[kayin801]

---

IMPs

Any commentary on how things would change at different vuls/formats is welcome

[Phil]

1. I'd pass 3♦
2. Double 4♦ as North.
3. Then 4♠ by South.

Got one right for a change.

[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-March-08, 10:20, said:

1. I'd pass 3♦
2. Double 4♦ as North.
3. Then 4♠ by South.

Got one right for a change.

Seems right on all counts.

South's hand is not good enough for a direct action over 3♦.

North must act over 4♦ or risk the hand being played there undoubled.

South's 4♠ call is clear.

And Phil is right that he got one right for a change.

Hopefully something will sit right and 4♠ will roll home.

[neilkaz]

Agreed with the others so far. South needs a bit more for 3♠. I'd bid 3♠ if my stiff Queen was in ♥ with a random stiff ♦ but as it is, that stiff Q is likely worthless.

North must double with a hand that can clearly stand anything pard does, and then 4♠ seems clear, not trying to hand partner for competing by making a slam try.

.. neilkaz ..

[aguahombre]

The North hand is a reasonable example of why 3S by South would not have been a good idea.

If my South had overcalled 3S, I would still be bidding more, even as we were driving home after the game.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-08, 11:20, said:

The North hand is a reasonable example of why 3S by South would not have been a good idea.

Indeed. I suspect I would have bid as South, so this hand is certainly giving me food for thought.

Quote

If my South had overcalled 3S, I would still be bidding more, even as we were driving home after the game.

I agree it is hard to stay low enough if South bids. Are those advocating a pass by South and a double by North really happy now as South that they don't need to do more than bid 4♠, though?

[ArtK78]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-08, 11:50, said:

I agree it is hard to stay low enough if South bids. Are those advocating a pass by South and a double by North really happy now as South that they don't need to do more than bid 4♠, though?

Yes.

[mikeh]

I think it takes a lot of courage (if that is the right word) to pass 3♦. They are white v red...they could be out stealing, and we are the ones with the long spades, and the short diamonds....we have a decent opening bid, and partner may be stuck with too many diamonds and too few spades to be able to act.....don't we think we'd need 3+ spades to reopen with a double? Kx KQxx xxx KQxx 3♦ P P ? I suspect many would vote for a pass since we can't handle an advance in spades.

Obviously, if we do overcall, and I am surprised that everyone, so far, rejects the idea, we are in trouble. North should bear in mind that his partner may have stretched because of the marked shortness in diamonds, but there is no way N can simply bid 4♠.

Anyone who chooses keycard will find themselves in slam, which has no play.

I wouldn't keycard for precisely that reason.....we can't count tricks just because we know how many keys we hold.

We should be safe in slam if partner has a good overcall and we'd expect to have a decent play in 5 if he doesn't, so I would bid 5♦. 5♠ isn't always down

As to whether I would actually overcall or pass....I can't tell.....I know I'd want to overcall, but I am a card-carrying chicken so maybe I wouldn't. This is another example of how difficult it is, for me at least, to be objective when I see how an action would likely turn out.

Edit: on another note, I find it literally incredible that anyone would be 'happy' to bid 4♠ if partner freely doubled 4♦. I am almost speechless. What would we bid with the same shape and neither black Ace? Heck, what would we bid with Jxxxxx xxx xx xx?

The same people who have their micrometers so finely tuned that they can easily reject the S hand as too weak to overcall are saying that their second round action, after partner shows strength at the 4-level is the same on the OP hand as on Jxxxxx xxx xx xx play a different game than the one with which I am familiar.

Give partner Kxxx AKx xx KQ10x.....he's doubled 4♦ and now has to either move over 4♠ or find that he has missed a very good slam....and he might easily have a lot more and still be unable to act. Note that on my example, we don't even really need the club 10, since we may have a round suit squeeze on LHO.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-08, 11:50, said:

Are those advocating a pass by South and a double by North really happy now as South that they don't need to do more than bid 4♠, though?

