[bd71]

---

Team game. No relevant special agreements.

1. Agree/disagree with decision to NOT overcall first round?

2. At this stage in bidding, what general strength (and/or spade length) would be suggested by 2♠, 3♠, and 4♠ bids?

3. What is your call (if not clear from your answer to #2)?

[JLOGIC]

I would overcall but obv 3 little spades and a bad suit and no hand vulnerable are reasonable reasons not to

I wish I could transfer spades to partners side now. Given that we have to play spades from our side 2S is probably a reasonable bid but I cannot stand to miss a vul game at imps so I'd bid 3S. Too many times I get concerned about things and partner has Ax of hearts or KQ of hearts or something, or just KQxx xx QJx Axxx and he looks at me like im an idiot for going low.

[Raff90]

I know my partner and his balancing is crazy xD.
I would only bid 2♠. If he has any extras he will keep going.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 sure
#2 take away a king, partner is allowed to borrow one, this makes it 5HCP,
and a 5 card suit, i.e. enough to bid, but nothing to be overwhelmed.
=> 2S.
#3 see #2

With kind regards
Marlowe

[WellSpyder]

 Raff90, on 2012-February-29, 05:46, said:

I know my partner and his balancing is crazy xD.
I would only bid 2♠. If he has any extras he will keep going.

Yes, I think the fact that you are facing a balancing double is at least as important as the fact that this is a "free" bid. You would clearly jump in spades in response to a 2nd seat double, and might well feel the hand was too good not to jump if you were either simply responding to a protective double or responding to a 2nd seat double after 3rd hand had also bid. But with both reasons for partner to expect you to have a bit more in reserve, I'm happy just to bid 2♠ here.

[HighLow21]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-February-29, 05:22, said:

I would overcall but obv 3 little spades and a bad suit and no hand vulnerable are reasonable reasons not to

I wish I could transfer spades to partners side now. Given that we have to play spades from our side 2S is probably a reasonable bid but I cannot stand to miss a vul game at imps so I'd bid 3S. Too many times I get concerned about things and partner has Ax of hearts or KQ of hearts or something, or just KQxx xx QJx Axxx and he looks at me like im an idiot for going low.

Wow.

(1) 4♠ has no chance whatsoever if partner isn't near-maximum for his double.
(2) There is a slight inference on the auction that partner has at least two hearts, maybe more, and any honors he has in hearts are wasted and will be compromised at trick 1.
(3) Don't forget that partner balanced, and thus strained to act. I subtract at least a king from my hand in that situation. Thus my hand has 5 HCP, not 8, and I don't hate my heart holding any less than I did when RHO opened hearts. He could have been doubling on heart shortness and 9 points.

That said:
(1) I do like my 5-card suit.
(2) I do like my minor suit controls.

I would bid 2♠ and pass partner's raise if he raises me, unless I know partner to be an underbidder. I would not bid again unless forced to. If I get to 4♠ and get doubled I would be congratulating my opponents on a great double before dummy even came down. Only if LHO shows delayed heart support, or partner makes a very strong rebid (such as a heart cue or 2NT) would I act again.

Because the fact of the matter is, he might have been balancing on a hand as poor as K9x♠ Jx♥ Qxx♦ AJxxx♣. In that case, we could easily have 2 heart losers, a diamond loser, and 2 spade losers. This is to say nothing of possible diamond ruffs.

P.S. The idea of overcalling 1♠ vulnerable on that hand with that suit with that heart holding in direct seat is ludicrous.

[wyman]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 09:36, said:

P.S. The idea of overcalling 1♠ vulnerable on that hand with that suit with that heart holding in direct seat is ludicrous.

How many Bermuda Bowls have you finished 2nd in? Just checking...

[pooltuna]

over a direct X of 1♥ I would want to venture 4♠ but would settle for 3. Here I have to cut partner some slack because he is balancing and would still call 3♠ but I would conxider it the normal call.

[HighLow21]

 wyman, on 2012-February-29, 09:59, said:

How many Bermuda Bowls have you finished 2nd in? Just checking...

Zero. How losers does that North hand have? Just checking...

