[straube]

Partner's hand AQxxxx xxx Kxx K
My hand Kx KQxx Jxx xxxx

all vul. I'm first to speak

P 1H 1S P
1N 2D 2S 3D
3S

3S by me was awful. Partner and I agree about that. The question is what does partner's bid of 1S and then 2S show?

He said that he wasn't comfortable with an immediate 2S bid (which was my choice) but that
he felt better about bidding 2S after knowing that I had something.

I think 2S ought to show something better (too good to preempt) and that if his suit is too poor to bid 2S immediately, then he should pass 2D and see if I can support. After all, I did show some values but in the enemy suit.

Who is right?

[Bbradley62]

Partner's bidding looks completely normal.

[han]

After your 1NT bid, I'd want to bid 2S with partner's hand. Would be very strange not to.

[gnasher]

I think partner's sequence shows a hand that is too good to preempt. Partner's hand is too good to preempt.

[655321]

Wrong forum

[straube]

 gnasher, on 2010-November-09, 13:14, said:

I think partner's sequence shows a hand that is too good to preempt. Partner's hand is too good to preempt.

Well, I'm a passed hand and we open 11s and occasional 10s. Even playing standard 2/1 there's some point in preempting a wider range of hands (third seat weak 2s are commonly played as wide ranging) because doing so is more likely to cause problems for the opponents than to prevent us from reaching game. The knr on that hand is 12.3 btw

Partner was concerned not so much that the hand was too good but that 2S was too risky vulnerable. I'm arguing that if the suit is good enough, 2S immediately is better. If the suit is too poor, then it's not worth bidding 2 opposite a nonfitting response.

Thanks for your input.

[Zelandakh]

I think this comes down to a style thing. I would bid 2S on the hand too but I have no problems with this being treated as a 1S overcall and 2S rebid. Where the cut-off between these comes is simply a matter of agreement.

[cloa513]

What is great about partner hand? The singleton King is hardly giving full weight so either bid 1♠ or 2♠ and pass in future. Probably 2♠ is best.

[gnasher]

Sorry, I hadn't actually noticed that we were a passed hand. I agree that this might not make the hand too strong for a direct 2♠, but I don't think that makes it wrong to bid 1♠ and then 2♠.

Facing a passed partner, the reason that it's OK to make a weak jump overcall on a wider range of hands is that you know more about partner's hand, so you are better placed to make an immediate decision about where to play the hand. With AQ109xx xxx Kxx K you might choose to overcall 2♠ because you know we probably don't have a game on, it's likely that we belong in spades, and you're probably not going to come to much harm if you play there.

With AQxxxx xxx Kxx K, you still think that we don't have a game on, but now you're less certain about whether we belong in spades, or about whether to play at the two-level. It's a reasonable strategy to bid 1♠, planning to go quietly unless partner shows some values. Once partner bids 1NT, that's not such bad news - it implies values opposite the minor-suit kings, and partner will tend to have a doubleton spade. It's much better news than if LHO had 1NT. Hence it's now sensible to bid 2♠. That might make, or it might encourage them to bid something that isn't making.

Look at it this way: 2♠ is probably making, and 2♦ might make too, so somebody should bid 2♠. Kx KQxx Jxx xxxx isn't going to bid again, so that means that the AQxxxx has to.

[OleBerg]

 straube, on 2010-November-09, 11:52, said:

Who is right?

655321

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I find you partners bidding reasonable.

I dont mind bidding 2S direct, instead of the 1S overcall, and there are days, I
would choose this route, but 1S, followed by 2S is ok.
Both sides have bid, so whatever you believe in trusting p instead of the opponents,
p cant have the world anyway, both opponents have bid, ..., of course the single
king of clubs could be in spade .

In the end the decision between 1S and 2S is more or less a tactical decision.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[straube]

 gnasher, on 2010-November-10, 04:10, said:

Sorry, I hadn't actually noticed that we were a passed hand. I agree that this might not make the hand too strong for a direct 2♠, but I don't think that makes it wrong to bid 1♠ and then 2♠.

Facing a passed partner, the reason that it's OK to make a weak jump overcall on a wider range of hands is that you know more about partner's hand, so you are better placed to make an immediate decision about where to play the hand. With AQ109xx xxx Kxx K you might choose to overcall 2♠ because you know we probably don't have a game on, it's likely that we belong in spades, and you're probably not going to come to much harm if you play there.

