[mfa1010]

Partner had

♠ 9xx
♥ Axx
♦ ATxx
♣ xxx

He bid 2♦ on my 2♣ and we rested in 2♠.

I took 10 tricks in 10 seconds.

I thought it was a difficult call, and I felt I chose the "lazy" route by bidding 2♣.

[mikeh]

I think that this is a case of 'can't necessarily get there from here' in terms of optimal initial action.

IOW, yes, we can all see that there will be hands on which we may miss game if we start with 2♣,so that may motivate us to double.

However, I think double creates more frequent, if not larger, problems, and the combination of frequency and potential size of those problems outweighs the benefits. I can't 'prove that', even if I did a simulation, since the outcome of individual hands will often depend on the exercise of judgement not just by us but also, to some degree, each of the other 3 players....tho opener will usually have the least to say.

There is the obvious problem that we have no clear path to a plus score should we double, and be on defence.....I'm not so worried about -180 as opposed to, say, our -100 at the 2 level, but we could be -180 or even -280 against our +110 or better...even, rarely, 170. I doubt that we'd be -180 against our 620 (from overcalling 2♣), since if he has the values to invite a major game, that reduces (but doesn't eliminate) the chances they can make 7 or 8 tricks on offence.

There is also the problem that partner may feel the need or desire to introduce a minor when we have no fit. Now, whether he should or would may depend on how we define a penalty double, and this is a 'minor' issue, if you will excuse the pun.

An issue that might be termed a major issue is what kind of hand he'll assume I hold if I double and then bid spades. To me, such a move tends to suggest longer and stronger spades and a slightly stronger hand. So now we risk turning +110 or +140 into a minus score.

In the meantime, a red v white 2♣ overcall with a passed hand partner isn't a sign of a weak playing hand. I would expect my expert partner to bid aggressively with a shapely hand that fits well, so my take is that there will be relatively few hands on which double leads to game and 2♣ doesn't.

I'd be far more worried about missing game, via 2♣, if the vulnerability were reversed. As it is, partner knows not only that I will have a real hand but also that the game bonus is worth a lot more than if we were white.

I'd need another card to double. It wouldn't have to be an Ace or King but it would need to afford another playing trick.

mfa posted the companion hand as I was writing this, and I admit that I would not have reached game, and that double would have worked out just fine. Oh well. This is a game of probabilities, not hindsight.

[PhilKing]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-14, 16:04, said:

Partner had

♠ 9xx
♥ Axx
♦ ATxx
♣ xxx

Kerching.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2014-January-14, 16:50, said:

I'd be far more worried about missing game, via 2♣, if the vulnerability were reversed. As it is, partner knows not only that I will have a real hand but also that the game bonus is worth a lot more than if we were white.

If I had rebid 2H over pard's 2D, I could have a lesser strength hand with 5-5. But, since I rebid 2S isn't there an inference that I went out of my way to show both majors even though they weren't 5-5 and therefore have power? I don't think Pard needed to have more distribution in addition to his two bullets to raise 2S to 3.

With a lesser playing strength hand and mere 5-4 distribution, I would probably have just overcalled the spade suit; but, maybe this inference isn't valid for others.

[mfa1010]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-14, 17:29, said:

If I had rebid 2H over pard's 2D, I could have a lesser strength hand with 5-5. But, since I rebid 2S isn't there an inference that I went out of my way to show both majors even though they weren't 5-5 and therefore have power? I don't think Pard needed to have more distribution in addition to his two bullets to raise 2S to 3.

With a lesser playing strength hand and mere 5-4 distribution, I would probably have just overcalled the spade suit; but, maybe this inference isn't valid for others.

Not valid for me. The attraction of a marginal 2♣-overcall come imo partly from the fact that we are offering two suits and we have a useful 2♦-gadget to land us in the best fit. If they double 2♣ with points, it is also possible to arrive in 2♣ or 2♦. A 2♠-overcall is unilateral and therefore needs more (not less) values to compensate.

