[Codo]

Hannie, on Jul 5 2007, 03:06 AM, 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?

This is tricky, because pd passed allready, so this may be no pure penalty double.
OTOH there is no take out double to NT, or does he show a 4424 hand?

You allready made a statement about you majors: You bid 1 Diamond.
So he hopes for you to have some (24)52 hand and that he will find the fit.
I think this is far too risky. You may have no fit and no place to go.

So I strongly dislike his idea and I had passed too, took my 4 tricks and smiled at partner.

I won´t claim that this is the majority view, I have no idea what the majority would do here.

[ulven]

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

a/ This is a 1D-overcall. A lot better than X in the long run. Any simulation will prove me right. Do appreciate the weight Kx in clubs carries in this regard (don't care to elaborate now).

b/ If it goes 2C from LHO and pass back to me. Pass. Easy. Move the K or clubs to H and I'm likely to X if not table presence tell me otherwise.

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

[mike777]

ulven, on Jul 5 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked.

More may play it but written, I am sceptical.

Ok cite 500
Ok cite 100

[Gerben42]

Quote

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?

2♦. Partner is a passed hand and can expect you to have about 9 HCP, so even with 11 he won't know of a majority of HCP. He may be hoping I can bid a 4-card major but I don't have one. With a strong hand I'd bid 2♣, so 2♦ must be this.

[ulven]

Mike777,

The "impressed" part refers to the choice if initial action over 1C.

I doubt many have a written agreement about X over 1NT in this auction. We do, but then we're not your average partnership either.

Since a 1-level overcall is sort of wide-range and responder has bid a voluntary 1NT, it makes sense to use X as unbid suits. You're not getting rich with a penalty X.

This situation occured when I played with Wirgren (almost 15 years ago) and has been a part of the system file ever since.

[Echognome]

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

ulven, on Jul 5 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked.

More may play it but written, I am sceptical.

Ok cite 500
Ok cite 100

This is a ridiculous request and thus a silly argument.

Why don't for every statement you claim you produce even just your minimum of 100 examples of pairs that play it?

I know I'm not going to do the work. I can state with confidence that there are well over 1000 pairs that play stayman after they open 1NT, but I'm not going to poll even 10 pairs to prove it.

[foo]

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

North,None,XIMP
♠ A9x ♥ J98 ♦ KJxxx ♣ Kx

p - (1C) - ??

I don't know what "XIMP" scoring is, But I do know
a= pd is a passed hand
b= It looks like IMPs
c= I want a ♦ lead more than any other.
d= This one of the special opportunities in Bridge.

I do not want to make more than one decision about this hand. I am either passing now, and passing forevermore, or I am making my one bid now and then passing forevermore.

2♦ by me.

...and passing forevermore.

That's as much pressure as I feel safe to put on.
I often alert (1♣)-2♦! as "wide ranging" because even with Negative X's, the opponents are going to have a hard time finding their major suit fit.

[han]

mike777, on Jul 5 2007, 03:16 AM, said:

ulven, on Jul 5 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

I'm impressed that this "problem" can generate so many posts.

c/ X of 1NT is T/O in our methods. It's even listed in our file (i.e. not a non-explicit agreement). I'd then bid 2C.

If you can even cite just 1,000 partnerships in your country that have written agreements stating this I would be shocked, shocked.

More may play it but written, I am sceptical.

Ok cite 500
Ok cite 100

Mike, quit drugs.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 5 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

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.

Good point. I got dragged into the hype.

After reading the thoughts of others, I'm back to a 1♦ overcall, although I dislike it. I usually want 1♦ to show a slightly better hand as a minimum, but I must start with 1♦ in case of a partscore decision at 2♣ passed around to me.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Jul 5 2007, 08:24 AM, said:

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?

One issue that I was trying to figure out is how the presence of a 1♦ overcall impacts the opening lead.

Please note: I am not discussing partner's choice of opening lead IF I overcall 1♦, but rather who will be on opening lead if we do / do not overcall 1♦. If I overcall 1♦, the opponents suddenly have a negative double available. I suspect (but can't prove) that this might have a statistically significant impact on who leads.

Ben, any chance that you'd be willing to a quick BridgeBrowser study?

I'd be interested to compare auctions that start

(P) - P (1♣) - ???

where "you" hold a 3=3=5=2 shape and the opponents buy the contract. I'd be interested to compare who made the opening lead when we passed as opposed to where we overcalled 1♦.

(For what its worth, I have no idea what this will turn up, nor do I have any grand theories, but it might be interesting)

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 01:43 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 4 2007, 03:22 PM, said:

Heck, they might even have a big fit, maybe nine or ten cards, even.

How do you figure? With 3 diamonds partner could raise, without 3 diamonds (and the opps having 9 or 10 clubs) partner has 9 or 10 major suit cards and forgot to X 2C? He must have a 0 count or something in which case I'm happy to pass.

Even if the opps have an 8 card fit and partner can't raise to 2D he has 5323 or 4423 and didnt X 2C or bid 2M. Again, he must have a pretty bad hand. I'm sure they are a favorite to have either a large majority of the HCP or only a 7 card fit so I'm happy to pass.

