[nige1]

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

Scoring: XIMP

p - (1C) - ??

---

IMO 1♦ = 10, _X = 6, P = 5.
♦ is what you want led.

If you swap your round suits, however, and RHO opens 1♥ then...
IMO _X = 10, _P = 9, 2♦ = 3.
IMO you should double although it is fraught with danger.

[skjaeran]

It's close between pass and 1♦ IMO.
Double and 3♦ is non-alternatives to me.

I'd probably overcall 1♦ for the lead with a non-regular partner.
(With my regular we use transfer overcalls here, and I'd not get in with 1♠. Besides, he always leads a ♦ if it's the best lead for us anyway )

[SoTired]

1D for me. Can understand those that trot out 2D or even X. I play that overcall then X is strong hand.

But Pass? Never! If I were to pass this hand, my mother would rise out of her grave and smack me.

[han]

I bid 1D but later I thought that perhaps double was better.

The auction went: (still none vulnerable)

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)
Dbl - (p) - ??

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

What's your call?

[mike777]

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

I bid 1D but later I thought that perhaps double was better.

The auction went: (still none vulnerable)

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)
Dbl - (p) - ??

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

What's your call?

Pass

Partner should know what to lead.

[han]

I passed and partner knew what to lead. However, partner thought the double was takeout and we took only 4 tricks.

[gwnn]

I think it's not a clear penalty X situation (not 18/18 people clear, for sure).

2♥.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

[mikeh]

Far from it: I think there is an excellent chance, if LHO bids 2♣ and partner passes, that the Total Trumps number is 14. While that estimate may be off by as much as 2, there is a reasonable chance that RHO is some 4333 with 3♣s and that LHO is similar, but with 4 clubs, while partner is some 4432 with 4 trumps and 2♦s.

Plus 50 is better than -50. I fully appreciate that, on any given day, I may be missing a playable 4=3 major suit fit and even the odd 5=3 major, but my expectation is that defending will be average to average plus more times than not, by an admittedly narrow margin.

Your experience may differ... and, if it does, then your choice is as valid as mine.. and simulations do't help much on this kind of problem. My partners tend to bid a lot once I overcall 1♦, because my style is to have values when I make this overcall. Bidding 1♦ over 1♣ is a space-creator for the opps, not a space-consumer, so I tend to bid it for positive reasons rather than for destructive purposes. So when my partner passes, either he is broke (which remains a possibility if opener has decided to devalue his ♦ holding and LHO is max) or he is offshape and can neither raise, double nor bid a chunky 5 card major.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 02:52 PM, said:

Far from it: I think there is an excellent chance, if LHO bids 2♣ and partner passes, that the Total Trumps number is 14. While that estimate may be off by as much as 2, there is a reasonable chance that RHO is some 4333 with 3♣s and that LHO is similar, but with 4 clubs, while partner is some 4432 with 4 trumps and 2♦s.

Wow. I cannot say "Wow" enough. Red, I might not let the opponents play 2♣ after 1♣-1♦-2♣-P-P-? with this hand, but, "Wow."

Even if partner happens to hold some sort of deathly hand, like 4342 pattern, we will have a Moysian, and partner declares well.

Against all of that, they may actually have a fit. Heck, they might even have a big fit, maybe nine or ten cards, even.

[skjaeran]

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

After making a marginal overcall, you're going to reopen here?
That's a gigantic overbid IMO. If a passed partner can't come to life over 2♣, I'll let them play there for sure. If bidding now was an option, I'd have started with a double and stayed low for the rest of the auction in stead.

[nige1]

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 01:06 PM, said:

I bid 1D but later I thought that perhaps double was better.

The auction went: (still none vulnerable)

p - (1C) - 1D - (1NT)
Dbl - (p) - ??

The agreement with this partner about doubles was far from clear; we agreed that a double is take-out unless everybody in the room (5 tables) knows it is penalty. Partner also didn't know about my overcall-style nor did I know his.

