[ArtK78]

First board of fourth quarter of 28 board team match (we played the match in 4 7-board quarters to accommodate our opponents, who were a 6 man team).

North's initial pass denied as much as 10 HCP.

---

Do you agree with the bidding? Was I a wimp not to bid game?

[Hanoi5]

I would have bid 4♠. Yes, I suppose you were a wimp. You only needed partner to cover two losers.

[mtvesuvius]

You are a minimum for doubling and bidding, you've shown the sixth spade, you're 6322, and partner invited -- I see no reason to bid on. I pass.

What was partner's hand? Were the ♣QJ onside with a club lead?

[pooltuna]

For his bidding up to 3♠ what do you expect partner to hold? Is not AQ♦ sufficient to generate 10 tricks? Nor is this the only possibility. Count your probable trics and bidding game is easy.

[Cyberyeti]

pooltuna, on 2011-June-16, 09:14, said:

For his bidding up to 3♠ what do you expect partner to hold? Is not AQ♦ sufficient to generate 10 tricks? Nor is this the only possibility. Count your probable trics and bidding game is easy.

Yeah, but he bid 1N, so may well not have that, 3 queens (some of them maybe supported by jacks) which I'd suggest is more likely and you have 4 off the top, you're basically guessing whether he has an ace. I would have overcalled 1♠ first time, so I suspect would be worse off than you, I am comfortable with 3♠ or 4, I don't think there's a clear cut right answer.

[Bbradley62]

Given that his original pass denies 10HCP, what is the limit on North's 1♦ bid?

[ArtK78]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-16, 09:51, said:

Given that his original pass denies 10HCP, what is the limit on North's 1♦ bid?

Technically, his limit is still 9 HCP. He could have opened 2♦ on any hand with 5 reasonable diamonds and 3-9 HCP (at matchpoints, we open weak 2's at this vul with xxxxx and 3-9 HCP).

[Bbradley62]

I think I'm with vesuvius and cyberyeti. You've shown your hand.

[jmcw]

Seems like partner is somewhat balanced, but interestingly did not bid 1NT at his first turn.

I can imagine something like xx,qxx,qjxxx,qxx, but would he bid 3♠ with these quacks?

I think he has to be a bit better xx, kxx, axxxx, qxx. but would be call only 1♦?

Bid 4♠ at teams.

[jonottawa]

I can't have less than this (I too would have overcalled 1♠.) Pass.

(The latest forum trend seems to be declining slam tries with absolute maxes and accepting game tries with absolute minimums.)

[ArtK78]

These were our hands:

---

Not only that, but the QJ of clubs were onside.

They bid 4♠ at the other table, so this was an adverse swing.

[Zelandakh]

This seems like quite a simple hand. If you play a more traditional style where the top range for an overcall is something like 15 points then the South hand has extras and can accept an invite. If you play a style where the South hand is a minimum for "double then bid" then the North hand can force to game. Without knowing the system N-S were playing it would be impossible to judge whether North erred or South. This is simply a matter of partnership understanding.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2011-June-17, 12:14, said:

This seems like quite a simple hand. If you play a more traditional style where the top range for an overcall is something like 15 points then the South hand has extras and can accept an invite. If you play a style where the South hand is a minimum for "double then bid" then the North hand can force to game. Without knowing the system N-S were playing it would be impossible to judge whether North erred or South. This is simply a matter of partnership understanding.

Actually, I do not play "a more traditional style" as you described it. I will often make a simple overcall on some hands with 16 or 17 HCP. I felt that this was a very strong hand - much stronger than the 16 HCP would indicate. I was hoping that partner would be in a position to decide whether the hand belonged in game or not, and I was trying to convey to him that the quality of his trump support was not a critical issue.

Unfortunately, he left the final decision to me, and I wimped out.

[Phil]

1. I would have overcalled 1♠. This may not work well here if partner does not make an aggressive 1N call.

2. Partner has a tough call over 1♠. Yet, with a 7 count is definitely on the upper range of a 1♦ call, but I am of he opinion that weak hands are generally passing 1♠ (or maybe bidding 2♦, so 1N should be in the upper half /upper 1/3 of 1♦ calls.

3. 2♠ seems normal I guess. Over 3♠, I think you can start counting tricks 5♠, 3♣ and one ♦(partner has a club card for 1N (never mind the actual hand), and a diamond. Partner needs another card somewhere else. Any Ace is great; but the ♥K isn't, so 4♠ looks indicated.

I think those that claim "we've shown our hand" need to try a little harder and figure out what partner has, and where the rest of the points in the deck are.

[Cyberyeti]

Phil, on 2011-June-17, 12:48, said:

I think those that claim "we've shown our hand" need to try a little harder and figure out what partner has, and where the rest of the points in the deck are.