[mfa1010]

mikeh, on 2014-January-14, 16:50, said:

However, I think double creates more frequent, if not larger, problems, and the combination of frequency and potential size of those problems outweighs the benefits.

I agree that there are problems with a double and we might lose a partscore battle we might otherwise have won. But the problems shouldn't be overstated. Partner is expecting a strong balanced or flexible hand for the double, and this is what we have. So he will generally make good decisions.

The plan is not to X and then bid spades. The plan is to X and then TOX their runout. We play (which I think is normal) that a 2♣ runout from partner is scrambling, and our 2♠ after that shouldn't be construed as extras. I would plan to pass a 2♦ runout from partner, which admittedly might be wrong.

Quote

mfa posted the companion hand as I was writing this, and I admit that I would not have reached game, and that double would have worked out just fine. Oh well. This is a game of probabilities, not hindsight.

I was very much in doubt, when I choose 2♣. When dummy was about to come down, I was like please don't be strong, please don't be strong... 2 bullits ... crap!

[mfa1010]

PhilKing, on 2014-January-14, 17:23, said:

Kerching.

Indeed. Opener had 17. A tad to the unlucky side to find partner with all the remaining 8 points, and what 8 points.

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-14, 17:29, said:

With a lesser playing strength hand and mere 5-4 distribution, I would probably have just overcalled the spade suit; but, maybe this inference isn't valid for others.

I have long taught that one never, ever overcalls in a 5 card suit, as a one-suiter, and I am very strongly of the view that this is correct. I think 5 card overcalls on balanced or hands that one is treating as non-two-suited are terrible, especially red v white.

[madongjun]

2♥ for majors.(HELLO)

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-January-14, 12:54, said:

Perhaps:
<snip>

I picked 2NT for the reason of partner being able to pass this with 22xx and dreck. However the real solution here is to play 2♦ followed by 2NT as a relay and get an accurate picture of Overcaller's hand, saving 2NT for the really top end stuff where we could also have chosen to start with a double. Partner ought to know the range of hands with which we bid 2♣ and can investigate when they see game as a realistic possibility. Notice that many play a direct 2NT over 2♣ as a forcing relay, something that makes no sense to me whatsoever as it is surely strictly worse than starting with 2♦ and obtaining additional information.

[mfa1010]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-15, 02:50, said:

Notice that many play a direct 2NT over 2♣ as a forcing relay, something that makes no sense to me whatsoever as it is surely strictly worse than starting with 2♦ and obtaining additional information.

2♦ then 2NT is useful as a natural bid.

[PhilKing]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-15, 04:45, said:

2♦ then 2NT is useful as a natural bid.

You can switch things round and play a direct 2NT response as natural.

[ArtK78]

I bid 2♣ for majors and pass the response. I am not worried about missing a game on these cards (despite the result). If partner has a distributional fit with one of my majors and jumps to 3, then I will be willing to make a game try (bid game and try to make it).

[mfa1010]

PhilKing, on 2014-January-15, 13:09, said:

You can switch things round and play a direct 2NT response as natural.

Yes, but that might miss a 5-3 fit if responder has a 2NT bid with a 3-card support for one of the majors, where he would bid 3 in that major, if partner bids it after 2♦.

I don't think we need a huge system after the 2N inquiry, slam is very unlikely, so not going through 2♦ to get more info is not a problem.

[PhilKing]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-15, 15:10, said:

Yes, but that might miss a 5-3 fit

Is that a bad thing?

[mfa1010]

PhilKing, on 2014-January-15, 18:07, said:

Is that a bad thing?

Yes, if it is not missed by free choice. Advancer can still bid 2NT with 3-card support to overcaller's longer major if he likes, but he may not like to. I agree that a right-sided notrump contract often will play well, but that should be up to advancer to evaluate from hand to hand.