[the hog]

Phil, given that you would overcall with such a strong hand as the one you posted rather than X first, you have a point I guess. Your example shows how much bidding needs to mesh with partner expects for a simple overcall and for a X followed by a bid.
I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

As far as the second point goes, X vs 1S on QJxxx Kxx Aqx xx,
I would probably bid 1S, BUT I see absolutely nothing wrong with a X rather than a 1S bid. You are quite right - you have 3 places to play. Those who claim that more than 80% would bid 1S are not thinking straight. I would guess that in an expert field the breakdown would be more likely 50-50 for 1S vs X.

[Blofeld]

The_Hog, on Nov 29 2006, 01:26 AM, said:

As far as the second point goes, X vs 1S on QJxxx Kxx Aqx xx,
I would probably bid 1S, BUT I see absolutely nothing wrong with a X rather than a 1S bid. You are quite right - you have 3 places to play. Those who claim that more than 80% would bid 1S are not thinking straight. I would guess that in an expert field the breakdown would be more likely 50-50 for 1S vs X.

Even though double isn't much worse than 1♠, it doesn't follow that it will have a large body of proponents.

I don't think double is silly but I do think that a goodish majority of people will prefer 1♠, even if only by a small margin.

[hrothgar]

The_Hog, on Nov 29 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

I probably should have given more thought to a 2♣ cue bid rather than 2♥, however, my main focus was trying to explain why I thought an immediate 4♥ was so badly flawed...

[pclayton]

hrothgar, on Nov 29 2006, 04:59 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Nov 29 2006, 09:26 AM, said:

I totally agree with you that anyone who wants to stop short of game with the responding hand is really evaluating their hand poorly. I am VERY surprised that Richard would only bid 2H on the hand for example.

I probably should have given more thought to a 2♣ cue bid rather than 2♥, however, my main focus was trying to explain why I thought an immediate 4♥ was so badly flawed...

We are products of our own experience. There is a hand in one of the Reese books that is very similar to this where he bids 4♥ over a takeout double. I can't remember which Reese book it is.

4♥ does have a 'bid what you think you can make' feel to it.

Another reason why I still like it is the fact that the opponents probably have 10 or 11 clubs, yet RHO couldn't raise. Why stick in a 2♣ cue when LHO can make a sac suggesting double, or a 3/4♣ rebid? I'd much rather have LHO guess at the 5 level on whether or not a sac is correct.

[bid_em_up]

cherdano, on Nov 28 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

pclayton, on Nov 28 2006, 08:21 PM, said:

Really?

1♣..

dbl - pass - 2♣
2♠.........3♥
3♠....

Are you sure this just doesn't show: QJxxx, Kxx, AQx, xx? Many of us would make a takeout double instead of a 1♠ overcall, since the hand is worth only one call.

Really? I think this would be a 80% vote in favor of 1♠.

Anyway, if you cue-bid, you at least tell partner your bid is based on some hcp. A direct 4H could be much weaker and more distributional.

For a long time, I thought 1♠ was the "normal" call on the suggested hand (and it still is for many players as suggested by others). However, I no longer believe it to be the best call at IMP scoring.

At MP's, 1♠ is still probably the best call in the long run, but ONLY because of the scoring differences between minor suit and major suit contracts.

At IMP's, double is automatic these days in my partnerships, as the objective should be to immediately find your best fit as frequently as possible. I agree with Phil on the philosophy that this hand has three possible places to play and X is more descriptive of this immediately and will work better the majority of the time.

[bid_em_up]

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

2. KQxx K10xx Q10xx 9, you deal:

P-(P)-1♦-(1♥)-X-(4♥)-5♦-(P)-?

Partner has essentially bid 5D on his own (not withstanding our negative double). One thing I am (almost) certain of it that partner is void in hearts. He does not have 4 spades or 4 clubs (if he did, he should bid one of those two suits instead of 5D).

Since the AK♦ along with either black ace will give 6♦ excellent play (the spade A rates to be onside if partner doesnt have it), I will bid 6D.

I would expect partner to hold Axx void AKxxxxx Kxx or Jxx void AKxxxxx AQx or similar.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on Nov 29 2006, 06:42 PM, said:

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

From what I can tell, I'm the only 6♦ bidder on the second hand...

Its possible that this should given you even more pause than zero 6♦ bidders...

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Nov 29 2006, 11:02 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Nov 29 2006, 06:42 PM, said:

I'm really surprised everyone is passing 5♦ in the second problem.

From what I can tell, I'm the only 6♦ bidder on the second hand...

Its possible that this should given you even more pause than zero 6♦ bidders...

No, I bid 6D also in my earlier post (on page #2 in this thread).