplest one is based on high card points and the law of total tricks. The idea is that if we tell partner of the exact degree of the fit we have, partner will know whether it is 'safe' to raise. And if we tell partner how many points we have, partner will know if we are being stolen from. For example, assume the bidding starts (1♦)-1♠-(P)-2♦; (3♣)-?. If advancer has a fourth spade, it is often correct to compete to 3♠ based on the law of total tricks. But if advancer has a flat hand, anything from pass to penalty double to 3NT may be best. The problem is even greater if the bidding is pushed to higher levels: (1♦)-1♠-(2♦)-3♦*; (5♦)-? and now what? The modern approach to competitive bidding is to give advancer multiple different ways to raise partner, clarifying what sort of raise they have as early as possible. This way overcaller has an easier guess over interference, without compromising game/slam decisions too much.

 

Over the example auction (1♦)-1♠-(P)-? a relatively common and relatively simple scheme is:

• 2♦: point raise (say 9+ points with 8 or fewer losing tricks) with exactly 3 spades
  
• 2♠: destructive 3-card raise, around 4-8 points (usually)
  
• 2NT: point raise (as before) with 4 or more spades and no good 5-card side suit
  
• 3♣: fitbid (5 or more decent clubs, 4 or more spades, at least 8 points or so by necessity due to required club strength)
  
• 3♦: mixed raise (4 or more spades, around 6-9 points)
  
• 3♥: fitbid (as above)
  
• 3♠: preemptive raise (0-5 points, 4 spades, or sometimes 5 spades with an otherwise flat hand)
  
• 4♣: a splinter (10-14 points, 0-1 clubs, 4(+) spades) or fitbid (the same but 5(+) clubs instead) depending on agreements
  
• 4♦: a splinter (as above)
  
• 4♠: a preemptive raise (same as 3♠ but with an extra spade)
  

This is far from perfect, but by giving ourselves 10(!) ways to raise partner they will hopefully have less trouble deciding what to do on the next round. For example, in the auction in the first post, by excluding the point raises with at least four spades from the 2♦ cuebid overcaller can be assured that they don't have to take action on the 3-level with a boring minimum - the 'law protection' ends at 2♠, and without extras there is no game try.

 

 

As a final note, maybe this should be the opening sentence, I should add that it is/was popular to also start with a cuebid on very strong hands without support. Generally partnerships that allow this hope that the strong hands will land on their feet no matter what, by clarifying the hand type on the second round. And if partner goes crazy and jumps to a high spade contract immediately, usually they will have extra spades and your extra values will make up for the lack of spade support. This doesn't change any of the tactical considerations of bidding, except that every once in a while you will have to go "I had the strong hand instead of support" when tabling dummy.

[Gilithin]

Can I ask a couple of questions please (as most know I am out of my depth here)

 

1. What are pros and cons of West's cue bid rather than bidding 2 or 3 spades directly?

2. I think I agree that E doesn't have much but given the cue bid I may have bid and left the final up to W.

 

I always get confused over pros and cons of a cue bid versus showing suit support immediately. Is it it just to make life difficult for opps

 

Who is pushing up the bidding (to me) is something of a moot point

 

But I do think E doesn't have enough to bid 3 :)

Could I make the very strong suggestion that you read "Partnership Bidding at Bridge" by Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal. This will answer not only these questions but also many more.

[AL78]

Over the example auction (1♦)-1♠-(P)-? a relatively common and relatively simple scheme is:

• 2♦: point raise (say 9+ points with 8 or fewer losing tricks) with exactly 3 spades
  
• 2♠: destructive 3-card raise, around 4-8 points (usually)
  
• 2NT: point raise (as before) with 4 or more spades and no good 5-card side suit
  
• 3♣: fitbid (5 or more decent clubs, 4 or more spades, at least 8 points or so by necessity due to required club strength)
  
• 3♦: mixed raise (4 or more spades, around 6-9 points)
  