By the way, in another forum post, I pointed out the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. This is yet another ad hominem attack. The number of places in whatever contest I have is truly irrelevant to the quality of the analysis I made above. If you have problems with my analysis, fine. Go ahead and state them.

[mikeh]

I think the decision is close, but would tend to go with the invitational 3♠. Justin clearly meant 'three little hearts', not spades, and that holding is the absolute worst possible. However, 2♠ carries with it no hint of game interest....it is a competitive bid, suggesting we don't want to sell out to 2♣.

We need some help from partner, and on a bad day we will fail in 3♠...altho I suspect that on such a day they can make 3♣ unless partner has 5 of them.

In the meantime, this is imps, and there is a vulnerable game bonus that may belong to us. We are protected from partner overbidding by our pass over 1♥.

This is one of those situations in which I feel the decision is close, but clear...that in the long run, inviting game has a marked upside over the conservative alternative.

As to whether one should overcall immediately, my view is that I wouldn't do so. Whether such a call is 'ludicrous' depends on your agreements with partner. There is nothing the least bit ludicrous if you have an agreement that your partnership style is to get in as early as possible...it means dialing back advancer's aggression a touch, and accepting a higher than normal risk....this hand isn't my 1♠ overcall.....had RHO opened a minor, then I'd be wanting to overcall.

[wyman]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:08, said:

Zero. How losers does that North hand have? Just checking...

By the way, in another forum post, I pointed out the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. This is yet another ad hominem attack. The number of places in whatever contest I have is truly irrelevant to the quality of the analysis I made above. If you have problems with my analysis, fine. Go ahead and state them.

What analysis? You just called an overcall ludicrous and cited your heart holding and that you were in direct seat. So, if you intended that as analysis, I take it that you would never overcall on any hand with that heart holding. For example, AKxxx / 109x / AKxx / x.

What you posted regarding the overcall isn't analysis. It's total nonsense.

As Phil said in the Tips for Forum Newbies:

 Phil, on 2011-September-06, 12:34, said:

...
Figuring out who actually is good and who just posts for fun and isn't that good may not be obvious to a new member so as Diana says you may want to lurk for awhile before you take someone on.

For instance, maybe you disagree with something that JLogic says. Maybe you don't even know who he is. There's at least a 98% chance that he's right and you're wrong. On the 2% that you are right, its for reasons that you don't understand anyway.

You're free to disagree with him, but picking an action he takes and just calling it ludicrous, well, it makes you look like a jackass.

[BunnyGo]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 10:08, said:

Zero. How losers does that North hand have? Just checking...

By the way, in another forum post, I pointed out the definition of an "ad hominem" attack. This is yet another ad hominem attack. The number of places in whatever contest I have is truly irrelevant to the quality of the analysis I made above. If you have problems with my analysis, fine. Go ahead and state them.

Ok...

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 09:36, said:

Wow.

(1) 4♠ has no chance whatsoever if partner isn't near-maximum for his double.

AKxx, x, Qxxx, Axxx

This is not 'near-maximum' this is simply a solid "traditional shaped" balancing double. This would seem to be nearly ice cold for 4♠ and on a 2-2 spade split, and 3-2 diamond split (and no immediate ruffs) makes 6. So, please tone back the hyperbole, it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about--I'm being kind, because you may, but you haven't demonstrated this fact yet.

Quote

(2) There is a slight inference on the auction that partner has at least two hearts, maybe more, and any honors he has in hearts are wasted and will be compromised at trick 1.

Because responder didn't make a pre-emptive raise? You could be right, and he could be lighter than a full opener to protect us. Don't play bridge scared, especially with a shapely control heavy hand at IMPs. This is why I wouldn't blast 4, but would certainly bid 3. I understand bidding only 2, but I think that one should bring partner in on the joke that we have a really nice hand if he has some spade controls for us.

Quote

(3) Don't forget that partner balanced, and thus strained to act. I subtract at least a king from my hand in that situation. Thus my hand has 5 HCP, not 8, and I don't hate my heart holding any less than I did when RHO opened hearts. He could have been doubling on heart shortness and 9 points.