What's your call?

IMO 2 ♣ = 10, _P = 9.
Partner is a passed hand, the double is ambiguous, and you have dross. If 2 ♣ is doubled, you can XX, The 2-2 fit may play quite well

[kenrexford]

skaeran, on Jul 4 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 09:24 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 08:46 AM, said:

I would expect a better hand Ken.

me too.

You would sell out, white-on-white, to a two-level club contract after a bid-and-raise of clubs?!?!? With a small doubleton in their suit?!? Wow! I know that the Law of Total Tricks has taken some heat these days, but that's quite a position to take.

After making a marginal overcall, you're going to reopen here?
That's a gigantic overbid IMO. If a passed partner can't come to life over 2♣, I'll let them play there for sure. If bidding now was an option, I'd have started with a double and stayed low for the rest of the auction in stead.

Doesn't this beg a question, though?

One partner or the other is the one to take action after 1♣-1♦-2♣, right?

If Advancer can assume that partner will re-open with something like ♠3-4 ♥3-4 ♦5-6 ♣0-2, then why commit directly to a call that may be disasterous?

I mean, suppose that you are Advancer with 5323 pattern. Do you really want to bypass what may be a simple auction for partner of rebidding diamonds with 1462 pattern? This concept of Advancer's pass meaning that we should pass also is rather weak. Simply put, doesn't a 2M bid here promise something as to overall strength, that something being much less than required to enable competition over a simple raise and pass-out of a club contract? If not. how in the heck do you have a sane auction toward game? Is not 2M constructive, and hence capable of accepting another call from partner?

My shock at the idea of passing out 2♣ is growing more intense as more and more folks whose opinions I often share and if not nonetheless respect buy into this absurdly passive style.

[mikeh]

Sometimes I get the feeling that the intensity of your opinion is inversely proportional to the merit of your logic

Here you are, getting all worked up because some pretty good players say that they would not reopen if 2♣ were passed around to them.

I suspect that all of us chickens are quite happy to acknowledge that our passivity will sometimes, and perhaps quite often, get us a poor board.

However, we chickens also recognize that there are hand-types on which the pass is the best we can do... and our experience suggests to us that this is likely to be more common than the 5332 hands that get you so excited (or the 4-3 moysians that work, etc).

The difference between you and the majority of posters seems to me to be that you have tunnel vision: your choices and reasoning are ALWAYS correct. It is a rare post from you that contains any suggestion that you have been persuaded by others that your original idea was wrong. Typically, when someone disagrees with you, that begins a whole flurry of repetitious posts.

Now, I recognize a slight tendency to that myself Maybe it comes from both of us being trial lawyers But, while maybe I flatter or kid myself, I have learned a lot from this forum, and I am quite happy to acknowledge when someone's post has persuaded me that I was wrong.

I am not suggesting that you meekly agree with any consensus or with any poster(s) but you will gain more respect, from me anyway..alto I suspect that won't impress you..... if you listen to the words of Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.... without dwelling on the somewhat weird scatalogical and theistic language

[mike777]

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

.

I am not suggesting that you meekly agree with any consensus or with any poster(s) but you will gain more respect, from me anyway..alto I suspect that won't impress you..... if you listen to the words of Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.... without dwelling on the somewhat weird scatalogical and theistic language

Cromwell, you quote Cromwell of all people on July 4th
Cromwell, self appointed Lord protector of all things British, British civil war general(nonroyal side) who seized power rather than step aside once victory was won.

Compare to our General(GW)
Perhaps only man hated more than the devil by the Irish, even today!
OH well.


Happy 4th of July from America.

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Jul 4 2007, 07:27 PM, said:

The difference between you and the majority of posters seems to me to be that you have tunnel vision: your choices and reasoning are ALWAYS correct. It is a rare post from you that contains any suggestion that you have been persuaded by others that your original idea was wrong. Typically, when someone disagrees with you, that begins a whole flurry of repetitious posts.