• 3♥: fitbid (as above)
  
• 3♠: preemptive raise (0-5 points, 4 spades, or sometimes 5 spades with an otherwise flat hand)
  
• 4♣: a splinter (10-14 points, 0-1 clubs, 4(+) spades) or fitbid (the same but 5(+) clubs instead) depending on agreements
  
• 4♦: a splinter (as above)
  
• 4♠: a preemptive raise (same as 3♠ but with an extra spade)
  

This is far from perfect, but by giving ourselves 10(!) ways to raise partner they will hopefully have less trouble deciding what to do on the next round. For example, in the auction in the first post, by excluding the point raises with at least four spades from the 2♦ cuebid overcaller can be assured that they don't have to take action on the 3-level with a boring minimum - the 'law protection' ends at 2♠, and without extras there is no game try.

 

This is s decent structure and is close to what I play in a regular partnership (without the mixed raise and 2NT showing a raise). One issue I see with this is if you remove 2NT as a natural bid and cue bids guarentee support, what do you do with invitational values and a flat hand with no 5 card suit and no direct support? I have heard the idea that 2NT is never natural in a competitive auction but I am not convinced about it.

[DavidKok]

This is s decent structure and is close to what I play in a regular partnership (without the mixed raise and 2NT showing a raise). One issue I see with this is if you remove 2NT as a natural bid and cue bids guarentee support, what do you do with invitational values and a flat hand with no 5 card suit and no direct support? I have heard the idea that 2NT is never natural in a competitive auction but I am not convinced about it.

On the auction shown my 1NT range is 8-11, and 2♣ and 2♥ are forcing. That covers most of the hands that come up. If I do have, say, 2=4=3=4 or even 2=4=4=3 with 12-13 HCP I am stuck and choose the smallest lie between 1NT and 2♣. But in my partnership ♠AQTxx, ♥xxx, ♦xx, ♣xxx is a fine 1♠ overcall while vulnerable, and we are prepared to dip a bit lower when not vulnerable. So with 12HCP and a misfit opposite I'm not even confident that we are safe in 1NT.

I hate playing 2NT as natural, especially in competitive auctions but also on constructive auctions. This is in an IMP context, at MPs it might be slightly more attractive, but 2NT is very rarely the par, and even if it is 3m is often also reasonable. I think I can count on one hand the number of auctions on which I play a natural 2NT (immediately after partner opens 1♦, on the second round if partner has opened 1NT, as an opening bid, on the auction 1m-(2M)-X-(P); 2NT (but I wish to play it as Good/Bad here), and perhaps some long and winding auctions where all other alternative interpretations have been excluded on earlier rounds). I don't remember who said it, but 2NT to play is like taking a holiday at the airport.

[mikeh]

This is s decent structure and is close to what I play in a regular partnership (without the mixed raise and 2NT showing a raise). One issue I see with this is if you remove 2NT as a natural bid and cue bids guarentee support, what do you do with invitational values and a flat hand with no 5 card suit and no direct support? I have heard the idea that 2NT is never natural in a competitive auction but I am not convinced about it.

While David makes some good points, I do think that he has too many ways to raise spades, some of which bids might usefully be applied to other meanings

 

We play transfer advances, which I strongly recommend to any serious partnership.

 

(1D) 1S (p)

 

1N: constructive, natural

 

2C: we currently play as forcing one round but I prefer constructive…rarely passable but passable with dreck

 

2D: hearts. Overcaller bids as if advancer has a weak two in hearts…if he has more or a different hand, he’ll bid again. A classic sequence is 2D then 2S over 2H, showing doubleton spade, decent hearts and around 10-11 hcp.

