5332 13 count -boring?

[pclayton]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=skqtxxht9xdaxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

RHO opens 1♣, you overcall 1♠ and pard bids 1N.

 

I know this looks boring, but humor with me with your ideas. I have some of my own.

[hrothgar]

Clearcut pass

[Walddk]

I know it's boring, but I have no imagination:

 

PASS

 

It would take me about 1,8758 seconds at the table.

 

Roland

[mikeh]

Any ideas you have that do not begin with pass may not be boring, but they also seem to be unrelated to the game I play :P

 

Yes, there may be better spots available. But why move from a nice, secure, high-scoring, low-risk, sensible good contract in search of a moonbeam?

 

This is partly tongue in cheek, and please do not take offence, and my response may show more about my lack of imagination than about your post :) But, boring tho it (and me) may be, Pass is obvious

[mikeh]

PASS

 

It would take me about 1,8758 seconds at the table.

 

Roland

Roland, you are going to have to be quicker: you will really take 5 hours to find pass? :P ..... oh, that comma was supposed to be a period.... sorry :)

[P_Marlowe]

Pass?

 

Marlowe

[Walddk]

PASS

 

It would take me about 1,8758 seconds at the table.

 

Roland

Roland, you are going to have to be quicker: you will really take 5 hours to find pass? :D ..... oh, that comma was supposed to be a period.... sorry :D

Sure, I thought I had a problem, so 5 hours can't be too long, can it? In the meantime everybody would have gone home and I can get no more bottoms ;)

 

Roland

[Al_U_Card]

I know this looks boring, but humor with me with your ideas. I have some of my own.

Let me guess, your suicidal tendencies say rebid 2H looking for the reverse Moysian fit?....lol

[kenberg]

If you crave excitement, enter the LeMans. Many a player has later wished he had been a little more boring.

 

But really, I am interested in your thoughts. I expect partner to take 7 or 8 tricks in no trump. 9 and 6 are both possible. Like the entire rest of the world(??), I pass. If LHO now comes in with a 2D bid passed back to me, I'll try my luck with 2S. I expect partner to have a couple of spades and decent values for his call so this should have a play. If(!) one of his spades is the jack I see 6 tricks while using only 1 of his hcps.

 

I eagerly await the ideas of more imaginitive players.

 

Ken The Unimaginative

[Guest Jlall]

ill join the bandwagon ;)

[awm]

Game is actually not out of the question here. The normal range for partner's 1NT is something like 8-11, and if I'm known to overcall on really ratty hands (say this hand without the aces) I could see partner even fudging a 12 or 13 count. On the other hand, a 2NT call seems very pushy.

 

Perhaps 2♣ (which I play as natural) is a reasonable call. This will allow us to get to game if partner is very maximum and tries 2NT, and could get us to a club partscore (which could easily be right if partner has five). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if 2♠ played better than 1NT opposite many minimums with doubleton spade.

 

Most likely I'd end up passing in real life, but I think 2♣ bid has a lot going for it. Not as obvious a pass as some would suggest.

[luis]

I submited your problem to the MWF (Masters Weirdos Forum) and got the following responses:

 

(Roswell the ET): 2♣ looking for a 4 card red suit to know if NT is better than 2 spades or not. Over 2♦ I bid 2♠ over 2♥ I bid 2NT, over 2♠ I pass.

 

(Mr Administrator): 2♠, with aces and kings it's obvious 2♠ even in the 5-2 fit will play better than 1NT.

 

(Emotion Overkill): 2NT invitational, my overcalls are so bad that pd may have 11-12 for his 1NT bid so I bid 2NT confiming 5332 shape with opening values. Making opener lead and with some strategic QJ pairs in pd's hand 3NT can be a very good contract.

 

(Larry on esteroids): We have 7 spades so I expect him to have a 7 card fit in a red suit, maybe even 8 so I'm bidding 2♥, if pd has 4 we play in the 4-3 fit that can be better than the 5-2 spade fit, when pd has 3 hearts we play 2 spades and they miss the diamond suit. When pd has only 2 hearts they miss the heart partscore. So 2♥ is clear here according to the law.

[pclayton]

Al - Ha ha but don't laugh. 4-3 hearts might be the only makeable game if pard has a robust 4 bagger, club stop and is open in diamonds.

 

But that's not the reason I posted this hand. Nice try anyway ;)

[the hog]

The 1NT response here can be up to about an 11 count. I actually have a decent hand - a 5 card suit, 2 x Ts. If partner has a max NT response, we could make 3NT. This is nowhere as clear cut a decision as some of you seem to think. However despite all this , I am still passing 1NT. Give me an extra J somewhere and I'd think about raising to 2.