This one is not delighted, but content. Are we back to "preempts sometimes work"?

[WellSpyder]

mikeh, on 2012-March-08, 12:05, said:

Obviously, if we do overcall, and I am surprised that everyone, so far, rejects the idea, we are in trouble.

Indeed. I didn't reject the idea of overcalling, and I agree I am now in trouble.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-08, 12:09, said:

Are we back to "preempts sometimes work"?

So it would appear - or at least they work against me!

[mikeh]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-08, 12:09, said:

This one is not delighted, but content. Are we back to "preempts sometimes work"?

I think we are, but isn't the better question, which way we want to lose, when they do?

Are we better off passing borderline hands, in direct seat, or really pulling back after partner shows strength?

It has long been my view (based on what better players than I have stated) that as between the two partners, the one who should act aggressively is the one with shortness in the suit preempted in by the opps.

My experience also suggests that on the whole it is better to bid aggressively, and occasionally flame out in a spectacular fashion, than it is to hold back and miss good games and slams. Admittedly, I personally do more of the latter than the former

[Phil]

Mike, you know I'm one of your biggest fans, but I cringe when I read things like this:

mikeh, on 2012-March-08, 12:05, said:

The same people who have their micrometers so finely tuned that they can easily reject the S hand as too weak to overcall are saying that their second round action, after partner shows strength at the 4-level is the same on the OP hand as on Jxxxxx xxx xx xx play a different game than the one with which I am familiar.

Jxxxxx and out. Really. And this is coming from the guy that stays fixed and doesn't go fishing for slam on marginal hands. What are the real chances partner has a working one count after preempt - pass - raise - double? Please.

South is close to an overcall, but a heavy weak 2 is too rich for me, although some would bid. North has a minimum double, although some would pass. South has a max 4♠ call, but the diamond singleton isn't pulling its weight. Wouldn't you rather have AJ9xxx x Qxx Axx?

[mikeh]

I suspect we were talking apples and oranges. Maybe I wasn't expressing myself well.

Not for one second would I suggest that N should bid, over our 4♠, on the basis that we might have a 1 count.

What I was trying to suggest, perhaps inappropriately exaggerating for effect, was that N may well have a hand on which slam is cold and be unable to act over 4♠. More precisely, I was suggesting that 4♠ cannot be 'right' when it is also the call we'd make with such horrible hands as Jxxxxx xxx xx xx.

As to the likelihood that we have a 1 count, or a 4 count, or a 6 count, etc, we need to be aware that we don't, when we have to decide on our second round action, know that partner has such a weak hand that he can infer, from the auction, that we have real values. If you were suggesting that the idea that N could hold his actual hand and have S hold a 1 count was cringe-worthy.....I agree....N can and should infer from the auction that S has values. But the more slam-worthy N's hand is, opposite the real S hand, the less valid that assumption will be.


My concern is that S has to be worried that 4♠ will end the auction two levels below a cold slam....just as doubler shouldn't play S for a 1 count, nor should he play him for the hand he has.

What if partner held Kxxx AKx xx KQ10x, an example I gave. Why should he infer that we have a solid opening bid with a good 6 card spade suit, rather than say Qxxxx xx xx AJxx? I don't hink I missed anything in the auction that should tell him that we have slam.

[nigel_k]

Basically agree with Mikeh. I would want to bid 3♠ with South but probably wouldn't. However we still get too high as I would not settle for 4♠ over the double. 5♠ is not hopeless though.

[barmar]

If South wants to show a really good hand, he can bid 5♦. So perhaps jumping to 5♠ over the double should be something in between, like this.

[ArtK78]

Since Mike opened the floor to discussion on the merits of the direct overcall vs. the pass, and the later "mere" 4♠ bid by South after North's double of 4♦, I thought I would elaborate on my previous short answers.

