[Fluffy]

---

MPs, nobody vul, perhaps game is not optimum, but given that spades were 3-3, ♥A onside, ♦J doubleton and clubs 3-3 with ♣Q onside, 11 tricks were avaible in 4 strains. +150 was worth only 7% of the MPs.

[han]

You don't comment on the methods, but they seem relevant. Some people play that 2H shows spades and a minor, apparently you don't, at least not with this hand. Does that have implications here? Was 2D forcing?

It's not clear what the best game is, but looking at the 26 HCP, the solid 6-card suit and the well placed king I would hope to bid a game.

[mikeh]

I don't see how using Michaels helps to find any game. East has to choose between 2N or 3♦, and maybe the choice will be influenced by methods, but, in either case, I don't see how W can force to any game...and East would have zero idea that West has an opening hand.

So the actual auction probably started fairly well, since West must have extras to bid 3♣.

East could have bid 3♥ to get to 3N, but from his point of view, that is not a sure thing....if W has a heart stopper, he will rarely have more than 1 diamond and might even be void...in the former case, running diamonds is about 50% and he needs West to be able to score 2 more tricks without losing the lead, assuming a single heart stop. And a diamond void is ugly for obvious reasons.

So he might choose 3♠ over 3♣ and now, maybe, West can take the push, but E's preference is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Some hands are just too tough...each player took reasonable action....too bad. Responsibility, rather than blame, seems to rest primarily with East.

[Cyberyeti]

Playing what I play, E has a GF over a 1♠ overcall, W doesn't have enough for 3♣ which is close to reversing values given that 1♠ shows close to an opening hand in the first place.

We'd bid (1♥)-1♠-2♦-2♠(minimum, not necessarily 6 cards)-3♦(GF)-3N-P/4♠

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-03, 15:25, said:

Playing what I play, E has a GF over a 1♠ overcall, W doesn't have enough for 3♣ which is close to reversing values given that 1♠ shows close to an opening hand in the first place.

We'd bid (1♥)-1♠-2♦-2♠(minimum, not necessarily 6 cards)-3♦(GF)-3N-P/4♠

Your opps must have a lot of uncontested auctions (or you go down a lot in silly games) if this is so. West has to pass unless he has a near-opener, or (if he makes normal overcalls) East overbids like crazy any time his partner overcalls.

Wouldn't you bid with say AJ9xx Jxx x KQxx? Which game do you want to be in?

[ggwhiz]

In my partnership the 1♠ overcall can be light but the 3♣ call can't be made on a piece of cheese.

That makes East worth a 3♥ cue and happily West cannot choose a wrong game.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2012-May-03, 15:32, said:

Your opps must have a lot of uncontested auctions (or you go down a lot in silly games) if this is so. West has to pass unless he has a near-opener, or (if he makes normal overcalls) East overbids like crazy any time his partner overcalls.

Wouldn't you bid with say AJ9xx Jxx x KQxx? Which game do you want to be in?

I'd open 1♠ with that and we'd end up in the same mess, we play the same evaluation system over openers and overcalls, opposite an opening hand with what may well be 6 tricks and Kx in partner's suit, I'm prepared to force to game and overbid occasionally. AQJxx, xx, Jx, Kxxx or AQxxx, xxxx, xx, Ax are hardly wonderful but may well be enough for game.

We also WJO on 4-6 card suits so no the opps do not get an easy ride.

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-May-03, 15:01, said:

I don't see how using Michaels helps to find any game.

How did you intend this comment, I don't understand it.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-May-03, 17:29, said:

How did you intend this comment, I don't understand it.

If you meant that bidding 2♥ on round one would help, I don't understand how micheals or no michaels on the cc helps or matters.

If you meant that playing michaels means 3♣ shows a very good hand (in context), even better than it would absent the availability of michaels, you may have a point...I thought you meant the former.

[bluecalm]

The idea is that he probably plays 2H as either weak or much stronger leaving medium strength hands for 1S.
If that's the case then 3C is 12-15 and 3D is huge judgement blunder.
2D shouldn't be forcing of course (overcaller might has 7pc and wants to pass even if responder has a lot) but merely constructive (like 10-14 or something). After 3C we have clear GF with powerful suit so we bid 3H.
In this hand we were lucky in a sense that opener was minimum and 3NT might not make but he could have had: JTxxx AQx xx AKxxx and we would still play in silly 3D contract.

For me this is truly wtp hand tbh.

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-04, 00:57, said:

In this hand we were lucky in a sense that opener was minimum and 3NT might not make but he could have had: JTxxx AQx xx AKxxx and we would still play in silly 3D contract.

Apart from the obvious flaw with that example, don't you thnk that a prime 14-count with a double heart stop is enough to drive to game?

[Codo]

I bet you received the bad score mainly because of souths light opening. If he had passed, anybody had struggled into 3 NT with these hands.