[mikeh]

The point that it is possible that a game exists opposite the 'right' 11 count (ignore those who say partner might have underbid to protect me from an overbid... change partners, not methods) is valid. But there is a counter argument, which comes in two parts.

 

If partner has a minimum (and whose partners don't?), 2N may be unsafe, and there may be no reachable and good intermediate spot.

 

And any invitational sequence will result in game not only when he has the right super-max (for me an indifferent 11), but also every hand that he sees as in the top half of the range. So we will be in game opposite good 9 counts and all 10 counts.

 

It is folly to design a bidding method, or adopt a style, that aims to reach every single game that is, on the actual cards, a good contract. Bidding theory, in its present and likely future state, cannot accomplish this without also reaching too many unacceptable contracts. Settle for getting to most of the games: any other approach leads to insanity.

[Winstonm]

Dealer: East Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ KQTxx ♥ T9x ♦ Ax ♣ Axx

 

RHO opens 1♣, you overcall 1♠ and pard bids 1N.

 

I know this looks boring, but humor with me with your ideas. I have some of my own.

You know, if you turn your head just right and look from outside the box you begin to see that that this hand has strong reasons to believe it may produce 6 tricks - I'd like to see the KQ109x of spades but what we have will likely do.

 

If you think of this hand in terms of probably tricks and see 6, then you can also begin to imagine a number of 9/10-counts that will produce game.

 

xxx

Qxx

Kxx,

KJxx

 

Jx,

Axx

Qxx

QJ10x

 

And so on.

 

So maybe it's not too far off base here to raise to 2N. It's certainly something to consider.

 

Winston

[sceptic]

well as p bid 1nt knowing full well I overcall some real crappy hands, I think 2nt shows interest in game if I am stronger than usual, as I would not expect them to bid 1nt with a min bid

 

hope this humours you

[Finch]

For everyone who thought AQJ9x xxx xxx xx was a normal, down the middle, 1S overcall on the other thread, you have an Ace & a King to spare, and I think you should raise.

 

I haven't replied to that thread, but that hand is below my limits for a vul 1S bid, so I pass here.

[Al_U_Card]

Every time Science rears its head, somebody brings out the "human" element to spoil everything. Seriously, this hand has so great a dependancy on who you are playing with, what he expects from you, what he would bid 2NT on etc. etc.

 

So Science be damned and bid your partnership style. If you have extras, show them, if pard is timid, exploit that. The only real issue is what do you need to do to accurately describe your actual values to pard. btw I think that Frances' criteria for the vul overcall are admirable if somewhat concservative. :D

[pclayton]

Pard held: Jx, Qxx, KTxxx, KQx. 3N is absolutely frigid. We gained one IMP with +180 as his LHO panicked and tried to cash heart tricks from her AKJx.

 

Should pard bid 2♦ with this? Sure its possible, but change his shape to 2=4=4=3, and we'd all agree with 1N, so thats not really the point.

 

Now, I don't know about you, but I get a little irked whenever I miss a frigid vulnerable game. So I gave the hand to Chris Larsen and Ross Grabel who were playing that night. When I suggested it might be right to move over 1N with my 13 count, they both looked at me like I had a 3rd eye.

 

I'm not satisifed. To me, bidding these type of vulnerable games at IMPs are one of the aspects that separate the top teams from the "pretty good". Read the reports from Istanbul and look at the Vul games they bid.

 

Here's a few things to consider with this hand, something Adam and Ron seem to have picked up on:

 

1) The A♣ is a really important card. Why? Pard will discount his club honors for the presumed strength to his left. The A solidifies many of his holdings.

 

2 ) The controls of this hand are very nice. While I would like the 9♠, the spades still represent a nice trick source. Even if pard has xx of spades, with the spade ace on your left, on balance, you want to play a vul 3N whenever pard has a doubleton spade and a non-minimum.

 

What is a 2♣ call in this sequence? You'd say, "it shows a real good hand with no clear direction". Fair enough. When was the last time you actually made this call? I can't ever remember myself. Strong overcalling hands either raise NT, jump in a new suit, make a jump rebid, etc.. The cue bid, although very cheap, becomes relatively unused.

 

If you are not using a cue bid as natural, as Ben suggests (which I think absent other agreements, is a very sensible idea, since it increases the frequency of the call), I would suggest that it become a low-level probe. We can find out if:

 

1) Pard is minimum or max

2 ) Pard has a stiff or doubleton spade

3) Pard has a side 4 card red suit

 

I think the cue bid can still show a big hand, but I think lowering the requirements to a decent 14 or even prime 13 (like my example) is a sensible idea. Pard jumps with a max, or retreats to 2 of something with a minimum.