Who said he strained? It's not that he DID strain to act, it's that he is supposed to strain if he has to. He's also supposed to bid this way when he doesn't strain. Furthermore, the Milton point count doesn't do this hand justice. If partner only has 3 spades, and doesn't have spade honors, fine...we'll have to play a bit (but he'll have some compensation somewhere...he's supposed to strain but not be suicidal).

Quote

That said:
(1) I do like my 5-card suit.
(2) I do like my minor suit controls.

Wow...my blood sugar must be low, I agree with something you typed.

Quote

I would bid 2♠ and pass partner's raise if he raises me

Thank god, I thought I was sick for a second. This is insane. See hand presented above. Is partner supposed to blast 4 with that hand? Maybe. Are there a ton of hands that don't make 6 on friendly splits but you want to be in game and partner can't blast it over your underbid of 2 (since the hand is probably worth about 2.5 ♠)? YES!

I'd suggest that I'm being unfair to somebody who probably has not played a lot of IMPs and mostly plays matchpoints, but the auction you're suggesting of passing partners double and raise is as scared as I've ever seen someone bid.

Quote

unless I know partner to be an underbidder. I would not bid again unless forced to. If I get to 4♠ and get doubled I would be congratulating my opponents on a great double before dummy even came down.

Really? I'd be more likely to turn the cube if partner made forcing bids until we were in 4♠ than congratulate them. If partner can find a 3♥ bid over my 2♠ and then (as you suggested) raise my 3♠ continuation to 4, I'd be more worried about missing 6 than going down, even on bad splits.

Quote

Because the fact of the matter is, he might have been balancing on a hand as poor as K9x♠ Jx♥ Qxx♦ AJxxx♣. In that case, we could easily have 2 heart losers, a diamond loser, and 2 spade losers. This is to say nothing of possible diamond ruffs.

You must have been sawed off in a lot of contracts. Bidding scared is losing bridge. If partner has the hand you suggested then:

a) he's not likely raising my 3♠ to 4
b) He wouldn't be forcing my 2♠ to 4
c) I'm not in terrible shape on lots of lies, leads, and lines

I recommend you practice getting to "hopeless" contracts more and seeing if you can bring them home, I think you'll either be surprised and reevaluate your pessimism or find you need practice as a declarer if many of the "hopeless" contracts are makeable but you went down.

Quote

P.S. The idea of overcalling 1♠ vulnerable on that hand with that suit with that heart holding in direct seat is ludicrous.

It is not my style to overcall this hand, but it's not too far off, it has been the style of some of my partnerships, and when Justin says he'd do it, I don't respond, "that's ludicrous", I respond, "huh...let me reconsider..." It doesn't mean I'll overcall on it in the future, but I'll think about the fact that good players are overcalling on it.


I recommend you reread the Tips for Forum Newbies again. And please tone back the hyperbole, it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about--I'm being kind, because you may, but you haven't demonstrated this fact yet.

[HighLow21]

 wyman, on 2012-February-29, 10:24, said:

What analysis? You just called an overcall ludicrous and cited your heart holding and that you were in direct seat. So, if you intended that as analysis, I take it that you would never overcall on any hand with that heart holding. For example, AKxxx / 109x / AKxx / x.

Another part of my analysis was the statement that our side was vulnerable. This is a danger sign. Also dangerous is the fact that they are vulnerable, which I didn't mention. The suit is bad, which I mentioned, so you don't want a spade on opening lead if LHO will declare, which I failed to mention before trying to keep my post more brief.

I didn't say I wouldn't overcall with the hand you just mentioned. I said there are several warning signs against overcalling and the heart holding is one of the stronger reasons.

 wyman, on 2012-February-29, 10:24, said:

What you posted regarding the overcall isn't analysis. It's total nonsense.

That is an easy thing to say when you totally disregard half of my analysis, and then list a perfect example hand that has nothing to do with 3/4 my analysis.

 wyman, on 2012-February-29, 10:24, said:

As Phil said in the Tips for Forum Newbies:

You're free to disagree with him, but picking an action he takes and just calling it ludicrous, well, it makes you look like a jackass.