I like to have sound values for a direct action over a preempt. That allows partner to act intelligently, knowing that I have full values for my action when I do act directly over a preempt. A consequence of this style is the inability to act in direct seat on a marginal overcall such as the South hand in this thread. I cannot say that those who choose to act directly over 3♦ on the South hand are wrong, only that it is not my style. It is sort of a transfer headache - those who would bid 3♠ on hands like the South hand are relieved of the headache caused by passing marginal hands, but the headache is now transferred to North who now has to deal with the very wide range of South's action.

The cost of requiring sound values for a direct action is that partner must act in balancing seat more often to avoid passing out a game. Another cost of requiring sound values for a direct action is that the opponents can sometimes make life far more difficult by continuing the preempt, as in this thread. Fortunately for North, he has a clear double of 4♦. Now the problem shifts back to South. South would like to jump to 4♠ to show that he has a hand nearly worth a direct action over 3♦ but, of course, the opps made it impossible for South to "jump" to 4♠. So South has a different headache. It is my experience that, on competitive auctions such as these, one should not to get too excited about having up to a King or an Ace above the expected values for a call. So I would just bid 4♠ on the South hand. I am fully aware that I have more than the exptected values for my call. But there is no disgrace in having a little something in reserve for an action.

On this hand, everything works out well. We get to 4♠, a good normal contract. No one has done anything silly, and the result is fine. The opponents have put some significant pressure on our side but we survived. Would I be surprised to find out that we missed a good slam on this hand? No. But I am also not surprised to find out that we did not miss a good slam and, moreover, we avoided getting to the 5 level which is probably fatal on this hand.

Many years ago, in one of my earliest sectional tournaments, in the last round of a Swiss Team event my opponents bid a game over my side's preemptive actions. They were cold for slam. I was surprised to find that one of my opponents (who was among the area's best players) held a very strong hand but he took the same actions that one would take if he had about an ace and a queen less and did not move beyond game. I expected a gain on the hand, but I was disappointed to find out that the auction was the same at the other table. On discussing the hand after the session, my teammates (who were far more experienced than I was) indicated that, in their opinion, the risks of going beyond game on the hand were just too high to warrant a further action. It was then I learned two principals - (1) preempts often work very well; and (2) you can't get everything right - all you can do is take what you think are the best actions and hope that they work out well.

That is how I approach this hand. In my opinion, passing the South hand over 3♦ and bidding a mere 4♠ after partner doubles 4♦ are what I believe to be the best actions available. I just hope that they work out well.

[mikeh]

Maybe I should add that, just as I feel unable to say with confidence what I would have done over 3♦ absent knowledge of partner's hand and LHO's bid, I can't say with confidence what I would do as S had I passed.....my long posts were not actually an indication of what action I would have taken....more an expression of incredulity that one could both pass initially and then be 'happy' with bidding only 4♠.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2012-March-08, 13:50, said:

Maybe I should add that, just as I feel unable to say with confidence what I would have done over 3♦ absent knowledge of partner's hand and LHO's bid, I can't say with confidence what I would do as S had I passed.....my long posts were not actually an indication of what action I would have taken....more an expression of incredulity that one could both pass initially and then be 'happy' with bidding only 4♠.

Happy may be an overstatement. Content is more accurate. Aguahombre used "content" as his expression of his feeling about the 4♠ call, and I agree with that.

Maybe "resigned" is a more appropriate term.

[JLOGIC]

Phil, on 2012-March-08, 10:20, said:

1. I'd pass 3♦
2. Double 4♦ as North.
3. Then 4♠ by South.

Got one right for a change.

Nailed it.

I see lots of words written after this post...I'm gonna guess debating whether to bid 3S or not with the south hand since that is the only marginal decision. I like passing a lot fwiw.

[kayin801]

On the actual hand S overcalled 3♠ and N bid 5♦ after 4♦. 5♠ went down 1 on a normalish lie of the cards. I figured most people would X 4♦ if S passed, but was curious of the actual overcall, and then how strongly they would move with the N hand after a 3♠ call. Not sure how right it is to field this kind of overcall by only bidding 4♠ but I thought 5♦ with the N hand is probably the right bid after an overcall.