[nigel_k]

---

The 2♦ overcall is 5-5 in clubs and either major. Feel free to answer according to your own preferred agreements.

[BunnyGo]

How would one ask about the major?

Edit: misread the auction. Mentally inserted a pass.

This post has been edited by BunnyGo: 2011-June-24, 16:57

[daveharty]

BunnyGo, on 2011-June-24, 16:35, said:

How would one ask about the major?

Turn to your left and say "Which major does your partner have?"
Anyway I would double. I hope partner will think I want to penalize them in at least one of their suits.

[jjbrr]

I'd pass. If you double, partner will play you for a hand stronger than the one you have, and your clubs aren't even that good anyway.

[MrAce]

I'd pass too

[han]

Pass, hopefully we can double 2S for takeout.

[pooltuna]

looks like opps have at least an 8 card ♠ fit. Since they are uncertain about the majors 3♦ should make it harder for the opps to find both level and strain.

[daveharty]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-24, 17:15, said:

I'd pass. If you double, partner will play you for a hand stronger than the one you have, and your clubs aren't even that good anyway.

Maybe you're right, but unless partner is a really light opener in this position, we have at least half the deck on a possible misfit hand; isn't that the ideal time to be defending? Didn't see whether this was MP or IMPs, that might factor in my decision.

[MrAce]

pooltuna, on 2011-June-25, 05:20, said:

looks like opps have at least an 8 card ♠ fit. Since they are uncertain about the majors 3♦ should make it harder for the opps to find both level and strain.

Maybe, but maybe 3♦ will make it harder for pd to find the right level and strain as well.

[gnasher]

I agree with 3♦. The opponents are playing stupid methods, so make them pay for it.

[whereagles]

What's so stupid about this method? It's even more well-defined than a multi and I bet you wouldn't call multi a stupid method

[MrAce]

Actually even the most stupid treatments can work well especially when opps try to take genius actions against it.

IF it turnes out that our pd gets excited at the end thinking we have too many ♦, i am pretty confident opps will have the same thoughts for 3♦ call, that we had for their methods.

[nigel_k]

---

Assuming you passed, this is part two.

EDIT: Partner's double is for takeout.

[whereagles]

I take it pard's dbl shows hearts, so now 4♥. Pass seems to have worked well. Gotta capitalize.

If I'm not sure pard has hearts I'd bid 3♦ and hope for the best.

[gnasher]

MrAce, on 2011-June-25, 14:28, said:

Actually even the most stupid treatments can work well especially when opps try to take genius actions against it.

IF it turnes out that our pd gets excited at the end thinking we have too many ♦, i am pretty confident opps will have the same thoughts for 3♦ call, that we had for their methods.

I don't think 3♦ is a particularly extreme action. Partner will expect four diamonds, but Q9x and a singleton isn't so far away from that.

Can you give me an example of a hand for partner where you think he'll get overexcited?

[2200]

I'm either bidding 4H directly, or cuebiding 3S to show some raise, and ready to compete to 5H unless pd X LHO's 4S.

[gnasher]

whereagles, on 2011-June-25, 13:34, said:

What's so stupid about this method? It's even more well-defined than a multi and I bet you wouldn't call multi a stupid method

When you open a Multi:
- You have a narrow range.
- Your hand is weak, so you will rarely have game on.
- You're one-suited.
- The opponents haven't yet exchanged any information.
- All of the opponents' bids are constructive, so it's unlikely that they can preempt you when it's your hand.

When you make this 2♦ overcall:
- You have a wide range (presumably).
- You will often not be weak, so game is more likely.
- You're two-suited. The number of tricks available with a two-suiter is more dependent on the quality of the fit than with a one-suiter.
- The opponents have already exchanged some information, so there is less preemptive benefit.
- The opponents have weak raises available, so they can preempt when it's your hand.

And I'm not a big fan of the Multi anyway.

[whereagles]

gnasher: sorry, but not very impressed by your arguments. You didn't even touch what I think is the most negative thing of the overcall, i.e. the major-suit ambiguity. This rates to be a bit more problematic than in a multi (due to the length being 5 cards only).

[Free]

whereagles, on 2011-June-27, 07:10, said:

gnasher: sorry, but not very impressed by your arguments. You didn't even touch what I think is the most negative thing of the overcall, i.e. the major-suit ambiguity. This rates to be a bit more problematic than in a multi (due to the length being 5 cards only).

The game is setup to give a high priority to finding a Major suit fit. So what's the point in creating Major suit ambiguity when it's unnecessary? Isn't it more useful to show at least 1 useful suit (say ♠, the best suit in the game) and leave the ambiguity for less useful suits (♥ or ♣). This is basically what "Baileys" does, in combination with unusual 2NT for the lowest suits (which usually have to play at 3-level anyway).

[whereagles]

Free, on 2011-June-28, 05:55, said:

So what's the point in creating Major suit ambiguity when it's unnecessary?

Well, it may not be unnecessary. Suppose you want to keep (1♦) 3♣ as preemptive. Then you're only left with

(1♦) 2♦
(1♦) 2NT

to show two-suiters. If you play the 2NT overcall as majors, they you're stuck with the cue as clubs + major. You can also play it the other way around: cue = majors, 2NT = clubs + major.