Fine. I am happy to look like a jackass calling a ludicrous overcall ludicrous. Because it is ludicrous. It could get doubled and go down 4 or 5 with nothing on for them. It has 8 losers. If partner is weak with a fistful of clubs, then even the most ultra-aggressive overcaller will wish they hadn't overcalled.

[Phil]

Obvious 1♠ overcall LOL.

edit: sorry, I guess its not obvious.

[mikeh]

 HighLow21, on 2012-February-29, 11:12, said:

Another part of my analysis was the statement that our side was vulnerable.

Sorry, HighLow, but while this is true, it actually motivates successful experienced players to be aggressive at imps. So you have made the correct observation but proceeded to exactly the wrong conclusion. it is a bidder's game

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

AKxx, x, Qxxx, Axxx

This is not 'near-maximum' this is simply a solid "traditional shaped" balancing double.

This is what I intended by "near-maximum." Since I am giving partner a king of mine, this would be 16 HCP and a heart singleton. This is what I meant. Let me change it from "near-maximum" to "solid", i.e., moderately better than minimum opening bid, and my comment stands.

The reality is, this example hand is at least 2 tricks better than it has to be.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

Because responder didn't make a pre-emptive raise? You could be right, and he could be lighter than a full opener to protect us. Don't play bridge scared, especially with a shapely control heavy hand at IMPs. This is why I wouldn't blast 4, but would certainly bid 3. I understand bidding only 2, but I think that one should bring partner in on the joke that we have a really nice hand if he has some spade controls for us.

Given that there are no relevant agreements, you're saying you should jump the bidding on a hand that barely qualifies for a free bid?

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

Who said he strained?

I said he MIGHT have strained.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

Thank god, I thought I was sick for a second. This is insane. See hand presented above. Is partner supposed to blast 4 with that hand?

If he trusts me to have nothing wasted in hearts and values for a free bid, absolutely. Hence my caveat about "partner possibly being an underbidder."

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

I'd suggest that I'm being unfair to somebody who probably has not played a lot of IMPs and mostly plays matchpoints, but the auction you're suggesting of passing partners double and raise is as scared as I've ever seen someone bid.

With no special agreements, I'm not blasting game on a weak suit, 8 losers, and the possiblity of every suit breaking badly. I'd rather have something in reserve for my bid later if the auction comes back to me.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

Really? I'd be more likely to turn the cube if partner made forcing bids until we were in 4♠ than congratulate them. If partner can find a 3♥ bid over my 2♠ and then (as you suggested) raise my 3♠ continuation to 4, I'd be more worried about missing 6 than going down, even on bad splits.

This doesn't make sense. I'm saying that I'm bidding 2 spades, not 3. If partner carries me to 4 spades after I've conservatively bid 2, then I might turn the cube as well. I'm saying, if I bid 3 spades and partner carries on to 4 and gets doubled, I'd be looking for the 'EXIT' sign.

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

You must have been sawed off in a lot of contracts. Bidding scared is losing bridge. If partner has the hand you suggested then:

a) he's not likely raising my 3♠ to 4
b) He wouldn't be forcing my 2♠ to 4
c) I'm not in terrible shape on lots of lies, leads, and lines

I recommend you practice getting to "hopeless" contracts more and seeing if you can bring them home, I think you'll either be surprised and reevaluate your pessimism or find you need practice as a declarer if many of the "hopeless" contracts are makeable but you went down.

Wait, so one succeeds in tournaments by making Landy game tries?

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

It is not my style to overcall this hand, but it's not too far off, it has been the style of some of my partnerships, and when Justin says he'd do it, I don't respond, "that's ludicrous", I respond, "huh...let me reconsider..." It doesn't mean I'll overcall on it in the future, but I'll think about the fact that good players are overcalling on it.


I recommend you reread the Tips for Forum Newbies again. And please tone back the hyperbole, it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about--I'm being kind, because you may, but you haven't demonstrated this fact yet.

There is nothing hyperbolic about calling the overcall idea ludicrous, in my opinion. It is an overbid, it can cost as much as -1100, and there won't be any games missed if you or partner can't act later in the hand in the vast majority of scenarios. This hand has nice diamond and club controls, but there are far too many hands partner could produce that will have no shot at game. 2♠ says "I have a free bid," which I do, barely. Barely.

