[ahydra]

---

Matchpoints converted to VPs. Vul vs not. Advanced-level opps.

Do you agree with 2C (rather than 1NT)? What now?

ahydra

[Jinksy]

Agree with 2C with such a thin H stop. Don't see any alternative to passing now. P isn't promising defensive value, and I have approx 2 2/2 defensive tricks, so I'm not doubling, and I sure as hell don't want to compete.

[eagles123]

what about x at first turn

[apollo1201]

Extra values, yes, but flattish shape and KQ bare. If partner wants to go to 4C, he can, but I wont. Partner and oppener's partner seem to be minimal, but I am not sure of setting 3H (give 3541 to opener), I am not doubling. In the end I can only pass.
I agree with 2C, 1N with KQ bare is not ideal for me, and I would X with less points in H or weaker C's, and more values in D.

[mgoetze]

Don't punish partner for competing!

Anyway, I don't understand the format

ahydra, on 2015-July-19, 04:14, said:

Matchpoints converted to VPs.

Care to explain?

[wank]

That you don't even suggest double as an option over 1h is hilarious. You have 3 suits and shortage in the opps' suit. Overcalls in minors at the 2 level are never made on balanced hands with 5 card suits (exceps non vul jokes for the lead). My mantra on these forums: english people are terrible bidders.

[eagles123]

wank, on 2015-July-19, 09:00, said:

That you don't even suggest double as an option over 1h is hilarious. You have 3 suits and shortage in the opps' suit. Overcalls in minors at the 2 level are never made on balanced hands with 5 card suits (exceps non vul jokes for the lead). My mantra on these forums: english people are terrible bidders.

Hey I'm English and say x

[FrancesHinden]

wank, on 2015-July-19, 09:00, said:

My mantra on these forums: english people are terrible bidders.

I had the hand at the table and doubled. My partner did not consider the choice worth any comment.

I strongly considered 1NT, and would likely bid 1NT at IMPs, but am more wary at matchpoints vul against not opposite a passed partner.
I did not consider 2C.

[FrancesHinden]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-19, 05:54, said:

Don't punish partner for competing!

Anyway, I don't understand the format

Care to explain?

As written.
The scoring is matchpoints.
Your matchpoint score over a 7-board match against one set of opponents is then converted to VPs on a 20-0 scale.
Your opponents for the next match are assigned based on VP score.

[ahydra]

wank, on 2015-July-19, 09:00, said:

That you don't even suggest double as an option over 1h is hilarious. You have 3 suits and shortage in the opps' suit. Overcalls in minors at the 2 level are never made on balanced hands with 5 card suits (exceps non vul jokes for the lead). My mantra on these forums: english people are terrible bidders.

We don't really have three suits do we? I think most people would say that a suit comprises at least 4 cards.

What I see is:
- we are single-suited
- we don't have a fourth spade
- we might miss a club fit when partner bids 2D with say 3343 (potentially a disaster at matchpoints)
- we don't have an easy call when partner comes back with 3D
- after (1H)-X-(2H)-p; (p) we're also a bit stuck
- we have an excellent club suit which we really do want led
- after (1H)-2C-(2H)-p; (p) we can describe our flattish shape and extras pretty much perfectly with a double.

I'm interested to hear the arguments for X - indeed I expect there are some good ones. But I think this is more a style thing rather than an entire country of bridge players being bad bidders.

ahydra

[Vampyr]

mgoetze, on 2015-July-19, 05:54, said:

Don't punish partner for competing!

Anyway, I don't understand the format

Care to explain?

It is likely to have been Swiss Pairs. You play a 6-8 board match against another pair. The matchpoints are converted to VPs, otherwise you lose the match aspect and it just becomes a normal pairs game with cumulative scores and Swiss pairings. I know that there are some who would prefer this latter format, but I think that the usual way is more fun.

Oops don't know how I missed Frances' post above. Mods, please delete.