This is the part I do not get. "Partner must have a 0 count?"

My style:

1. Advancer bids immediately with values. Thus, with something like ♠KQ10xx ♥Kxx ♦Qx ♣xxx as a maximum, and perhaps removing one of the Kings or Queens as a minimum, Advancer can introduce his major. By requiring this type of strength, Overcaller knows that he can bid again with extras, and possibly invite game. As you can see, the actual hand would pass 2♠, but a better hand like changing the heart Jack to the Ace might yield a game try and acceptance.

2. Advancer passes without strong values, relying upon the balance. Thus, with something like ♠K10xxx ♥Kxx ♦xx ♣xxx, advancer passes. He'd rather not bid 2♠ and catch partner with the much different ♠x ♥Axxx ♦AKJxxx ♣Qx, where we have just preempted ourselves out of a good 2♦ contract. 2♠ in response to a reopening douible works fine.

3. Advancer also bids slowly on the weaker hands because he does not want to bid a making 2♠ but have partner raise to 3♠ down one. The solution is not to play 2♠ making and miss 4♠ because overcaller is afraid to bid.

4. Doubling also shows constructive values. Constructive values are not what is needed to make competition right.

5. It seems that the "hidden cost" to not reopening this hand is missed games, as Advancer must bid with less to protect your ability to pass out auctions with this type of hand. Not to mention, wrong contracts.

6. There is also a hidden cost of bad leads. You overcalled 1♦ for a lead-director. If Advancer raises to 2♦ on anything, you will frequently lead away from KJ into AQ, or split AQ, for a loss of a trick. If partner needs an honor in diamonds to raise on weakish hands, that helps your lead, right? So, if you don't raise on weakish hands without a diamond honor, you may well have a diamond fit on this hand. Again, if Advancer can rely upon Overcaller to reopen after this auction with this type of hand, or to reopen 2♦ when right, he can afford to pass with a fair hand but xxx/xxxx in diamonds and thereby protect your lead problem when he does have Qxx+ and raises.

I'm not sure I understand the alternative theory being espoused here.

[han]

I think Ulven's agreement to play (1X)-1Y-(1NT)-Dbl as takeout is very interesting. If both opponents have their bid then it becomes quite unlikely that we have significantly more cards than the opponents, and usually their cards will be well placed.

The takeout double makes sense (especially after 1C-1D-1NT) but can also be quite risky. Competing over 1NT with a potential misfit when they have announced about half the deck and no fit could be suicide.

Would it be a good idea to require a minimum of about 8 or 9 points so that overcaller can sometimes pass? Should advancer have some tolerance for partner's suit?

[foo]

Hannie, on Jul 5 2007, 08:04 AM, said:

I think Ulven's agreement to play (1X)-1Y-(1N)-Dbl as takeout is very interesting. If both opponents have their bid then it becomes quite unlikely that we have significantly more cards than the opponents, and usually their cards will be well placed.

The takeout double makes sense (especially after 1C-1D-1N) but can also be quite risky. Competing over 1N with a potential misfit when they have announced about half the deck and no fit could be suicide.

Would it be a good idea to require a minimum of about 8 or 9 points so that overcaller can sometimes pass? Should advancer have some tolerance for partner's suit?

I play this as well.

The assumption is that usually Opener has ~12+ and Responder has ~8-9.
Thus very often we are in the middle of a partscore battle.

The X'er usually has reasonable values for the auction and
a= a flexible hand with at least tolerance for Overcaller. or
b= a high ODR hand in the other suits (like 55's)

As I've stated before, I'm firmly in agreement with the Scanians on the idea that low level Penalty X's don't work as well as Action X's and Penalty Passes.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 12:02 PM, said:

[Good stuff]

A lot of this makes sense, but then I suppose this problem of what to do initially and at round two depends upon style.

It seems that we agree upon the general principle that a 2-bid does promise something of value. Where that line is may be different. I suppose that at IMPs, and even at MP, I am willing to occasionally struggle for tricks because of more sound Advancer action and corresponding aggressive reopening, with what I perceive to be the advantage of better consideration of possible game.

I also am posting because I somewhat disagree with the idea that not supporting because your honor contribution is nil is a "silly" idea. The cost to this approach may be that Overcaller repeats diamonds with difficlt patterns, but the upside is the very critical defensive problem when partner is on lead, which he will be after this auction (if we defend). If your style includes aggressive reopening, then this is less of a problem and more potentially beneficial, IMO.

But, I guess to each his or her own.

[han]

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

I always thought this was expert standard. It's just like a responsive X.

Thanks, I've never discussed it with anybody so I'm glad it came up.

[Echognome]

Hannie, on Jul 6 2007, 04:20 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 5 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

I always thought this was expert standard. It's just like a responsive X.

Thanks, I've never discussed it with anybody so I'm glad it came up.

Maybe it's because you play against me too often where 1NT for penalty makes a lot more sense?

[mike777]

Are people suggesting undiscussed this is something other than a penalty double?
This seems to be a clear penalty double. If you wish to play it as something else ok but that is a special partnership agreement.