If your partnership agreements are different, fine. But that's in direct violation of the prompt at the beginning of the problem.

[HighLow21]

 mikeh, on 2012-February-29, 11:17, said:

Sorry, HighLow, but while this is true, it actually motivates successful experienced players to be aggressive at imps. So you have made the correct observation but proceeded to exactly the wrong conclusion. it is a bidder's game

I agree with you. I still think this overcall is positively insane. Anyone who thinks differently, in my opinion, should get to enjoy playing the hand doubled opposite, say, ♠7x ♥KJx ♦T43 ♣QT985.

Good luck. You might lose 9 tricks.

I'm not saying I'm correct. I'm saying the overcall is, in my opinion, absolutely nuts. It has none of the merits and all of the disadvantages.

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 10:50, said:

It is not my style to overcall this hand, but it's not too far off, it has been the style of some of my partnerships, and when Justin says he'd do it, I don't respond, "that's ludicrous", I respond, "huh...let me reconsider..." It doesn't mean I'll overcall on it in the future, but I'll think about the fact that good players are overcalling on it.

I don't particularly care whether good players are overcalling on it. The prompt said "no special arrangements." This isn't an A/E discussion. Overcalling on this hand is dangerous because the hand is minimum, the heart holding is the worst possible (save except, say, Qxx), and the long suit is terrible. End of. You can disagree with me and I will still go on thinking that, under the conditions given in this prompt, overcalling in spades is LUDICROUS.

Besides, Justin even said he would not overcall with it, if I'm reading his lazy explanations correctly.

[BunnyGo]

This was amusing for a while. Your suggestion in another post that people should try to "change your mind because you call them like you see them but are flexible" (paraphrased not quoted) tempted me to try one last kindness to get you to seem like less of a blowhard to the forums. I surrender. I leave you with these parting thoughts (in increasing order of importance) before I put your nom on ignore.

I) Read your posts more carefully as:

a) things you've seemed to be saying you later said you didn't

and

b) things you did explicitly say (even if you intended otherwise) such as "(3) Don't forget that partner balanced, and thus strained to act. " is saying "partner strained to act." Whether you meant "MIGHT have strained to act" it isn't what you wrote, and I take it at face value.

II) Posts here try to be more than your standard flame wars internet forum; this tends to be an illuminating place where I get to have (polite) conversations with players of all different levels.

You do not seem to be getting the same benefit out of this site that I have. I sincerely hope you reconsider your bombastic posts. Whether or not you think they are too much or not, they've turned me off from wanting to try anymore.

III) The final piece of advice is one my father gave me many years ago: there is no skill nor subject where you are the best, there is always someone better. This is not to say there are people who are better than you at everything, but there's always someone better at any one thing.

This is a place where better bridge players than I come to talk about bridge. I suggest you try to more quietly listen to them (yes feel free to answer too, but trust me when I say the posters are not trying to learn from you at the moment) because you are not the best bridge player nor bridge theorist in the room.

Sincerely,

Ben

[HighLow21]

 BunnyGo, on 2012-February-29, 11:48, said:

b) things you did explicitly say (even if you intended otherwise) such as "(3) Don't forget that partner balanced, and thus strained to act. " is saying "partner strained to act." Whether you meant "MIGHT have strained to act" it isn't what you wrote, and I take it at face value.

Noted and accepted. I absolutely meant 'might have.' Sorry. In the process of trying to spell out all of my thoughts I forgot this caveat. Yes, he might have a hand worth doubling in direct seat, but he MIGHT have strained to act.

The rest of your post, I have no comments, other than:
1. I always make every effort to show people the courtesies they have shown me. I'm done giving more than that, however, because it just makes me a pushover; and I never back down when I know I'm right. I may not be the best bridge player in the world, but I know when I'm right. And I won't even begin to get into the list of world-famous experts who would agree with me on this one.
2. I never said I'm smarter or better than anyone else. I just particularly dig my heels in when I'm attacked, especially when the attack is direct at me and not my argument, or when others are categorically misinformed, or when others are blindly following the advice of another person just because of his or her 'credentials.'

That is all.