[FrancesHinden]

I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I don't believe that this is a style thing.
I think very few good players would overcall 2C playing with a good partner (a pro would, playing with a weaker client, but that's different).

If I did overcall 2C, I would pass out 2H (as indeed I would - and did - pass out 2H if I started with a double). Your hand is worse when hearts are raised.

I don't think 1H - 2C - 2H P P dbl shows a balanced hand with the KQ of hearts. In fact, you are worse off than doubling on the first round, because you are committing to the 3-level (or to 2S). If you double, you find out about partner's weak hand with a 5-card suit at once, rather than having to gamble on him having one by doubling 2H.

I think this board shows the perils of overcalling 2C: you found out that partner had club support (surely the big upside from bidding clubs) and still you didn't want to compete the hand even to the 3-level.

[wank]

It's ok, francis, i doled out the harshness for you.

[MrAce]

Double is fine, 1 NT is fine. I'd personally start 1 NT.

2♣ would not even occur to me. As I said previously in many topics, 2/1 overcall with 5332 is a "NO NO" for me.

[nige1]

ahydra, on 2015-July-19, 04:14, said:

Matchpoints converted to VPs.
Vul vs not.
Advanced-level opps.
Do you agree with 2C (rather than 1NT)?
What now?

---

My ranking, over 1♥

• 1N. Natural. Descriptive. Brings your ♣s into play.
• Double. Ideally, you'd like another ♠.
• 2♣. I don't think this is as bad as others make out.

[Bbradley62]

An informative poll might have ask respondents to choose from among Dbl, 1N and 2C for East's first action, with a follow-up question asking about the second action given the auction shown. It's odd (I toned that down from my first few choices) to present the question with the presumption that the action taken by your experienced partner was so wrong as to not be considered.

[lycier]

ahydra, on 2015-July-19, 04:14, said:

Do you agree with 2C (rather than 1NT)? What now?

I disagree,only 1nt with 16hcp in such 5332 hand since I think 1nt directly has more feature of description if compared with 2♣ overcall.

[nekthen]

What a can of worms! I vote for a double. We have 3 cards in each of the unbid suits and doubleton heart. Replace heart honours with xx and its 2 clubs. Replace with x♠ and x♥ and its a double. Kx♠ and KQx♥ and now it is 1N.

[fourdad]

ahydra, on 2015-July-19, 12:59, said:

We don't really have three suits do we? I think most people would say that a suit comprises at least 4 cards.

What I see is:
- we are single-suited
- we don't have a fourth spade
- we might miss a club fit when partner bids 2D with say 3343 (potentially a disaster at matchpoints)
- we don't have an easy call when partner comes back with 3D
- after (1H)-X-(2H)-p; (p) we're also a bit stuck
- we have an excellent club suit which we really do want led
- after (1H)-2C-(2H)-p; (p) we can describe our flattish shape and extras pretty much perfectly with a double.

I'm interested to hear the arguments for X - indeed I expect there are some good ones. But I think this is more a style thing rather than an entire country of bridge players being bad bidders.

ahydra

You have sufficient values to X and then bid again! This would show extra values and more accurately describe your hand. Hence, the need for 4 spades is not a requirement.

If the hand was a minimum opener 4 spades would be mandatory.

[wank]

Personally i very much dislike 1n too with this shape and would need aq to do so. Whenever rho has ajxxxx or some such you're going to struggle in 1n when you very possibly had an easy partscore elsewhere.

If partner has enough for us to make game we'll normally get a chance to show our stop later. This hand is a bit of a mirage. Give partner a selection of perfecto cards like as, qc and jxxx to stop the diamonds and we're still not in danger of making 3nt.

As for this hand being 'single suited' you have a basic misunderstanding if the concept. By your definition a 4333 hand is a single suiter. It should be obvious that's absurd. A double isn't showing 3 suits, it's showing adequate support for 3 suits. 3 cards is plenty for partner's suit.