 

Will we reach a crappy 2N when exactly 7 tricks are the limit? Sure we will. But we will keep the ball in play for other part scores and nice games too.

 

And here's another thought: Say I hold instead: KQTxx, Axxx, Ax, xx. I live on the left side of the Atlantic, so I overcall 1♠ instead of doubling. Pard bids the same 1N, whats my call? 2♥?

 

Well, what if I hold: KQTxx, xxxx, Kx, xx? Do I still rebid 2♥? I don't think 2♥ can show both strengths. I think the stronger hand can use this low-level cue, and the weaker hand can run out to 2♦, 2♥ or even 2♠ (although the lack of a WJO changes the range of this rebid).

 

So, those are my thoughts. Feel free to tee off and tell me why I'm full of it ;)

[Guest Jlall]

So, those are my thoughts. Feel free to tee off and tell me why I'm full of it ;)

It is folly to design a bidding method, or adopt a style, that aims to reach every single game that is, on the actual cards, a good contract. Bidding theory, in its present and likely future state, cannot accomplish this without also reaching too many unacceptable contracts. Settle for getting to most of the games: any other approach leads to insanity.

 

So I gave the hand to Chris Larsen and Ross Grabel who were playing that night. When I suggested it might be right to move over 1N with my 13 count, they both looked at me like I had a 3rd eye.

[luis]

Congratulations to Emotion Overkill from the Master Weirdos Forum for getting this right!

[the hog]

Phil, I gave this hand to a couple of very strong players. Both said they would raise at Imps if vul, and both thought the decision was better than marginal. I ran your 2C suggestion past them and again both thought that using a 2C bid to show a hand of is type is a very useful treatment, and has the added advantage of allowing you to bail out in 2S.

 

Also look at France's post above. If you play light overcalls in the Nicola Smith style for example, then Frances is right, this hand qualifies for a raise. My partner thinks this hand is a clear cut raise for example.

[mikeh]

Pard held: Jx, Qxx, KTxxx, KQx.

(lengthy snip)

So, those are my thoughts. Feel free to tee off and tell me why I'm full of it  :P

I do not believe that you are 'full of it' and I think that your idea of using 2♣ here as an asking bid makes sense: many players use such a 2♣ ask in advancing partner's 4th seat reopening 1N, in auctions such as 1x - p - p - 1N p - ?

(Rigal is, I think, the name for this useful device)

 

Where I think you are in error is in its application to this hand. I appreciate that your partner held a hand on which 3N was highly desirable, and use of your gadget would have got there.

 

But, I suspect that it would also have got you to 3N on many hands on which 3N was less than desirable. You cannot sensibly play your gadget as asking 'do you have a super-max?'. At least, you cannot unless the ONLY info you seek is a sort of step response, grading the hand from terrible to super max in four easy steps :(

 

As I said in my earlier reply, the problem is that partner will treat as a maximum many hands which do not mesh as well (and do not hold as much strength) as the one he actually held.

 

The validity of this point can be weighed by considering the a common swing situation that arises when one partnership in a swiss match plays, say, 12-15 1NT and at the other table they play 15-17.

 

Each dealer picks up 15, and opens 1N.

 

Partner is sitting there with a good 9 count. Vulnerable, most experts bid 3N opposite 15-17, but many would choose to pass a 12-15, because partner needs a fitting maximum to give game a play and an invitational sequence will get you to game anytime he holds 14, while even 2N will fail if he holds a misfitting 12.

 

And playing 13-15 still leaves the same dilemma, altho not to quite the same extent.

 

Sometimes hands hit the seams in your methods: get used to it. Now, if 1N by partner could be a good 12, I change my tune, since game is favourite opposite decent 11 counts... i.e. less than a super-max. But I would rather change my partner than agree that 1N, vul, could be based on 12 hcp.

 

And I am with Frances on her example hand...so while I have extras, I do not have two tricks of extras for my vul 1♠

[the hog]

♠ KQTxx

♥ T9x

D Ax

♣ Axx

 

To some extent this also depends on which hands would respond 1NT

 

xx

Kxx

KJxxx

Qxx

 

The above for us would be a bare minimum and we would not crime a pass. Note that this hand gives you a "play", albeit a very poor one for 3N.

 

xx

KQxx

Jxxx

Qxx

Clear cut pass for us. Would anyone consider bidding 1N on this non fitting trash?

x

Kxxx

QJxxx

Kxx

 

This would be a 1N response. Here we have a 0% play, and using Phil's suggested 2C bid we would play this in 2D.

 

To Mike, you apparently misread France's reply, else your comment makes no sense. She said that if you overcall 1S, you should invite with this hand.