Like Bluecalm I guess that 3 ♣ showed 5-5 with the inbetween range, so 3 ♦ was not enough.

But otoh: Which game did you want to play? With a single stop in heart and no running suit, 3 NT or 5 ♦ looks against the odds. And 4 Spade is not easy too.

[han]

mikeh, on 2012-May-03, 21:14, said:

If you meant that bidding 2♥ on round one would help, I don't understand how micheals or no michaels on the cc helps or matters.

If you meant that playing michaels means 3♣ shows a very good hand (in context), even better than it would absent the availability of michaels, you may have a point...I thought you meant the former.

How about you just assume that I meant what I wrote, namely that the agreements are relevant. If the partnership plays that not bidding Michaels has implications for the strength of 1S followed by 3C, then that is relevant. I don't understand how you could object to such a comment. Also, as I wrote above, it is relevant whether 2D was forcing or not. If it was forcing, advancer underbid, but if it was non/forcing, advancer underbid even more! Clearly this partnership wasn't sure exactly how strong various bids were, since they had a lot of well placed HCP yet they stopped below game. Instead of saying this or that guy was to blame, it seems to me that these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked if the partnership wants to improve.

This is not the first time that your response suggests that I was resulting while there is no hint of resulting to be found. When I'm not making fun I try to write what I mean, so you should just take my comments literally, unless they are intended as funny of course. I understand that my weird sense of humor may make that harder than necessary.

[mikeh]

han, on 2012-May-04, 05:43, said:

How about you just assume that I meant what I wrote, namely that the agreements are relevant. If the partnership plays that not bidding Michaels has implications for the strength of 1S followed by 3C, then that is relevant. I don't understand how you could object to such a comment. Also, as I wrote above, it is relevant whether 2D was forcing or not. If it was forcing, advancer underbid, but if it was non/forcing, advancer underbid even more! Clearly this partnership wasn't sure exactly how strong various bids were, since they had a lot of well placed HCP yet they stopped below game. Instead of saying this or that guy was to blame, it seems to me that these are the kinds of questions that need to be asked if the partnership wants to improve.

This is not the first time that your response suggests that I was resulting while there is no hint of resulting to be found. When I'm not making fun I try to write what I mean, so you should just take my comments literally, unless they are intended as funny of course. I understand that my weird sense of humor may make that harder than necessary.

why don't you lighten up, and not take everything as if it were intended as an insult? Especially given that your own writing style often leaves a similar impression? We have taken a lot of shors at each other, and no doubt each feel that the other deserved such shots. I wasn't taking one at you anywhere in this thread...tho you clearly think I was.

I know..I should take my own advice about lightening up, and will try to do so. If we both did, then we'd not have these issues. You read into my post a sentiment that wasn't there. While I will try to refrain from shot-taking at you, trust me: if I do take a shot, there will be no doubt about it.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Apart from the obvious flaw with that example, don't you thnk that a prime 14-count with a double heart stop is enough to drive to game?

No. Responder can have long diamonds and like 9hcp. For example: xx Qxx KQJxxxx x or w/e.
Partner has bid 3C and we have 13 premium hcp and we bid like we would with weakish hand just wanting to play there.

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-04, 08:26, said:

No. Responder can have long diamonds and like 9hcp. For example: xx Qxx KQJxxxx x or w/e.
Partner has bid 3C and we have 13 premium hcp and we bid like we would with weakish hand just wanting to play there.

I thought you said you played 2♦ as about 10-14? An 8-count with a wasted queen doesn't really fall into that category.

Maybe I shouldn't regard ♥Qxx as wasted, though - it might turn out to be opposite the other ♥Q, which presumably makes it more valuable.

[Zelandakh]

I have to agree with han and blue on this. It looks very strongly from the OP that strong-weak Michaels (or equivalent) is being used here in which case the 3♣ rebid shows a good hand. That makes the 3♦ rebid from East an underbid. If the methods in use are different than assumed then it is possible that the answer might also change.

[rmnka447]

Depending on the partnership's agreements, advancer has to cue ♥ at some time in the auction.

If new suits are forcing, the auction should go (1 ♥) - 1 ♠ - (P)- 2 ♦ - (P) - 3 ♣ - (P) - 3 ♥ - (P) - 3 NT. By bidding 3 ♣, overcaller shows at least opening value and advancer's 3 ♥ asks about a ♥ stopper and also shows an opener.

If new suits are nonforcing, the auction should go (1 ♥) - 1 ♠ - (P) - 2 ♥ - (P) - 3 ♣ - (P) - 3 ♦ - (P) - 3 NT. Advancer's 2 ♥ cue shows opening values, overcaller's 3 ♣ bid also shows opening values. Advancer's 3 ♦ shows his suit.