Or, it could be that I actually am always right. LOL

However much that suggestion might make sense, this is not the opccasion to turn a new leaf. This is a structural problem, IMO.

The partnership to succeed must assume certain parameters. I was thinking this problem through while outside a few minutes ago, and I'm more and more convinced of the structural problem with passing this hand.

Cooperative partnership bidding means, often times, that you don't have to rush to a bid. Partner is there to assist. He can think also.

An initial double here, directly over 1♣, just seems like a rush bid. It is not critical to double with every hand having 5-3 in each side suit. As someone (maybe you) noted, a 1♦ overcall, by its very nature of showing stuff, enables partner to make a call that he might not otherwise make. So, you don't need to double to show pattern, you can bid to show values and let partner cooperate.

So, you start with a 1♦ call and LHO raises to 2♣. Advancer has the same basic issue. He does not have to immediately bid something. He can when it is right, such as when he has values and a game is possible, or when he has a six-card suit and support is not critical, or whatever you decide. But, he need not bid just to show that he can, if the 1♦ bidder is expected to move.

When each partner must bid now or live with the consequences, a solo game, you get weird results, like playing 3-3 fits, or 5-1 fits, or missing 9-card fits to play 7-card fits, whatever.

Sure, passing out 2♣ has a chance to be right, on this hand. However, the pass-out is not justified by partner's pass -- he might not have a good call despite values and might be trusting you to reopen this thing. For each degree to which Advancer trusts in a re-open a degree of potential cost is added to the decision to pass out this auction.

[the hog]

I wonder how many posters realise that partner is a passed hand. I wonder how many realise that you are playing Imps and not MPs. I would pass here, and frankly I think that decision is clear. Imo the overcall has very little to gain and can lose a lot.

A 1D overcall is hardly pre emptive in nature and if anything, gives the opponents more options. If my Ds were a Major, sure then I would overcall regardless of whether partner was a passed hand or not.

Opposite an unpassed hand I would bid 1D, but even then would not crime a pass.

[kenrexford]

The_Hog, on Jul 4 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

I wonder how many posters realise that partner is a passed hand. I wonder how many realise that you are playing Imps and not MPs. I would pass here, and frankly I think that decision is clear. Imo the overcall has very little to gain and can lose a lot.

A 1D overcall is hardly pre emptive in nature and if anything, gives the opponents more options. If my Ds were a Major, sure then I would overcall regardless of whether partner was a passed hand or not.

Opposite an unpassed hand I would bid 1D, but even then would not crime a pass.

I'm in that category -- missed that partner is a passed hand. Now, I tend to incline more toward a 2♦ overcall, actually. However, I agree that passing has some attraction.

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on Jul 4 2007, 06:34 AM, said:

Scoring: XIMP

p - (1C) - ??

---

I wonder if (censored) recognizes a similar hand from a year ago...they opened a diamond, if I recall correctly, but adjusting for the other minor, it would have gone:

P - (1C) - X - (2C)

and I, innocently with my 9 count and 5-4-1-3, bid 3C! I mean, why not? Even across a minimum 4-4-4-1, there ought to be 9 tricks there. And it wouldn't take much to make 4.

Things did not go well after that.

[jdonn]

I would never pass a hand like this that I could easily overcall. It directs a lead, and even more importantly it is likely our last safe chance to enter the auction. Why can't it just be our hand for a partscore? I don't hate double but I prefer 1♦. And as much as I would never pass, it's a million times better than preempting. Just because partner is a passed hand doesn't make preempting always right. Bids like that are the only bids people consistenly making KNOWING they are making a totally inaccurate and misdescriptive bid, yet they continue to do it. You (among other terrible things, but most commonly) just end up in a ridiculous contract when partner has some fair values and short diamonds, whereas if your contract is good you would easily have gotten there after an overcall to begin with.