 

2H: a transfer to 2S. Most often a constructive raise but may be stronger. Will not hold 4card support if more than constructive

 

2S: a noise. Weak. No game interest, simply wants to jam opener a bit

 

2N: opening hand, stoppers, invitational values

 

3C: fit jump. 9+ black cards, invitational or better values, forces to 3S but may bid again. Denies any A or K outside the blacks (unless strong)

 

3D: 4 card limit raise

 

3H: fit jump

 

3S: weak (I’m beginning to think mixed may be better, but s9 far we stay with weak)

 

3N: to play

 

4m: splinter. Good opening hand, 4+ spades, willing to investigate slam if overcaller thinks his hand meshes well

 

4H: splinter…probably better to play as natural, but we play it as splinter

 

4S: preempt but expects to have play much of the time. Weaker than splinters but almos always has shortness somewhere.

 

 

Now I count this, if each of the splinters count as a way of raising, we have 10 raises as well, lol.

[DavidKok]

I think transfer advances are superior, I just don't have any experience with them (and I wanted to sidestep the debate on where to start them - 1NT? 2♣? 2♦? Double, on certain auctions? If double is available is 1NT natural?). I think the total number of raises I suggested is not crazy, although perhaps slightly excessive. You could make a solid case that at least one can be cut: in my list 2NT, 3♦ and 3♠ show different strengths of 4-card spade raises, and it is becoming increasingly popular to ditch the weak raise (my 3♠) and play it as mixed, freeing up 3♦. Unfortunately having a spare bid at the 3-level (or, in your structure, 2NT) is not all that useful - you'd really like to free up a low-level bid, but that's a tough ask. On balance I'm not sure what the best allocation of the 3-level is. I mostly shared the structure because it is a) straight out of Robson & Segal and b) shows how far people are willing to go to distinguish the type of support they have for partner.

 

P.S.: If I counted correctly you have 9 ways to raise partner, since you freed up 2NT natural (and kicked out the mixed raise).

P.P.S: One problem with transfer advances is that partner cannot show doubt over the strong 3-card raise (for me: 2♦, partner can bid 2♥ as 'I do not have a minimum but can also not guarantee game'. With transfer advances advancer will bid 2♥, and there is no step to show this doubt). I believe some partnerships solve this by playing "transfer advances, but 2♣ always shows the strong raise" (which of course has its own complications).

[akwoo]

This is s decent structure and is close to what I play in a regular partnership (without the mixed raise and 2NT showing a raise). One issue I see with this is if you remove 2NT as a natural bid and cue bids guarentee support, what do you do with invitational values and a flat hand with no 5 card suit and no direct support? I have heard the idea that 2NT is never natural in a competitive auction but I am not convinced about it.

 

My range for a nonvul 1♠ overcall is something like ♠KQT9x ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣x to something like ♠KQxxx ♥KJ ♦KQxx ♣QJ. That's wider than my opening bid range. Opposite such a wide ranging partner, an invitational bid is useless. Anything that is enough for game opposite a near-maximum (or even slightly better than average) already puts you too high opposite a minimum.

 

(Yes such a wide range causes us problems, but it also causes opponents problems. And I'm still mostly punching up in the games I care about.)

 

My preference with balanced hands is to tend to advance with 1N with 8-12 (maybe a bad 13) and cue bid with anything stronger, so cue bids do not guarantee support (but partner should bid the next round as if they do(*)). Sometimes I'll pretend a good 4 card suit is a 5 carder and risk being dropped in a 4-2 fit.

 

(*) I don't mind taking a very round 0 instead of a slightly round 0 when the hands find a hole in our bidding system.

[DavidKok]

My range for a nonvul 1♠ overcall is something like ♠KQT9x ♥xxx ♦xxxx ♣x to something like ♠KQxxx ♥KJ ♦KQxx ♣QJ. That's wider than my opening bid range. Opposite such a wide ranging partner, an invitational bid is useless. Anything that is enough for game opposite a near-maximum (or even slightly better than average) already puts you too high opposite a minimum.

As I mentioned before, getting to good games and avoiding bad ones is not the primary goal. Advancer wishes to inform overcaller what the combined strength and level of fit of their hands is. The fact that overcalled is wide range makes this more important, if anything.