I don't think the patronising tone is necessary. Partner has a magic hand, some very similar hands are no good.

xx, QJx, Axxx, xxxx is close to no play on a diamond lead for example.

xx, QJx, QJxxx, Qxx is also not making.

Ax, Qxx, Qxxx, xxxx next to no play on a trump lead.

xx, AQx, Qxxx, xxxx well maybe 20% for the K♥ to be in the weak hand

The problem is that ♣QJ can be onside, but the odds are that partner doesn't have the entries to lead from dummy twice. You need either 2 tricks or 2 entries to make this good (if ♠xx happens to be 98, you're lots better off), and I'd suggest that's odds against. There is however the chance of a club lead so your practical chances are better than your theoretical chances.

[gnasher]

I think partner should do more than just bid 1NT. 2♣ seems reasonably descriptive - a good hand, no club stop, not primary spades, and nothing extra to show in a red suit.

But I'd have overcalled 1♠ and probably played it there.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-17, 14:36, said:

I don't think the patronising tone is necessary. Partner has a magic hand, some very similar hands are no good.

xx, QJx, Axxx, xxxx is close to no play on a diamond lead for example.

xx, QJx, QJxxx, Qxx is also not making.

Ax, Qxx, Qxxx, xxxx next to no play on a trump lead.

xx, AQx, Qxxx, xxxx well maybe 20% for the K♥ to be in the weak hand

The problem is that ♣QJ can be onside, but the odds are that partner doesn't have the entries to lead from dummy twice. You need either 2 tricks or 2 entries to make this good (if ♠xx happens to be 98, you're lots better off), and I'd suggest that's odds against. There is however the chance of a club lead so your practical chances are better than your theoretical chances.

I beg to differ.
Both sides have shown their values, yet the bidding stops short of game / slam when it should not.
This happens with some frequency with heated arguments thereafter, who should have bid more.
With ♠ you can afford to cut down slightly on wide ranging overcalls. So doubling then bidding ♠ is okay and North needs to be slightly stronger to force to game over ♠ than any other suit bid by the doubler.
In my opinion South was a wimp and North did clearly do enough.
There is little merit in stopping one trick below game. I tend to pass in this situation only if I suspect I may already be too high.
After this bidding I expect a ♣ lead will be forthcoming most of the time and I expect no ♣ loser and accordingly South can see 9 potential tricks in his own hand.
I would never raise 2♠ to 3♠ with your second example. I think with the all quacks hand you either pass 2♠ or you bid 2NT.
I like my chances on all your other hands on a ♣ lead. If my opponents would find the right opening lead all the time I would give up the game.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

Even with the magic holding you find opposite, 4♠ goes off if opener has Ax, AJx, Jxx, QJxxx which is hardly unlikely on the likely club or heart leads.

I would always raise on the quack collection because I'd expect partner to be a Q to a K better for X then bid.

There again, we jump overcall on rubbish and our 1/1 overcalls are pretty sound, so our auction would start 1♣-1♠-P-1N.

Club lead only helps you if opener doesn't have 5 which must have a decent probability.

[ahydra]

I think I would bid 4S once you hear partner bid 3S. Partner could have passed 2S.

ahydra

PS. Anyone know how to get the handviewer to display properly? When I load a thread the hands are in a tiny box with the cards only visible at 150% zoom and the right-hand portion cut off. I have to open the HTML source, scroll down about 7000 lines (why is that CSS not in a separate file?!) and copy/paste/edit a link

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2011-June-17, 12:29, said:

Actually, I do not play "a more traditional style" as you described it. I will often make a simple overcall on some hands with 16 or 17 HCP. I felt that this was a very strong hand - much stronger than the 16 HCP would indicate. I was hoping that partner would be in a position to decide whether the hand belonged in game or not, and I was trying to convey to him that the quality of his trump support was not a critical issue.

Unfortunately, he left the final decision to me, and I wimped out.

I agree entirely with your evaluation of this hand. It is 7.5 playing tricks and thus much better than 16hcp. If I had to put a figure down I would say 18 although point counting is not perhaps the best way of evaluating here. In your system you say that a 16-17 point hand would simply overcall which makes this a minimum. Conversely, partner with a decent 7 can count to 25 (again using points as a proxy if you prefer).

As I said above, if this is your bidding style then North has underbid by not forcing to game. Inviting when you have game values does not make it partner's fault when they do not accept the invite on a minimum! My original feeling on this hand was that it was most likely that South had underbid by not upgrading the hand. Having heard the system in play I would instead point the finger squarely at North. Of course I would also need to ask North if (s)he agreed that that was indeed the true partnership understanding...