[straube]

You are playing a strong club. Imps. All white. Partner's 1S (10-15, 5-cd+) is overcalled 2S (Michaels) and you hold...

T732
T65
KT63
62

Double would show values and defense.

I think the main choices are...

Pass
3S
4S

Which do you pick and why?

[mikeh]

3♠, primarily to bring partner into the picture should he have extra shape. He can take the save.

4♠ now has too many ways to lose, compared to the narrow winning target, and we can often reach that target after 3♠.

Pass was closer than 4♠, since 3♠ might drive LHO to bid at the 4 level when otherwise he was going to bid at the 3-level, and they'd miss game. And I think partner is entitled to play me for a slightly better hand than this. However, most opps will have decent agreements on how to advance a michaels cuebid and I'd prefer to disrupt that. More importantly I want to invite partner to the party and neither pass nor 4♠ do that.

Nothing's perfect on this hand: I go with what I think is the call that best combines causing problems for the opps and helping out partner.

[ArtK78]

Agree with 3♠. Let the opps make the last guess. They may bid 4♥, and it may be right or wrong. If it is right, they might have bid it anyway. But I don't want them to have a chance to exchange information before making their guess.

[JLOGIC]

3s

[skaftij]

Playing SAYC or similar, a clear cut 3♠ Partner will know that we might be stretching, after all we could have bid 3♥ showing a sound raise+. 3♠ might well be the par contact facing say 14-17 (semi)-balanced.
On the other hand, playing a strong club system, opps will more often than not make game with the majority of strength. Partner being limited. they will have a probable 9+ card fit, maybe even double-fit. The final guess is over 4♠ not 3♠

[mgoetze]

When I first saw this thread, I wasn't entirely sure what the correct bid is (I'm happy to learn I got it right), but I was quite sure there would be a strong expert consensus. Maybe consider the I/A forum next time?

[Siegmund]

Looks like I am a lone passer.

I suppose it depends who the opponents are - but I think they are more likely finish in 3H making 4 if I pass, than they are to finish in 4H going down if I bid.

I at least understand considering 3S.But I can't remember the last time something good happened from bidding a 10-loser hand at the 3 level at my table.

[FM75]

Preemptive.. (LOTT).

If they have 4♥, they should be bidding and making it anyway. But if p is 54/55 with a good hand,
I want to be in 3♠, or letting opps start searching at the 4 level.

[Zelandakh]

skaftij, on 2013-January-29, 15:35, said:

Playing SAYC or similar, a clear cut 3♠ Partner will know that we might be stretching, after all we could have bid 3♥ showing a sound raise+.

I have never played SAYC but a quick look at the booklet shows this trivially to be false:

Quote

If the opponents use a convention (such as Michaels or the unusual notrump), you can double to show at least 10 points, or you can cuebid one of their shown suits to force to game.
1♠ — (2♠) — 3♥ = game force.

There are many other systems around that specify an immediate raise as constructive and expect you to pass first with a weak hand and support. If you had said: "Playing normal Expert methods, a clear cut 3♠" then perhaps this is right (ask an Expert) but you cannot take your chosen defence and call it SAYC. In any case, the question was specifically asked from the point of view of limited openers so SAYC is already a poor choice for comparison.

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-29, 18:10, said:

When I first saw this thread, I wasn't entirely sure what the correct bid is (I'm happy to learn I got it right), but I was quite sure there would be a strong expert consensus. Maybe consider the I/A forum next time?

And your point is what? He posts a question in the Expert forum to get a consensus from experts. He gets one, so he should have chosen a different forum?

Maybe the gatekeepers of the fora should chill out a bit.

[gwnn]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-30, 07:14, said:

And your point is what? He posts a question in the Expert forum to get a consensus from experts. He gets one, so he should have chosen a different forum?

Maybe the gatekeepers of the fora should chill out a bit.

You have a valid point but next time you could also read the description of the subforums.

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-30, 07:14, said:

And your point is what? He posts a question in the Expert forum to get a consensus from experts. He gets one, so he should have chosen a different forum?

Because that's what the I/A forum is for.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-30, 06:57, said:

I have never played SAYC but a quick look at the booklet shows this trivially to be false:



There are many other systems around that specify an immediate raise as constructive and expect you to pass first with a weak hand and support. If you had said: "Playing normal Expert methods, a clear cut 3♠" then perhaps this is right (ask an Expert) but you cannot take your chosen defence and call it SAYC. In any case, the question was specifically asked from the point of view of limited openers so SAYC is already a poor choice for comparison.

I believe what was meant by "playing SAYC" was playing a standard expert methods in a standard system as opposed to a strong club system. So, while the 3♠ bid over Michaels may be constructive in SAYC, I would be willing to bet that virtually no expert plays that.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-30, 08:51, said:

I believe what was meant by "playing SAYC" was

You are a genuinely positive person Art! My experience from BBO is that when a person says "SAYC" and means something completely different from SAYC, what they actually mean is "my version of SA".

[skaftij]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-31, 03:59, said:

You are a genuinely positive person Art! My experience from BBO is that when a person says "SAYC" and means something completely different from SAYC, what they actually mean is "my version of SA".

My version of SAYC, that is true indeed. It did not occur to me that THE SAYC defined 3 hearts as gameforce.
The point I was trying to make was that 3 spades was a better bid playing a system where 1 spade opening has a wide range in strength as opposed to a strong club system. Bidding 4 spades might be slightly better than bidding 3 spades playing a strong club system. Could not miss the opportunity to express that opinion when Justin just declared 3s period.

[aguahombre]

As mentioned in other threads, SAYC is a yellow card (hence the YC) with only about two options on the whole thing. Its main value is for an Indy where you keep changing partners, or for players who wish to grab the YC and play without discussion.

The accompaning SAYC booklet is very compact. The main theme for competitive bidding is "bids in competition mean the same as they would have meant without competition. A cue of an overcall creates a game force."

No, we really don't want to have those agreements. Those who also don't want to have those agreements should simply not call what they play SAYC. There is no such thing as someone's version of SAYC.

BTW: AWM is the designated expert on what is, and is not, SAYC. I keep having to look things up.