With AQxxxx xxx Kxx K, you still think that we don't have a game on, but now you're less certain about whether we belong in spades, or about whether to play at the two-level. It's a reasonable strategy to bid 1♠, planning to go quietly unless partner shows some values. Once partner bids 1NT, that's not such bad news - it implies values opposite the minor-suit kings, and partner will tend to have a doubleton spade. It's much better news than if LHO had 1NT. Hence it's now sensible to bid 2♠. That might make, or it might encourage them to bid something that isn't making.

Look at it this way: 2♠ is probably making, and 2♦ might make too, so somebody should bid 2♠. Kx KQxx Jxx xxxx isn't going to bid again, so that means that the AQxxxx has to.

Thanks for readdressing this, but let me argue with you a bit. You're thinking that with AQxxxx partner may not be certain about belonging in spades and I see your point. But after I bid 1N, he ought to be even less sure that we belong in spades. 1N shows values more in hearts than anything and as we tend not to withhold support, it denies 3 spades. I'm thinking that Kx KQxx Jxx xxxx should balance with 2S. If partner can count on me to balance with Hx, then he can pass with 6 cd suits of uncertain quality. When partner only has 5, Kx will sometimes be better support than xxx.

Lastly, a direct 2s rebid over 2D put pressure on me after 3D because it communicated a hand that was too good to bid 2S and a hand that had a good suit. Granted 3S was wrong, but in a sense, partner ought to be giving me "permission" to compete to the 3-level with many other hands of Hx support. Say I had Kx Axxx xx Qxxx. I ought to bid 3S with this.

[foobar]

 straube, on 2010-November-10, 10:11, said:

Lastly, a direct 2s rebid over 2D put pressure on me after 3D because it communicated a hand that was too good to bid 2S and a hand that had a good suit. Granted 3S was wrong, but in a sense, partner ought to be giving me "permission" to compete to the 3-level with many other hands of Hx support. Say I had Kx Axxx xx Qxxx. I ought to bid 3S with this.

I don't see why pard's 2S gives any "permission" to bid 3S.

1) Advancer was PH and overcaller should be given leeway to bid tactically
2) Advancer's 1N already conveyed the strength of the hand (and obstensibly ♠ tolerance) and allowed pard to bid 2♠
3) It would be wrong to compete even with the alternative hand for the same reasons

[straube]

 foobar, on 2010-November-11, 11:15, said:

I don't see why pard's 2S gives any "permission" to bid 3S.

1) Advancer was PH and overcaller should be given leeway to bid tactically
2) Advancer's 1N already conveyed the strength of the hand (and obstensibly ♠ tolerance) and allowed pard to bid 2♠
3) It would be wrong to compete even with the alternative hand for the same reasons

But what would I bid after P 1H (1S) P ?

with void AQxx Kxxx xxxxx ?

[akhare]

 straube, on 2010-November-11, 12:04, said:

But what would I bid after P 1H (1S) P ?

with void AQxx Kxxx xxxxx ?

Pass -- why advance with such a terrible misfit when you can get out cheaply? If they reopen with a X and it gets passed around to me, I might reconsider...

[straube]

 akhare, on 2010-November-11, 15:02, said:

Pass -- why advance with such a terrible misfit when you can get out cheaply? If they reopen with a X and it gets passed around to me, I might reconsider...

I see where we see things differently now. If you interpret 1N as showing spade tolerance, then of course rebidding 2S is automatic. If 1N shows values, a heart stopper, and simply denies a spade fit, then rebidding 2S shows a hand with good spades and too good to preempt.

Maybe I'll start a thread about what 1N should show.

Thanks for your input btw.

[foobar]

 straube, on 2010-November-11, 15:16, said:

I see where we see things differently now. If you interpret 1N as showing spade tolerance, then of course rebidding 2S is automatic. If 1N shows values, a heart stopper, and simply denies a spade fit, then rebidding 2S shows a hand with good spades and too good to preempt.

I don't see things as black and white here. There's no guarantee that 1N shows a♠, but there's a reasonable statistical expectation that it's the case.

Also, I don't think it follows that rebidding 2♠ shows a hand that was too good to bid 2♠ in the first place.

Overcaller deemed 2♠ too risky during the first round of bidding and wouldn't have bid 2♠ without advancer's action. This may be based on the flawed premise of ♠ tolerance, or may simply be based on a combined potential of the two hands

That said, with advancer being a PH, the 1N already conveyed value of the hand. Any further action by reinterpreting overcaller's actions isn't warranted IMO.

Anyway, I think we have flogged this horse to death...